[_ Old Earth _] How Does Instinct Evolve?

[Sparkey]

Sociologists only consider behaviors or traits to be instinctual if they are:

1. Passed through the Gene Pool
2. Universal: Present in Every Member of the Species
3. Involuntary: Can not be Altered by Cognitive Process or Controlled by Volition

Thus such things as Sexual Reproduction that can be influenced by culture or other behaviors that are influenced by drives but are not universal and present in every member of the species are not considered "instinctual".

My reaction to the Professor who lectured on "instinct" during my Sophomore year was that he was presenting a "just so" argument and since he (they) had the privilege of making up the definition in advance (making the rules) then "they" would have the final say in what was or was not considered instinct.

MIT recently published an article by Emily Singer entitled, "A Comeback for Lamarkian Evolution," which cites recent studies in support of the theory that acquired characteristics can be pass on to offspring.

http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22061/page1/

http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22061/page1/

In his book, "The Math Gene," Keith Devlin discusses how Mathematical thinking evolved but he states in the prologue, "Before we begin, I should clear up one thing: there is no "math gene" in the sense of a specific sequence of human DNA that confers mathematical ability."

What he refers to as "the math gene" is called "an innate facility for mathematical thought." His use of the term "math gene" is admittedly metaphorical. The Semantics / Equivocation dialectic seems common.

Cordially,
~Sparrow

 

[WIP]

So, . . . . your creator gave animals their instinct, .

Not trying to steal this thread but just so you know, He's your creator too.

 

[Asyncritus]

It isn't too surprising that Lamarckism is being invoked again.

Evolution theorists know the desperate straits that they're in. After all, they aren't stupid, in general.

So what to do?

The mutation/natural selection mantra fails on almost every front, and cannot even begin to account for the vast number of species extinct and extant.

There's nothing left, really, except dragging up the long dead zombies of Lamarckism and, I heard recently (I forget where - I think it was Dawkins) Goldschmidt's Hopeful Monster.

You remember that don't you.

Goldschmidt, a most highly respected geneticist (I think from Colombia University) could not even begin to see how birds could possibly have evolved from reptiles.

He wasn't the usual starry-eyed evolutionist fairytale-spinner, and so he proposed his Hopeful Monster theory which said, in effect, that a reptile egg hatched, and a bird came out of it.

Those are the lengths that, knowing the ugly facts, he was forced to go to, to explain the inexplicable.

Of course, he was jumped upon by the evolutionary establishment which could never answer his objections, some of which I have already raised on this board.

So the Hopeful Monster died hopelessly - and doubtless, will be resurrected some time soon.

There's no place else to go. :help

 

[Asyncritus]

An estimated 50 to 100 phyla appear explosively at the base of the Cambrian. Fossil evidence suggesting their common ancestry is not found in Precambrian rocks. A General Theory of Macrostasis is needed to explain the fossil data and the stability of the higher taxa.

I've never found an estimate of the number of species, but if you have one, let's hear it.

I hope you're paying attention, Barbarian.

This is the Creation Model, not the evolutionary one.

 

[Barbarian]

Sounds like you plagiarized from Liberty University. I don't believe they have an accredited biology degree...

But let's look at the story a bit closer...

As you learned earlier, there was a large variety of multicellular body plans before the Cambrian, including trilobites or precursors to them. The lack of fossils turned out to be due to a lack of hard parts. Late in the Precambrian, we find lots of bits and pieces of hard body parts, but no complete shells. Then, at the base of the Cambrian, full body armor finally appears, and an explosion of diversification occurs to take advantage of all the niches that are now available to such creatures.

It was the first and biggest of such explosions. Similar events came about via the amniote egg, the evolution of mammals, the appearance of thecodonts/dinosaurs flowering plants, and so on. In each case, a marked change in the biosphere occured, with a rapid diversification of species.

 

[Barbarian]

Goldschmidt, a most highly respected geneticist (I think from Colombia University) could not even begin to see how birds could possibly have evolved from reptiles.

He would have been astonished to see the numerous transitionals between dinosaurs and reptiles that we have now. It's so gradual, that it's hard to say which is which these days.

He wasn't the usual starry-eyed evolutionist fairytale-spinner, and so he proposed his Hopeful Monster theory which said, in effect, that a reptile egg hatched, and a bird came out of it.

Well, turns out it was more gradual than that. Would you like to learn about it?

 

[Asyncritus]

He would have been astonished to see the numerous transitionals between dinosaurs and reptiles that we have now. It's so gradual, that it's hard to say which is which these days.

Well, turns out it was more gradual than that. Would you like to learn about it?

Been away for a while.

Now, you were going to explain to us how the flight instinct arose and entered the genome of the first 'bird', or 'proto-bird' or whatever you choose to call it.

 

[Barbarian]

Been away for a while.

Now, you were going to explain to us how the flight instinct arose and entered the genome of the first 'bird', or 'proto-bird' or whatever you choose to call it.

There is no "flight instinct." Birds have to learn to fly, and not all of them do it successfully.

However, the key discovery is that the wingstrokes of flying birds use the same muscles and movements as bipedal running quadrupeds make when keeping their balance.

 

[Asyncritus]

There is no "flight instinct." Birds have to learn to fly, and not all of them do it successfully.

Oh please talk some sense.

Do you agree that flying takes some skill? Some special information in the animal? No? And where did that information come from?

You couldn't learn to speak or play the violin if the ABILITY, the instinctive ability, wasn't there in the first place. All the muscles, fingers etc in the world couldn't function unless there was a built in information system which could utilise the organs.

However, the key discovery is that the wingstrokes of flying birds use the same muscles and movements as bipedal running quadrupeds make when keeping their balance.

Fantastic. Does that mean that the bipedal running quadrupeds are going to take to the air sometime soon when their fur, hair, whatever turns into feathers?

 

[lordkalvan]

Oh please talk some sense.

Do you agree that flying takes some skill? Some special information in the animal? No? And where did that information come from?

You couldn't learn to speak or play the violin if the ABILITY, the instinctive ability, wasn't there in the first place. All the muscles, fingers etc in the world couldn't function unless there was a built in information system which could utilise the organs.



Fantastic. Does that mean that the bipedal running quadrupeds are going to take to the air sometime soon when their fur, hair, whatever turns into feathers?

As you appear not to understand evolutionary theory, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the readiness with which you are prepared to offer strawman versions of it.

Instincts are heritable traits and, like any other heritable trait - eye-colour and skin-colour, for example - they are determined genetically and become fixed in populations for the same reason as any other heritable trait.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
There is no "flight instinct." Birds have to learn to fly, and not all of them do it successfully.

Oh please talk some sense.

Reality, remember? It's a fact. "Instinct" is what people call things they haven't figured out yet.

Do you agree that flying takes some skill?

Indeed. Difficult to learn. Not all birds manage to do that, even with adults assisting.

Some special information in the animal?

Sort of like the grasp reflex of human infants. But that doesn't make us able to climb trees. We have to learn to do it, even if we are well-equipped with reflexes and structure to do it.

No? And where did that information come from?

Trial and error, if observations of fledglings is any indication.

You couldn't learn to speak or play the violin if the ABILITY, the instinctive ability, wasn't there in the first place.

Good example. No human is born knowing how to play the violin. One has to learn and practice to be able to do it. Like flying.

Barbarian observes:
However, the key discovery is that the wingstrokes of flying birds use the same muscles and movements as bipedal running quadrupeds make when keeping their balance.

Fantastic. Does that mean that the bipedal running quadrupeds are going to take to the air sometime soon when their fur, hair, whatever turns into feathers?

One of them made it. BTW, feathers were around long before flight. Only later did some of them change slightly to an assymetric form that worked for wings.

 

[Asyncritus]

Barbarian chuckles:
There is no "flight instinct." Birds have to learn to fly, and not all of them do it successfully.

Barbarian, if the CAPACITY, the INSTINCTIVE, INBUILT ability is not present, BEFORE the practice, then all the practice and exposure to adults in the world will be useless.

You know, you can talk to a dog forever, and won't get anything besides a woof woof. It is never going to speak english or any other language.

It's the same with every instinct.

If the CAPACITY, the INSTINCTIVE, INBUILT ability is not present, BEFORE the practice, then all the practice and exposure to adults in the world will be useless.

Instinct is defined as the INNATE, AUTOMATIC, INHERITED, UNLEARNED ability to do things. Flying is one of those.

So the question stands. Where did the first bird get the CAPACITY, the INSTINCTIVE, INBUILT ability from?

Reality, remember? It's a fact. "Instinct" is what people call things they haven't figured out yet.

That's pure nonsense. The definition above is the correct one, and you can't avoid that so glibly.

Indeed. Difficult to learn. Not all birds manage to do that, even with adults assisting.

But vast flocks of them do. Therefore they all had the instinct in them before they flapped a wing - as did the first bird. And in any case, who taught the first bird to fly?

Sort of like the grasp reflex of human infants. But that doesn't make us able to climb trees. We have to learn to do it, even if we are well-equipped with reflexes and structure to do it.

A gorilla doesn't need to be taught to climb. The ability is the innate CAPACITY, the INSTINCTIVE, INBUILT ability present, BEFORE the practice.

Trial and error, if observations of fledglings is any indication.

Birds fly even if no practicing adults are present. They will also migrate even if a flock isn't present either.

Good example. No human is born knowing how to play the violin. One has to learn and practice to be able to do it. Like flying.

I agree about the violin, but again, the CAPACITY, the INSTINCTIVE, INBUILT ability to play is present, BEFORE the practice, otherwise all the practice and exposure to adults in the world will be useless.

Flying is an essential if a bird is to survive. The violin is not. The bird therefore has wings AND the necessary instincts in place before it flaps a wing.

Barbarian observes:
However, the key discovery is that the wingstrokes of flying birds use the same muscles and movements as bipedal running quadrupeds make when keeping their balance.

I fail to see the relevance of this. If a reptile is the forerunner of the birds, then whether or not feathers are present, a multitude of major alterations must take place.

For example, the attachment of the pectoral muscles in the bird is entirely different to the reptilian attachment. You will doubtless recall that a reptile has a flat sternum, somewhat like ours. The bird has a keeled sternum intended to increase the area of attachment for the muscle.

View attachment 2800
​

But that is not the whole problem. To flap a wing to any point, the entire musculature, innervation of the organ, and the brain centres where flight information is processed are completely different from a reptile's. It is too complex for a discussion such as this, but even rudimentary common sense must tell us that.

But I again point out that even if all the above was present, in the absence of the powering instinct, all the apparatus was useless - the 'bird' would have no idea what to do with it all.

One of them made it. BTW, feathers were around long before flight. Only later did some of them change slightly to an assymetric form that worked for wings.

Is this what you're referring to? This ridiculous creature? I personally stongly suspect that the creator of Archaeoraptor was hard at work with this one too. Note the final comment in the article:

The creature, described in a paper [pdf] in Nature, was covered in the short feathers known as “dino-fuzz,” and had longer feathers on both its forelimbs and its back legs that formed primitive wings. The four-winged dinosaurs also had feathers on their feet and wing-like attachments on the arms and legs. But they could probably only glide, as their plumage was insufficient for powered flight [Nature News].
Here's the reference if you wish to look it up: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/8...ed-dino-clinches-the-case-for-bird-evolution/

Four winged indeed! I can't offhand think of any bird with 4 wings, but there are certainly plenty of insects that are! The gullibility of these poor clots is appalling. Why are you joining them?

Note that gliding is no more flying, than a glider is a fighter plane.

So where do you go from here? I suggest that you abandon the idea that birds evolved' from reptiles. The physical gap is too great, and the instinctive one is even greater.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, if the CAPACITY, the INSTINCTIVE, INBUILT ability is not present, BEFORE the practice, then all the practice and exposure to adults in the world will be useless.

So we instinctively drive cars? I don't think so.

So the question stands. Where did the first bird get the CAPACITY, the INSTINCTIVE, INBUILT ability from?

Its reptilian ancestors. Reality, remember? It's a fact. "Instinct" is what people call things they haven't figured out yet.

That's pure nonsense.

It's reality. People used to attribute phototropism to "instinct." Then they found out why plants seek the sun. No more instinct.

Async admits:

Do you agree that flying takes some skill?

Barbarian chuckles:
Indeed. Difficult to learn. Not all birds manage to do that, even with adults assisting.

But vast flocks of them do.

Large numbers of people learn to read. But it's not by instinct. We learn how to do it.

Therefore they all had the instinct in them before they flapped a wing - as did the first bird. And in any case, who taught the first bird to fly?

Who taught the first person how to write?

Barbarian oberves:
Sort of like the grasp reflex of human infants. But that doesn't make us able to climb trees. We have to learn to do it, even if we are well-equipped with reflexes and structure to do it.

A gorilla doesn't need to be taught to climb.

But he has to learn, just as you don't need to teach a child to climb. He just does it by trial and error. No instinct.

The ability is the innate CAPACITY, the INSTINCTIVE, INBUILT ability present, BEFORE the practice.

Trial and error, if observations of fledglings is any indication.
Birds fly even if no practicing adults are present.

Turns out, that's not true...
The true-to-life story of Bill Lishman, the man who taught geese to fly with his ultra-light aircraft.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO8sqL7Hoi0

They will also migrate even if a flock isn't present either.

Turns out you're wrong. They learn the behavior.

(Async notes that humans have to learn to play the violin)
Good example. No human is born knowing how to play the violin. One has to learn and practice to be able to do it. Like flying.

I agree about the violin, but again, the CAPACITY, the INSTINCTIVE, INBUILT ability to play is present, BEFORE the practice, otherwise all the practice and exposure to adults in the world will be useless.

So you've basically decided to redefine "instinct" as "learned behavior." Why not just use it in a way that you won't be misunderstood? Words mean things. If you don't use them in their customary meanings, you won't communicate so well.

Flying is an essential if a bird is to survive. The violin is not.

So you've changed the definition to "learned behavior that is essential to survival?"

The bird therefore has wings AND the necessary instincts in place before it flaps a wing.

See above. You got it wrong, again.

Barbarian observes:
However, the key discovery is that the wingstrokes of flying birds use the same muscles and movements as bipedal running quadrupeds make when keeping their balance.

I fail to see the relevance of this. If a reptile is the forerunner of the birds, then whether or not feathers are present, a multitude of major alterations must take place.

Dinosaurs had birdlike lungs, pneumatized bones, feathers, high metabolic rates, and some were quite small and light. Seems like a rather easy trip from Archaeopterix to a bird.

For example, the attachment of the pectoral muscles in the bird is entirely different to the reptilian attachment. You will doubtless recall that a reptile has a flat sternum, somewhat like ours. The bird has a keeled sternum intended to increase the area of attachment for the muscle.

Even today, not all birds have keeled sterna. So that's out.

But that is not the whole problem. To flap a wing to any point, the entire musculature, innervation of the organ, and the brain centres where flight information is processed are completely different from a reptile's.

Nope. In fact, most of it was already present in the birdlike dinosaurs:
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1631/157.full

Note the musculature in these dinosaurs is intermediate.

It is too complex for a discussion such as this, but even rudimentary common sense must tell us that.

Surprise.

But I again point out that even if all the above was present, in the absence of the powering instinct, all the apparatus was useless - the 'bird' would have no idea what to do with it all.

That is, they have to learn to do it. As the evidence shows, must happen.

Barbarian observes:
One of them made it. BTW, feathers were around long before flight. Only later did some of them change slightly to an assymetric form that worked for wings.

Is this what you're referring to?

No, the non-flying dinosaurs had pinnate feathers (what we normally think of as feathers) but they were symmetrical and not suitable for flight.

So where do you go from here? I suggest that you abandon the idea that birds evolved' from reptiles.

Sorry, that thing about evidence still holds.

The physical gap is too great, and the instinctive one is even greater.

"Instinct", as you have learned, merely means we don't know why it happens. And as the cited work demonstrates, there is no gap between dinosaurs and birds.

 

[Asyncritus]

So we instinctively drive cars? I don't think so.

Apprently, you can't distinguish between learned and instinctive behaviour.

Its reptilian ancestors. Reality, remember? It's a fact. "Instinct" is what people call things they haven't figured out yet.

So quantum mechanics is instinct, is it? I don't understnd any of it, and Richard Feynman said nobody does.

It's reality. People used to attribute phototropism to "instinct." Then they found out why plants seek the sun. No more instinct.

You still don't get it, do you? Why do plant stems grow to the light and the roots toward the earth?

We know the mechanisms and biochemistry - but what makes the biochemistry do what it does?

Barbarian chuckles:
Indeed. Difficult to learn. Not all birds manage to do that, even with adults assisting.

But there are vast flocks of the things flying everywhere. Your objection is moot.

Large numbers of people learn to read. But it's not by instinct. We learn how to do it.

You still don't get it, do you? The underlying ability to learn to read, the innate, unlearned, inherited capacity to do so is the instinctive part of this. Superimposed on that is the practice. If the capacity wasn't there, we could not learn to read.

Language is similar. You can talk forever to a dog, and all you'll get is woof woof. The innate, unlearned, inherited capacity to speak, the instinct, is missing. So where did we get it from?

The ability is the innate CAPACITY, the INSTINCTIVE, INBUILT ability present, BEFORE the practice.

Turns out, that's not true...
The true-to-life story of Bill Lishman, the man who taught geese to fly with his ultra-light aircraft.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO8sqL7Hoi0

If the flight instinct, which powers the use of the wings was not present, Lishman could fly on forever and nothing would have happened. Why didn't he try it with dogs, for instance?

Turns out you're wrong. They learn the behavior.

(Async notes that humans have to learn to play the violin)
Good example. No human is born knowing how to play the violin. One has to learn and practice to be able to do it. Like flying.

You still haven't got it have you?

If there was no innate, unlearned, inherited capacity to play the violin and a zillion other things, that would be it. But the powering instinct is there, and we can do it.

So you've basically decided to redefine "instinct" as "learned behavior."

No, you're getting confused now. Learned behaviour is not instinct.

So you've changed the definition to "learned behavior that is essential to survival?"

Again, no. It is the innate, unlearned, inherited, automatic capacity to do things.

Take the Pacific golden plovers as an example. The parents leave the chicks when they've grown a bit, and fly off to Hawaii, 2,800 miles away across the trackless ocean.

The chicks don't stand there with their binoculars to their eyes watching the parents vanishing over the horizon. They follow the parents 2 or 3 weeks later, and ALSO fly to Hawaii. There is no parental instruction or imitation.

The behaviour (and that includes flight) is innate, unlearned, inherited and automatic.

Want another? The Pacific shearwaters leave their young, and fly off on their 25000 km trip round the Pacific basin. Some time later, the chicks do the same thing.

The behaviour is innate, automatic, unlearned, and inherited. No parental copying or following is involved. That's instinctive behaviour. Where did it come from, and how did it enter the genome?

Barbarian observes:
However, the key discovery is that the wingstrokes of flying birds use the same muscles and movements as bipedal running quadrupeds make when keeping their balance.

So what? Are the quadrupeds going to take off sometime soon? Can't you see just how stupid the whole thing is?

Dinosaurs had birdlike lungs,

Total claptrap, and you should have learned that by now.

pneumatized bones, feathers, high metabolic rates, and some were quite small and light. Seems like a rather easy trip from Archaeopterix to a bird.

Oh yeah. And where did the flight instincts come from? If they were gliders, how did they become flyers? Oh yes, I know: OOHHH_MMMM mutations and natural selection' . I got that right, haven't I?

Even today, not all birds have keeled sterna. So that's out.

But millions do. How did that happen? Oh yeah. 'OOHHH_MMMM mutations and natural selection'

Nope. In fact, most of it was already present in the birdlike dinosaurs:
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1631/157.full

Come, Barbarian. How did a two- way breathing structure become a one way structure which is entirely back to front, with the air entering the lungs (which are incompressible, by the way) on EXHALATION instead of on inhalation in the birds?

Can't you see this is total claptrap foisted on you by people who either don't know a thing about the subject, or are blinded by optimism?

Note the musculature in these dinosaurs is intermediate.

What do you mean by intermediate? Intermediate between what? And if intermediate, then it's neither one thing or the other. And how does the intermediate state become the full bird anatomy?

Surprise.

Yeah. But you still haven't a clue about how a non-flying reptile obtained the necessary flight instincts? You know, how to use a wing, use the tail feathers, how to preen and with what, how to get aloft, how to stay aloft, how to fly from Argentina to Capistrano in California, and from Hawaii to Alaska and back. That's what I mean.

That is, they have to learn to do it. As the evidence shows, must happen.

But Lamarckism is dead. Bird A learns - but can't pass it down to its descendants. So evolutionary dead end. Dead in more than one sense too.

Barbarian observes:
One of them made it. BTW, feathers were around long before flight. Only later did some of them change slightly to an assymetric form that worked for wings.

Why did it do so? How did a set of ignorant mutations produce that aerodynamic marvel, the flight feather? But there's another problem you may not have considered. There are about 10 different types of feather which are on an average bird. How do you suppose all that evolved from a set of scales? Oh yeah: 'OOHHH_MMMM mutations and natural selection'

No, the non-flying dinosaurs had pinnate feathers (what we normally think of as feathers) but they were symmetrical and not suitable for flight.

So how did they become suitable for flight? And if the new bird didn't know what to do with wings, why did disaster not strike when it tried to fly?

Sorry, that thing about evidence still holds.

It certainly does. But the power of critical thought seems to have deserted your halls.

"Instinct", as you have learned, merely means we don't know why it happens. And as the cited work demonstrates, there is no gap between dinosaurs and birds.

What utter claptrap. The cited work fails to account for some enormous phenomena, which you clearly haven't a clue about. Wake up, man, wake up.

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that humans have an innate ability to drive cars, just as birds have an innate ability to fly, but that both have to learn those behaviors)

Apprently, you can't distinguish between learned and instinctive behaviour.

You are the one conflating the two. Reality, remember? It's a fact. "Instinct" is what people call things they haven't figured out yet.

Barbarian observes:
It's reality. People used to attribute phototropism to "instinct." Then they found out why plants seek the sun. No more instinct.

You still don't get it, do you?

Well, let's take a look...

Why do plant stems grow to the light

Because of auxins. Auxins are chemicals that cause growth in plants. Auxins are also degraded by light. So the bright side of a plant has somewhat less auxin than the dark side. The dark side grows faster because it has more auxins, which makes the plant bend toward the light. And now we don't call it "instinct" any more, because we know what causes it.

We know the mechanisms and biochemistry - but what makes the biochemistry do what it does?

Physics. Kinetic theory explains that nicely.

Barbarian chuckles:
Indeed. Difficult to learn. Not all birds manage to do that, even with adults assisting.

But there are vast flocks of the things flying everywhere.

Large numbers of people learn to read. But it's not by instinct. We learn how to do it.

You still don't get it, do you?

What seems to upset you, is that I got it, and you didn't.

Language is similar. You can talk forever to a dog, and all you'll get is woof woof. The innate, unlearned, inherited capacity to speak, the instinct, is missing.

And yet, kids have to learn to speak by observing humans. Or they don't speak.

So where did we get it from?

Learning. Dogs lack a voicebox like ours, and so can't talk.

Barbarian chuckles:
Turns out, that's not true...
The true-to-life story of Bill Lishman, the man who taught geese to fly with his ultra-light aircraft.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO8sqL7Hoi0

If the flight instinct, which powers the use of the wings was not present,

Muscles power the wings. The physical structures are there to fly, but without learning, it doesn't happen. You're confusing evolved structures with the need to learn.

(Async notes that humans have to learn to play the violin)
Good example. No human is born knowing how to play the violin. One has to learn and practice to be able to do it. Like flying.

You still haven't got it have you?

Again, you seem to be unhappy that I did get it.

If there was no innate, unlearned, inherited capacity to play the violin and a zillion other things, that would be it. But the powering instinct is there, and we can do it.

So in your personal definition, "instinct" is just "the physical ability to do something, along with the ability to learn how to do it." The physical side can be attributed to evolution, and the learning is done by observation.

Barbarian asks:
So you've changed the definition to "learned behavior that is essential to survival?"

Again, no.

But you said...

Flying is an essential if a bird is to survive. The violin is not. The bird therefore has wings AND the necessary instincts in place before it flaps a wing.

Which is it, then? It's late, and I just got in. More tomorrow.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
However, the key discovery is that the wingstrokes of flying birds use the same muscles and movements as bipedal running quadrupeds make when keeping their balance.

So what?

Just that it was relatively easy to use the same equipment to serve a new function thereby.

Are the quadrupeds going to take off sometime soon?

Happened at least three times.

Can't you see just how stupid the whole thing is?

I can see you trot out the same behavior, every time you can't answer a point. Do you think people don't notice?

Barbarian observes:
Dinosaurs had birdlike lungs,

Total claptrap, and you should have learned that by now.

Well, let's take a look...

Like most birds, these dinosaurs had, in addition to lungs, air sacs attached to their spines, the fossil study found. This ultra-efficient breathing system would have helped make the dinosaurs speedy predators.

The finding is based on the identification of small bones like those that, in birds, act as levers, moving the ribs up and down, aerating the air sacs.

"We think that the dinosaurs would have had an effective respiratory system, as we know that the bird system is highly efficient and has a lot of adaptations that enable the birds to fly, which is very energetically expensive," said study leader Jonathan Codd, a biologist from the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/11/071108-dinosaurs.html

Turns out that alligators have the same one-directional system that birds and dinosaurs have. (all three groups are members of the archesaura)

Barbarian observes:
pneumatized bones, feathers, high metabolic rates, and some were quite small and light. Seems like a rather easy trip from Archaeopterix to a bird.

Oh yeah. And where did the flight instincts come from?

As you learned, there is no "flying instinct." That has to be learned.

(Async's source says all birds have keeled sterna)

Barbarian chuckles:
Even today, not all birds have keeled sterna. So that's out.

But millions do.

And millions don't. Your guy is just wrong.

How did that happen?

Ignorance is my guess.

Nope. In fact, most of it was already present in the birdlike dinosaurs:
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o.../1631/157.full

Come, Barbarian. How did a two- way breathing structure become a one way structure

Collateral (one way) ventilation exists in mammals, too, though the pores of Kohn, but it's only a minor part of normal breathing for us. In birds, it's greatly enlarged and has become the major part of breathing. It's that way in alligators and dinosaurs, too.

Can't you see this is total claptrap foisted on you by people who either don't know a thing about the subject, or are blinded by optimism?

Comes down to evidence. They have it. You don't. Sorry about that.

Note the musculature in these dinosaurs is intermediate.

What do you mean by intermediate? Intermediate between what?

Intermediate between primitive theropods and birds.

And if intermediate, then it's neither one thing or the other.

Or both one thing and another. Semantics won't help you here.

And how does the intermediate state become the full bird anatomy?

As you learned, there isn't one "full bird anatomy." Like that keeled sternum that was supposed to be in "the bird."

Surprise.

Yeah. But you still haven't a clue about how a non-flying reptile obtained the necessary flight instincts?

As you learned, it isn't instinctive, but learned.

That is, they have to learn to do it. As the evidence shows, must happen.
But Lamarckism is dead. Bird A learns - but can't pass it down to its descendants.

Always have. That's the beauty of learning.

One of them made it. BTW, feathers were around long before flight. Only later did some of them change slightly to an assymetric form that worked for wings.

Why did it do so?

Because assymetrical feathers make controlled flight easier. Otherwise, it's very clumsy. Natural selection favors assymetric feathers.

How did a set of ignorant mutations produce that aerodynamic marvel, the flight feather?

Evidence says "natural selection."

But there's another problem you may not have considered. There are about 10 different types of feather which are on an average bird. How do you suppose all that evolved from a set of scales?

Scutes, actually. And it turns out that the amount of certain subtances in the skin affects how the feather develops. So that's pretty easy to understand.

Barbarian chuckles:
Sorry, that thing about evidence still holds.

But the power of critical thought seems to have deserted your halls.

Out of arguments again?

"Instinct", as you have learned, merely means we don't know why it happens. And as the cited work demonstrates, there is no gap between dinosaurs and birds.

What utter claptrap.

You're getting kinda boring, Async.

The cited work fails to account for some enormous phenomena, which you clearly haven't a clue about.

But you can't think of what they are right now? Pity.

 

[Asyncritus]

Well, let's take a look...

Because of auxins. Auxins are chemicals that cause growth in plants. Auxins are also degraded by light. So the bright side of a plant has somewhat less auxin than the dark side. The dark side grows faster because it has more auxins, which makes the plant bend toward the light. And now we don't call it "instinct" any more, because we know what causes it.

As I said, we understand the biochemistry and mechanism of the process. The question I am asking, and you do seem to have some difficulty with understanding it, is simply 'why does the plant do what it does?'

It somehow (instinctively) 'knows ' that growing towards the light is a good idea, and it does so, using the aforementioned mechanism.

The question you have answered is 'how does it do it'. The bigger question which you are having difficulty with, is 'why' does it do so? The plant is behaving instinctively, because the behaviour is innate, unlearned, automatic, and inherited. That's is instinct. Now, how did it arise, and how did it get into the genome?

Physics. Kinetic theory explains that nicely.

I'm afraid that is no answer, is it?

Barbarian chuckles:
Indeed. Difficult to learn. Not all birds manage to do that, even with adults assisting.

To eat and survive the nestling will have to step away from the nest and take the first major step of flying on his or her own. They fail miserably in the first few tries and hit their bottoms on the hard ground. However, even the falling teaches the nestling more about the mechanics of flying. The nestling learns that by stretching his or her wings, the impact of the fall can be controlled. Gradually the short hops back to the nest, turn into longer flights. The parent birds encourage their fledglings to leave the nest for longer hours. Eventually, these fledglings develop their flying skills.

The parents shorten the process, but the flight instinct is innate.

But you have again evaded the point.

Here is Bird #1. How did it learn to fly?

Large numbers of people learn to read. But it's not by instinct. We learn how to do it.

Aren't you listenig? The capacity, the innate ability is already present, and is acted on by practice. If the innate ability isn't present, all the books in the world are a waste of time. The question is, where did the instinct come from, and how did it get into the genome?

Try teaching a dog to read. Read to it,show the flash cards, do whatever you like, and see how far you get. Or maybe a duck or an aardvaark. Let me know what happens.

And yet, kids have to learn to speak by observing humans. Or they don't speak.

They learn a language by observing humans, but the capacity to speak, the instinct, is inbuilt. Here's Noam Chomsky:

It does appear that young children have a much richer capacity to develop and to acquire many languages simultaneously than adults have.

I missed your comment on the young Pacific Golden Plovers who fly across the Pacific weeks after their parents have gone. No navigational learning is possible, but they still do it, correctly at that, or the species would be extinct, since all the birds go.

Learning plays no part in the origin of instinct, as this example, and there are thousands of such, show very clearly.

Muscles power the wings. The physical structures are there to fly, but without learning, it doesn't happen. You're confusing evolved structures with the need to learn.

You are begging the question. 'Evolved structures' begs the question.

But let's go with that for a moment.

proto-Bird 1 (can't fly) ----evolves into pB2 (still can't fly) but maybe glide.

pB n evolves into pB(n+1) who can fly.

The wings are getting better and better between pB1 and pB(n+1).

But what's the use of them? They are flight organs, and none of the pB's can fly. Natural selection would weed them out.

But pB(n+1) appears, with all the flight instincts in place. They have appeared from somewhere. Where? Clearly the improvements, which are learned, cannot be inherited.

Remember, pB n can't teach pB(n+1) anything about flying - he doesn't know how to fly!
So you are not postulating evolution, you are postulating creation.

So in your personal definition, "instinct" is just "the physical ability to do something, along with the ability to learn how to do it." The physical side can be attributed to evolution, and the learning is done by observation.

Umm... shall I say it? OK, I will. Pacific golden plover young. Shearwater young. Yucca moth young adults. Shall I go on?

 

[Barbarian]

(Async thinks plants turn to the sun by "instinct")

Barbarian observes:
Because of auxins. Auxins are chemicals that cause growth in plants. Auxins are also degraded by light. So the bright side of a plant has somewhat less auxin than the dark side. The dark side grows faster because it has more auxins, which makes the plant bend toward the light. And now we don't call it "instinct" any more, because we know what causes it.

As I said, we understand the biochemistry and mechanism of the process.

Now you do.

The question I am asking, and you do seem to have some difficulty with understanding it, is simply 'why does the plant do what it does?'

I just showed you why it does that.

It somehow (instinctively) 'knows ' that growing towards the light is a good idea, and it does so, using the aforementioned mechanism.

Sort of like my security light 'knows' that turning on the light when an object moves near it is a good idea. But if you want to keep your unique definition, you at least have an answer to your question about how "instinct" arises. Random mutation and natural selection. Plants with auxin molecules that were somewhat sensitive to light would get more sunlight, and therefore a better chance of survival. And so, even a slight difference in auxins would then produce better and better auxins.

The "why does it do it, which you keep tying yourself in knots over, is "the Creator produced a universe in which such things happen."

The plant is behaving instinctively, because the behaviour is innate, unlearned, automatic, and inherited.

And as you just learned, we use "instinct" when we don't know why it happens. In this case we know that it happens because of a rather simple chemical process.

That's is instinct.

And now, it seems, you've given away the farm.

To eat and survive the nestling will have to step away from the nest and take the first major step of flying on his or her own. They fail miserably in the first few tries and hit their bottoms on the hard ground.

Actually, no. Most make it.

However, even the falling teaches the nestling more about the mechanics of flying. The nestling learns that by stretching his or her wings, the impact of the fall can be controlled. Gradually the short hops back to the nest, turn into longer flights. The parent birds encourage their fledglings to leave the nest for longer hours. Eventually, these fledglings develop their flying skills.

I think it's time for you to show us a checkable source for that.

The parents shorten the process, but the flight instinct is innate.

As you learned, it's not innate.

This time, Angelo wants to help Andean Condors born in captivity to break free and learn to live in their natural environment in the Argentinean Andes. But there’s only one way to teach a condor how to fly, and that’s if their mother teaches them.
http://www.mounteverest.net/story/B...tadventureTeachingcondorstoflyFeb182005.shtml

But you have again evaded the point.

It seems you're not happy that I keep making the point.

Here is bird #1. How did it learn to fly?

Here is violinist #1. How did he learn to play? Remember, you claimed that was also instinctive.

Aren't you listenig? The capacity, the innate ability is already present, and is acted on by practice. If the innate ability isn't present, all the books in the world are a waste of time. The question is, where did the instinct come from, and how did it get into the genome?

In the case of the one for which we have already worked out the mechanism, it's a simple chemical process. Likely, a random variation in the auxin that made it more likely to be damaged by light. And natural selection took it from there.

Barbarian observes:
And yet, kids have to learn to speak by observing humans. Or they don't speak.

They learn a language by observing humans

So no instinct then. The behavior is not "behaviour is innate, unlearned, automatic, and inherited", which you used to define it instinct.

Barbarian observes:
Muscles power the wings. The physical structures are there to fly, but without learning, it doesn't happen. You're confusing evolved structures with the need to learn.

You are begging the question. 'Evolved structures' begs the question.

As you learned, that question is settled. We're just discussing the details.

proto-Bird 1 (can't fly) ----evolves into pB2 (still can't fly) but maybe glide.

pB n evolves into pB(n+1) who can fly.

The wings are getting better and better between pB1 and pB(n+1).

But what's the use of them? They are flight organs, and none of the pB's can fly.

So gliding animals get no advantage from gliding? Even animals like cats that spread out their bodies falling long distances, get a survival bonus for it. You need to think more carefully about that. Natural selection would tend to preserve such individuals.

Barbarian chuckles:
So in your personal definition, "instinct" is just "the physical ability to do something, along with the ability to learn how to do it." The physical side can be attributed to evolution, and the learning is done by observation.

Umm... shall I say it? OK, I will. Pacific golden plover young. Shearwater young. Yucca moth young adults. Shall I go on?

You're hoping to hide God in the closet of things we don't yet know. But as you just learned, when we do find out why and instinct works as it does, there's a heritable reason.

 

[cupid dave]

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]​

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

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]

[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)​

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

Biology's Biggest unanswered question...​

[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]​

INSTINCT, yes! But...​

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

howdoes instinct evolve ?​

Answers the question.​

[/FONT]

Very excellent post and one that is essential to understanding God and how He is in the Kingdom within.

When we reflect on the Human Instincts it becomes clear that these arise from and out of the Unconscious mind.

This is the source of the ancient Eye of Providence symbolism, the third eye idea of a "watcher" which lives on in humanity as a Collective Unconscious, though individually, we are born into that collective phenomenon and die, leaving it to reign over humanity in our absence.

The oft stated claim, of a "personal relationship" with god, takes on new credence by reflection upon this insight, i.e.; of god as our unconscious mind, unaccessible directly by us, but capable of generating a small quiet voice into our thinking, our dreams, and our visions.

That God is present by the same means in all life, though not so easily located in the anatomy of all living things, suggests that evolution is a mechanism that is forced to develop rules for living life in all creatures because they have had to conform to the Facts of Life.

Another way to say that, i.e.: Truth is an ideal implicit in living things because they they have avoided extinction, they have lived their lives, generation after generation, in accord with what is and has been True, they have avoided, discarded, by-passed all that is wrong and false.

Truth, the Christ, has been with the living as a necessary prerequiste to evolve into the future, and avoid extinction.

Christ said he is the light, The Truth, and the way all creatures have had to work towards, in order to get along with Reality, as it has changed and unfolded.
This evolutionary direction has peaked and incorporated itself into the triad mind, crying out for men to open up the Conscious mind and the Subconscious mind to the father of all history preceeding us, the Unconscious mind.


For just as the Father, (The Force of Nature), raises the dead (who rest in the human gene pool) and gives them life (again, from their genetic blueprint carried in the blood of the humanity that exists already), even so, (the Unconscious mind), the Son, (watching over them and each generation of the living, though he is inaccessiable to their Consciousness until the next adaptation essential to our evolution: [Gen 9:11]), also gives life to (the next species to evolve), whom He wishes.
For not even the Father judges anyone, (they either adapt and will adapt or become extinct), but He, (the Force behind Nature), has given all judgment to (the Unconscious mind inside of their psyche), the Son, so that all will honor the Son (through the altruistic love of others) even as they honor the Father (in the love for God: these two loves are the sum of the Torah and the prophets).
He who does not honor (the Unconscious power within his psyche), the Son, does not honor the Father (imaged by such a facility in his Conscious mind: [Gen 1:26-7]) who sent Him." - John 5:21-23