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
Borne, "That is not to say that there is not some instinct related processes going on in the physical brain. But, those processes themselves cannot be “instinct” anymore than sugars and enzymes are themselves the information they carry. " 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.Ekstasis
October 5, 2006
October
10
Oct
5
05
2006
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
Borne: well put. I agree that information exists whether the material aparatus exists.Scott
October 5, 2006
October
10
Oct
5
05
2006
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
I'm currently working on a software engineering project and it just occurred to me that I haven't checked the size of the binaries in a while. It was 33.2MB and that's not even including the external API's we're using nor a bunch of scripts written in C#. So my little project has more information content than a human schematic. Gee, don't I feel special. :)Patrick
October 5, 2006
October
10
Oct
5
05
2006
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
Is it possible that instinct is a bona fide example of self assembly resulting in emergent behavior of molecules which in turn create the emergent property of instinctual behavior? I don't know one iota of data that supports this notion, just makes intuitive (dare I say "instictual") sense to me. This would still require that the frontloading of the genetic programming would be designed. Indeed I don't know how else it could ever work without it.the wonderer
October 5, 2006
October
10
Oct
5
05
2006
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
GilDodgen, And the more we discover, the more intricate and powerful these wheels of complexity become. Oh sure, we all know about the amazing instinct behavior of insects. But, just how prolific is this behaviour? Well, for example, who could of guessed that bees can select types of flowers based on their temperature, and switch flowers as the temperature changes? This can hardly be learned behaviour, it must be by instinct. http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060802_bees_flower.htmlEkstasis
October 5, 2006
October
10
Oct
5
05
2006
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
Borne has it right. It always goes back to the origin of informaton. I can accept the amazing fact that biological code can be written so efficiently so that it takes up a mere 1Gb on my "hard drive". Perhaps there is hope for all the programmers out there. :) The part I can't accept is that this information came from an unintelligent source.Lurker
October 5, 2006
October
10
Oct
5
05
2006
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
Instinct? C.S. Lewis' on instinct: "...Instinct is a name for we know not what..." It's a word we use to describe what is intuitively known and done but in what way, why or how we have no idea. But then "intuition" is also something we know nothing about - biologically speaking - because it is metaphysical by very nature and can't be studied under a microscope. That is not to say that there is not some instinct related processes going on in the physical brain. But, those processes themselves cannot be "instinct" anymore than sugars and enzymes are themselves the information they carry. Again, back to the origin of information - square one. 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! Thus, how does one know when it is found? Is this just another example of the age old atheistic/humanist struggle to find some means of proving theism wrong?! Anything to try to prove we are "mere animals, sharing a common heritage with earth worms..."? One must wonder why. Or as the bull dog in the animated series "Creature Comforts" stated, "What sort of idiot wants to prove he came from a monkey?" (episode “What’s it all About.”) Essential listening! ;-)Borne
October 5, 2006
October
10
Oct
5
05
2006
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
Michael Denton has described living systems as “wheels of complexity within wheels of complexity.” As DaveScot has pointed out, a gigabyte of data hardly seems sufficient to code for something as complicated as a human being, and it would even seem insufficient to code for all the complex instinctual behaviors he has outlined. The bottom line is that it’s obvious we’ve only barely scratched the surface when it comes to understanding life and its processes. It would appear that those wheels of complexity are nested very deeply. As a result, it would seem blatantly absurd to conclude with certainty that RM+NS can account for it all, when we don’t even really know what we are trying to account for.GilDodgen
October 5, 2006
October
10
Oct
5
05
2006
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
DaveScot, you bring up a very valid question that I have not encountered anything like an answer to in biology. I have seen a couple of other threads on this topic which have produced dumb silence from the biologist involved in the discussion -- dumb silence, that is, on the specifics of how a cell stores instinct. I also would say that with huge gaps in knowledge like this, it is puzzling that any portion of the biological community is willing to declare their theory as "established fact".bFast
October 5, 2006
October
10
Oct
5
05
2006
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
Hodor I'm quite sure I have no idea what biochemical mechanism implants the visual patterns in a bird brain that allows it to recognize the proper materials to build a nest characteristic of its species nor what implants the patterns of what the completed nest should look like and the steps required to build it that way. All I know is that the patterns aren't learned and that they're somehow encoded into the single cell that becomes the adult bird. It doesn't seem reasonable that cascading coding gene expression is what does it. More reasonable is a language of some sort embedded in junk DNA or some undiscovered epigenetic mechanism that directs the layout of synapse topology in the brain. How the language is read and translated into physical reality is something I don't have the first clue about.DaveScot
October 5, 2006
October
10
Oct
5
05
2006
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
I've seen examples where large chunks of "junk dna" is removed and the resulting animal turns out fine physically. So it's assumed these sections are junk (though I'm curious if they're not restored from a backup elsewhere in the process). But I'm wondering if a type of experiment has ever been performed where the resulting animals are tested for a loss of notable instinctual behavior.Patrick
October 5, 2006
October
10
Oct
5
05
2006
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
If the junk DNA involved isn't in some way regulating gene expression, what would you propose? Functional RNA for cell-cell signalling?HodorH
October 5, 2006
October
10
Oct
5
05
2006
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply