Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Encoding of Instinct

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The article on voles reminds me of an ongoing and more general mystery. How are instincts encoded in DNA? It’s a given that a bird egg contains all sorts of instructions about how to go about building nests, flying, preening, perching, predator avoidance, song, what to eat and how to find it, what not to eat, and etcetera. I’ve raised many birds from eggs and very young hatchlings and without exception they all appear to be conceived with a built-in operating and maintenance manual for their bodies that distinguishes them from other bird species and are identical with others of their own species. They do this with no exposure whatsoever to other members of their species and indeed without exposure to any other birds at all. These instinctual behaviors are almost certainly not explained by coding genes and it’s a bit of a stretch to imagine that gene expression, per se, is responsible. Something hardwires their little birdbrains with the very complex instruction sequences for the coordinated action of hundreds of voluntary muscles and pattern recognition of sensory inputs required to complete tasks such as the building of nests characteristic of their species. In just this one task imagine all the subtasks (which themselves are composed of even simpler subtasks) – recognizing the appropriate raw materials, selecting a building site, transporting the materials, and assembling them in a characteristic fashion. Junk DNA, in some fashion, is a likely candidate for storage media of instinctual behaviors.

Comments
Sounds like breeding behavior to me.John A. Davison
October 10, 2006
October
10
Oct
10
10
2006
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
I basically live in the woods and very close to a lake. Some days I go down to where the small river feeds that lake- just to "get away". Sometimes I sit there collecting my thoughts and then let them run wild. On one such day I found myself observing dragonflies and observed what I thought was really strange-> dragonflies PLAY! What do they "play"? One "game" appears to be "follow the leader". One hovers while another lines up below it. Then the one on top takes off and the other follows it making the same moves while keeping pace. This occurred numerous times. Then I saw what amazed me the most- the dragonflies I was observing were small and blueish. Then another bogger darker dragonfly flew in and perched itself on a plant limb no more than two feet from my position. Once it landed one of the other smaller dragonflies flew right up to it and hovered there right in front of the bigger one (about 2-3 inches apart). The smaller one then shifted low and flew into the limb of the plant to try to knock the bigger one off, but the bigger one stayed put. So the little one tried again. But the bigger one stayed put. So the little one hovered in front again and then "whack" it flew right into the bigger one knocking it off its perching spot! That event started a chase. Someday I will take my camera and try to get this stuff on tape.Joseph
October 9, 2006
October
10
Oct
9
09
2006
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
DS: I was more interested in very specific, ritual-like instinctual behaviors that are consistently exhibited by all members of species even when a representative animal has never been exposed to others of its kind. Hey, me too! Here is an article on mice (not voles) www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/102/27/9643.pdf where the knockout of FOXP2 has changed the vocalization behavior of infants. I don't think this is a great reference because I think the knockout is very high level. FOXP2 is very important in vocalization in mammals. (As readers of Time can tell us!) So the knockout didn't target the instinct precisely. It does, however, demonstrate the way that scientists are using experimental procedures established on the phenotype to explore the "extended phenotype" of behavior.David vun Kannon
October 8, 2006
October
10
Oct
8
08
2006
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT
DvK The vole article you referenced didn't mention well defined instincts. Broad generalities such as bonding, parenting, and personality can be mediated through exchange of pheromones. I was more interested in very specific, ritual-like instinctual behaviors that are consistently exhibited by all members of species even when a representative animal has never been exposed to others of its kind.DaveScot
October 8, 2006
October
10
Oct
8
08
2006
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
Davis vun Kannon Nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever been "arrived at by a Darwinian process" excepti ntraspecific varieties which are nothing but dead ends anyway. Get it? Probably not. It is hard to believe isn't it? I love it so! "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
October 8, 2006
October
10
Oct
8
08
2006
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
Hmmm, seems like the speculation floating around here that "junk dna" actually codes for instinct has been supported by this article. This would make sense to me. It also would make sense that scientists would not notice a loss of some instinct when they knock out a segment of "junk dna".bFast
October 7, 2006
October
10
Oct
7
07
2006
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT
Man, what is it with voles? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050707211627.htm Voles, instinctual behavior, and junk DNA all in one article - what more could you ask for? Of course it will be interesting to follow this up and see if the random changes in microsatellite length that seem to drive behavioral changes can be arrived at by a Darwinian process - are the behavioral changes beneficial and cause differential reproductive success? If so, the genome and the behavior will be evolving. Since behavior can readily influence breeding choices, there is even the possibility of speciation being driven in this way - speciation as defined by non-interbreeding populations in nature.David vun Kannon
October 7, 2006
October
10
Oct
7
07
2006
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT
One of the most famous examples of revelations in a dream was when Kekule dreamed of a snake chasing his tail and came up with the basis for cyclic organic compounds. Another method I have found productive is getting half in the bag especially on medium dry sherry. I recommend it. I love it so! "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
October 7, 2006
October
10
Oct
7
07
2006
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
Michaels7, interesting post. What is being suggested in the post sounds vaguely Lamarckian. Though it isn't a direct challenge to NDE, it certainly implies that there's bunches of stuff going on that we are not fully aware of yet.bFast
October 7, 2006
October
10
Oct
7
07
2006
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
Borne, David vun Kannon, It is not the "No" at times that worries me so much as the exhortation to "Go"! The former requires patience, mumbling, whining and complaining, while the latter requires action. Dave, You might find the following article intererested that I stumbled upon: http://www.alspac.bristol.ac.uk/press/env_inheritance.shtmlMichaels7
October 7, 2006
October
10
Oct
7
07
2006
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
David vun Kannon: As my rabbi once said, “Sure God answers prayer, but many times the answer is “No.’” tell me about it! ;-)Borne
October 7, 2006
October
10
Oct
7
07
2006
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
DaveScott, very interesting. Though I have actively used my unconscious for years as a software development aid, I have not had a similar dream, nor have I heard of others having a similar dream. I will say that if I ever become an instructor in the computer sciences, I will teach the art of using the unconscious as a programming aid. I really believe that the skill of using the unconscious to solve complex problems can be taught and learned.bFast
October 7, 2006
October
10
Oct
7
07
2006
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
Chapter VIII I Can Only Tell You What You Already Know in "Why Is a Fly Not a Horse" by geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti talks about "rediscovery". IOW all the information is there one just has to have the ability to tap into it. There was an experiment with birds- blackcaps (Silviidae) in which some were hatched and raised in isolation. When the sky was revealed to them for the first time (October) and the stars shown, the birds became agitated and took-off flying SSW. If the stars became hidden the birds calmed down and lost their impatience to fly off in the direction characteristic of their species. This was also conducted in the Spring and the birds flew off in the opposite direction NNE!
On the vault of heaven at night the tiny Silviidae encounter the guide of the innate: They learn what they already know.
Joseph
October 7, 2006
October
10
Oct
7
07
2006
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
bFast I had a conversation with a coworker at Dell one time about the subconscious ability to solve problems. In particular was falling asleep without an answer and waking up with it. As it turns out we both had recollections of dreams where we were transformed from humans into computers. In essence our unconscious minds specifically reconfigured themselves into the vast logic array of the computer and underlying software then "executed" our software-in-development on it looking for the answer to specific problems (debugging or finding novel algorithmic solutions). I had never named the phenomenon and until that conversation hadn't presumed such dreams weren't unique to me. He did name them and called them "logical dreams". Weird.DaveScot
October 7, 2006
October
10
Oct
7
07
2006
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
David vun Kannon: As my rabbi once said, “Sure God answers prayer, but many times the answer is “No.’” Your rabbi is a very wise man. If I were you, I'd try to learn more from him. He is the heir of thousands of years of accumulated Judaic wisdom.GilDodgen
October 6, 2006
October
10
Oct
6
06
2006
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT
Borne: "IMO, We still have a ways to go though. I could be wrong and hopefully am on that!" I think that the issue of instinct shows that we do have a very long way to go. I certianly wouldn't be writing of "junk DNA" just yet. David vun Kannon: "Well, you can try knocking out genes and seeing what happens." This, of course, presumes that instinct is coded in genes, in the "coding" portion of DNA. What if the non-coding DNA, the "junk DNA" codes for instinct? What if coding for instinct is not in DNA but in some of the other potentially information-carrying structure of a cell? I personally would start by looking at two animals of the same species where one has a strong instinct. I think it would be as easy as comparing the pointer with any other breed of dog. Borne: "Remember that my comments were also referring to intuition as well as instinct." I find intuition and instinct to be two rather different phenomenons. It seems to me that intuition is nothing but the unconscious mind expressing its perspective. While we don't have a very clear understanding of the unconscious mind, many of us have learned how to put it to good use as a technical tool. I suspect, however, that intuition divides very clearly into two classes: the general ability to have intuition, which we are born with, and the training of our intuition which happens through experience. The latter, of course, would not be carried in our genes.bFast
October 6, 2006
October
10
Oct
6
06
2006
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT
Borne: But what genetic signs or clues does one look for in the genome to find the specific information that leads to this? Well, you can try knocking out genes and seeing what happens. It's crude, but that is how we started with understanding development. If you had a test animal that had a specific, easy to see behavior, such as a web building spider, you just take guesses about where on the genome the instinct might be coded and start hammering away. If you knock out a gene and the web changes, you found something. Repeat a gazillion times and try to make sense of the results. If you were looking at a sex related behavior, you might (might) start looking on the sex related chromosome. There is an underlying assumption to this - that instinct is information encoded in the physical genome, not the cytoplasm of the egg, not hovering in the ether. It is this assumption that leads the ever popular Richard Dawkins to term behaviors the "extended phenotype". OT - I'm not sure what the small success of the research into intercessory prayer was. IIRC, the group that knew they were being prayed for did slightly worse than the control group. I think that research was valiant but vain attempt to stretch the scientific method to (and beyond) its limits. As my rabbi once said, "Sure God answers prayer, but many times the answer is "No.'"David vun Kannon
October 6, 2006
October
10
Oct
6
06
2006
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
bFast: Actually I would agree with you in part. There certainly must be something coded for there to be something observable like instinctive behaviors, even though we really don't know exactly what it is or how it works. Remember that my comments were also referring to intuition as well as instinct. It would seem that intuition is more difficult though since it implies more than physical attributes and behavior in action. But again, until we have a better idea of what it is we're looking for we'll not be able to spot it so easily will we? As for the information that defines instinct, I still think it will be near impossible to discover *until* we have some better idea of what it is we're looking for and how to look for it. However we do have information already available. For instance we know that something inherent pushes some species of birds to head south and find their way across 1000's of miles. Like the plover's journey to Hawaii. That we know, so we also know there must be some coded info that signals the temperature and sunlight related thresholds that say, "hey get going south on this heading". So the heading is also somehow encoded. We also can infer that there is a flocking code that triggers a "get together guys in preparation to leave." There are also some bio functions coded saying, "eat more and keep fat etc. for energy for the trip". Actually it gets more complex than that as any pilot will tell you about long distance flights. Thus we know we should find something that codes for directions (something electro-magnetic?), temperature and sunlight thresholds, feeding habits etc. But what genetic signs or clues does one look for in the genome to find the specific information that leads to this? How does one look for coded sequences that identify direction etc? I have no idea how one would go about looking for these clues in the genetic code. Perhaps someone else does? Maybe some day we will have technology that enables us to empirically demonstrate the existence of all this - and soul also - some have already tried to prove the soul by "side effects" effects through research into prayer & health and the likes and even with some small success! IMO, We still have a ways to go though. I could be wrong and hopefully am on that!Borne
October 6, 2006
October
10
Oct
6
06
2006
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
Borne:
So, doing “studies” to find where instinct is in the brain is like more studies for finding the soul - a waste of time since we don’t know what instinct, or the soul, looks like! And both are, by definition, not visible to the human eye!
Just because something is not visible to the human eye, that doesn't mean that it is not discoverable through scientific process. I will be quite surprised if it is discovered that instinct is not somehow encoded in the information of the cell. I will not be surprised if it is encoded in the "junk DNA", or encoded outside of DNA. How instinct is encoded is certainly mystery at the moment, but when we respond to that mystery by philosphically concluding, "it can't be known", we show that we do not have the heart of a scientist. I, for one, dispite being ID, have the heart of a scientist. I am very interested to know what the information that defines instinct looks like.bFast
October 6, 2006
October
10
Oct
6
06
2006
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
David vun Kannon and Borne, Thanks for going back and patiently explaining the basics!! I feel a bit silly, but that will not stop me. It was certainly a poor example, I need to build my knowledge level at least up to freshman biology!! Wiki: "Instinct is the inherent disposition of a living organism toward a particular behavior. Instincts are generally inherited patterns of responses or reactions to certain kinds of stimuli. " The key seems to be "disposition" and "pattern of responses" to certain kinds of stimuli. This certainly implies that it is far more than a mechanical series of steps that are triggered by a particular stimulus. Rather, it is more in the nature of general guidance. Mechanical steps could presumably be stored in the brain. In contrast, general guidance represents a much tougher nut to crack. Our minds would be required to continously check back to the guidance "routine" to determine whether to trigger the behaviour (disposition implies some discretion); and find creative ways to ensure compliance with the guidance. For a simple example, building a nest would require such features as: taking a break to evade a predator or find something to feed on, and then resume construction; switching building materials as necessary to match what is available in a particular habitat; and adhering construction to a prescribed blueprint, i.e., shape, size). Representing general guidance in the brain or genetic code certainly poses a much larger challenge than mere step-by-step instructions, and is yet one more example of how daunting a challenge the Darwinists face with their attempt to offer up an explanatory model that is anywhere near plausible.Ekstasis
October 6, 2006
October
10
Oct
6
06
2006
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
P. Phillips Have you ever published a word on the subject of organic evolution or ever offered an original thought on it? You seem to be intent on coughing up every fringe lunatic you can find and presenting him as the last word on the great mystery of phylogeny and even science in general. You bore me. Get some help. It is hard to believe isn't it? I love it so! "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
October 6, 2006
October
10
Oct
6
06
2006
03:25 AM
3
03
25
AM
PDT
Ekstasis said: "At a very simple level, instinct might be viewed as a set of instructions for behavior. To use a very simple example, for the sake of argument, it may be instinct to pull my hand back when I touch a hot stove (some may say this is learned behaviour resulting in a habit, but just for the sake of argument …..). Now, certainly the instructions such as 1. feel extreme heat, 2. contract arm muscles, could be stored in the brain. In other words, even if they are complex, instincts are still a mechanical process triggered by a stimulus of some type. Therefore we should probably be cautious to say that it cannot be stored effectively in the brain. " -------------------- I think you may have missed a level of abstraction here in that you compare a reflexive response to instinct. Instinct is not comparable to reflex on this level. A physical reflex is relatively easy to code because the infomation content is low. But intinct is informational by nature and not physical. Plans for nest building, migration routes, flight instructions, digging holes, self-conservation, injecting something into one specific spider victim that causes it to build a cocoon for you instead of it's usual web (Hymenoepimecis - Ichneumonidae and its spider host, Plesiometa argyra - Araneidae spider/wasp) - any symbiotic realtion,...etc. See what I'm getting at here? Big difference. As always this is far more complex than it appears. Reflexes are triggered by nerves sending messages to the brain in response to stimuli. The brain in turn sends back response messages to the muscles of the body. Q: Why does the body have code related to nerves that trigger high level messaging & responses when certain temperature thresholds have been sensed as crossed in the 1st place? And, under an macro-evo scenario, how many died frozen or burned before a heat sensing mechanism with coding system "evolved"? The typical darwinist answer to this type of question isn't even close to smart! - again you have to go back to the origin of information - ex. what constitutes valid heat ranges for the body? And they're off an running! towards incredibly complex pieces that must all fit together and operate concurrently. What concurrent mutational pathways can be demonstrated for even this lowly process? Same answer as always - none. Darwinist answers are parsecs away from hitting the target here! So, instinct is triggered by what? Nothing that we know of - it's generally behavioral from birth or inborn. We recognize it, we see it in action and we give it a name - instinct - that means we really don't know anything but that it exists & is largely inexplicable from a bio-only stance! Ex. monarch butterflies move south in fall - how can they possibly find their way right to the very tree their progenitors went to? Instinct we say. But with that, we are merely saying we don't know how they do this! Intuition and instinct are greater than their coded genetic parts - whatever they may be - just like DNA contains information far greater than the sum of it's parts. DNA itself is not information. Nor are it's storage medium the info being stored. No more than your CD is itself the information stored on it. See the difference? Coded information is never equal to the medium it reposes on. And more importantly, *coded* information cannot possibly arise without intelligence. Coded info. presupposes intelligence by it's very existence! Coded info requires symbolic language and no language arises without intelligence. The genetic code is not the DNA molecule itself nor the molecular parts that constitute it's vast and concurrent processing systems - information flow, exception trapping, energy generators (ATP synthase), duplication, RNA translation, etc. DNA's coding alphabet is ACGT with the sequences being the words of it's language - but no symbolic language can arise without intelligence and thus no coded system of information storage, copy, translation and usage can exist without a intelligent designer. If you can read the above "coded information" (symbolic charater forms used to communicate iideas by a common convention of their meaning) on your screen, then you can strongly infer if not empirically prove there is an intelligent designer behind DNA/RNA - and virtually everything else in the known universe that exhibits high information content or usage. Hope I'm being clear here - sorry if it isn't.Borne
October 5, 2006
October
10
Oct
5
05
2006
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT
After a long period of dumb silence... When I start thinking about the interactions of genetic networks with the neural networks that they both encode for and continually interact with, along with what that means for storing behavioral information in the genome, my instincts tell me to think about something else instead.great_ape
October 5, 2006
October
10
Oct
5
05
2006
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
Sloth has become institutionalized in computer programming.
I blame it all on VS 2005. :PPatrick
October 5, 2006
October
10
Oct
5
05
2006
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
Oh, and the link above has reference to the "Morphic Fields" concept, which John A. Davies "pooh poohs", but who knows? http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/morphic/morphic_intro.html If one subscribes to quantum mechanics, he cannot ignore Bell's inequality and David Bohm's "implicate order", i.e., holographic paradigm. (Of course, he can ignore anything, including an oncoming train, but I trust readers understand what I mean.) If one subscribes to the Electric Universe concept instead, "everything" is connected in real time. If you're John A. Davison, it's probably nap time. Good night, John, sleep tight! I hope you don't have nightmares about "Great Ape" or King Kong, even. Exit, stage left.P. Phillips
October 5, 2006
October
10
Oct
5
05
2006
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
John A., you wrote
Nothing, absolutely nothing, supports a role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny. How many times do WE have to tell you? It is like talking to a wall.
Could it be because you are using big words and no one understands you? Well, maybe the Darwinists? Should you make your point in "plain English" or "dumb it down"? Oh, and have you considered "hatching" that chick, per my other post? Perhaps more rewarding than posting here and getting frustrated... https://uncommondescent.com/archives/1680P. Phillips
October 5, 2006
October
10
Oct
5
05
2006
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
Everything we know about the living world points to the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Nothing, absolutely nothing, supports a role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny. How many times do WE have to tell you? It is like talking to a wall. "Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance." Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134 "Hereditary variations are restricted in number and develop in determined direction." ibid, page 406 "Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments." ibid page 406 "..that the entire process of evolution may be regarded 'as an unpacking of an original complex which contained within iytself the whole range of diversity which living things present.'" William Bateson, quoted in Nomogenesis, page 359 "However that may be, the existence of internal factors affecting evolution has to be accepted by any objective mind...." Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 209 "At most, the environment plays only a similar role with regard to organisms; IT CAN ONLY PROVOKE AND SET IN MOTION SOME POTENTIAL THAT IS ALREADY PRESENT." Otto Schindewolf, Basic Questions in Paleontology, page 313, his emphasis "Everything is determined....by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as it is for the star." Albert Einstein Why do I continue to waste OUR time? I have just about had it, here as elsewhere on internet venues. Thank God for journal publication. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
October 5, 2006
October
10
Oct
5
05
2006
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
Sorry, that last sentence should have been on the vole thread!David vun Kannon
October 5, 2006
October
10
Oct
5
05
2006
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
Ekstasis: To use a very simple example, for the sake of argument, it may be instinct to pull my hand back when I touch a hot stove (some may say this is learned behaviour resulting in a habit, but just for the sake of argument …..). I think your example is of a reflex, another kind of hrd-wired behavior. You pull your hand away even before the signal gets to your brain because the spinal cord is snooping on the nerve impulses that transmit heat sensation. One thing that the wide variation in chromosome number says to me is that multiple chromosomes might be convenient ways to package a lot of DNA, but the packaging doesn't contribute much to the interpretation.David vun Kannon
October 5, 2006
October
10
Oct
5
05
2006
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
It was 33.2MB Sloth has become institutionalized in computer programming. One of Murphy's Laws of Computing is that all software will bloat until it consumes all available hardware resources. Of course this is a blessing to hardware vendors. Without software bloat Dell could only sell new computers to people whose house burnt down (no jokes about flaming Dell laptop batteries please - I've heard them all already). I once joked with my manager at Dell that I should write a virus that steals CPU clock cycles in gradually increasing number so as to ensure that personal computers continue to become obsolete after a few years even without Microsoft helping us with program bloat. He took me seriously and was ready to go for it. I got frightened and never mentioned it again. DaveScot
October 5, 2006
October
10
Oct
5
05
2006
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply