The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How does "instinct" evolve?  (Read 149569 times)

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #250 on: 29/06/2010 00:39:16 »
Statement by ornate iridescence 'There is no evidence of  "design" in the universe. All apparent "design" is illusory, and can be shown to be produced by entirely natural causes.'

Mother Nature is accepted by TNS forum as having produced or created the illusion of design that's fine.

I disagree, wait, I'm not talking of a Deity...................If there was no design there would not be change, no need to change if no design.

There is definitely design in our universe see my post 2/6/10 above.

Science should embrace the natural design we experience in our universe, its just a few that are sensitive to the word, claiming all who use it are creationists.

also Science itself has a problem with the word "intelligent"

Maybe TNS policy should exclude the use of these words, 'design and intelligence' as all I see is real people asking real questions on a science site to get scientific answers but when those answers are not forthcoming and proof can't be found or there is no scientific answer then this site becomes bias, claiming the author a creationist. You don't have to be a creationist to have these questions.

Not everyone thinks the same, otherwise this site would not exist, there would be no questions.
The world is full of unexplained and wonderment.

Please eradicate the bias of this site.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #251 on: 29/06/2010 09:48:10 »
If there was no design there would not be change, no need to change if no design.

That's clearly nonsense - it would be the other way around - if there were design, there would be no need for change.  There is no design, and there is change.

Quote
There is definitely design in our universe see my post 2/6/10 above.

You saying it doesn't make it true.  I have never seen any evidence of design in nature.

Quote
Science should embrace the natural design we experience in our universe, its just a few that are sensitive to the word, claiming all who use it are creationists.

also Science itself has a problem with the word "intelligent"

Maybe TNS policy should exclude the use of these words, 'design and intelligence' as all I see is real people asking real questions on a science site to get scientific answers but when those answers are not forthcoming and proof can't be found or there is no scientific answer then this site becomes bias, claiming the author a creationist. You don't have to be a creationist to have these questions.
No, that's true - and anyone asking the questions wouldn't be accused of being a creationist.  People claiming there is evidence that natural systems were designed by an external 'higher power' are likely to be accused of being creationists, however, as it all amounts to the same thing.

Quote
Not everyone thinks the same, otherwise this site would not exist, there would be no questions.
The world is full of unexplained and wonderment.

Please eradicate the bias of this site.

Everyone has bias, it's really hard to avoid.  But science seeks to remove this.  The problem is that people often have a fixed idea, then look for evidence to confirm it - if you believe something to be true, you will find something that you feel validates your ideas.
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #252 on: 01/07/2010 07:12:29 »
Ben V I know we don't see eye to eye but please let me have my opinion.
The 'design' IS the ability to change.

I look at natural things around me and see such amazing design, intricate structures and mechanisms. I don't know what else to call it.
I know some other scientific folk agree. Some are stem cell scientists, biologists etc. I am not alone in my thinking.
I don't think of myself as a creationist.
It's not just black and white there are a lot of questions to be answered and stuff to be proven of course.  Neither of us can prove or disprove this.
It only takes time and answers are revealed scientifically, one way or the other.
I believe there is design in nature, in science itself. That it’s not just "mother nature trying to illude us"

If there is no design, a plan, why should there be change?

Ben V
Quote
You saying it doesn't make it true.  I have never seen any evidence of design in nature.

I can’t understand how you couldn’t see design in nature and that is my bias just as I think it obvious. It is very difficult to research scientifically as this subject is largely ignored. But as we unravel biological systems, finding their cause and behaviour we are also discovering what the mechanisms are for and how they react to everything else such as the environment. So I suppose it will just take time to prove one way or the other.

Ben V
Quote
Everyone has bias, it's really hard to avoid.  But science seeks to remove this.  The problem is that people often have a fixed idea, then look for evidence to confirm it - if you believe something to be true, you will find something that you feel validates your ideas.

If you have proof there is no design in nature you WILL change my mind.

So we understand structure, behaviour and function in nature but you say there is no design. Can we call it a truce? Just accept that we both disagree?

Please don't label me a 'Creationist' just because I see the "Design" in nature.
It would be like labeling you a "Magician" - things just happen.
« Last Edit: 01/07/2010 07:20:26 by echochartruse »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #253 on: 01/07/2010 07:36:52 »
Echo:

We (humans) are, for whatever reasons, capable of appreciating the wonders of nature on many levels.

The danger is that we might superimpose our feeble understanding of "intelligence" on nature. We may be clever, but we are being arrogant when we assume that our thought processes and nature converge.
« Last Edit: 01/07/2010 07:45:06 by Geezer »
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #254 on: 05/07/2010 06:27:52 »
Echo:

We (humans) are, for whatever reasons, capable of appreciating the wonders of nature on many levels.

The danger is that we might superimpose our feeble understanding of "intelligence" on nature. We may be clever, but we are being arrogant when we assume that our thought processes and nature converge.

Sorry I don't follow what you are actually saying.....
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #255 on: 05/07/2010 09:24:03 »
Echo:

We (humans) are, for whatever reasons, capable of appreciating the wonders of nature on many levels.

The danger is that we might superimpose our feeble understanding of "intelligence" on nature. We may be clever, but we are being arrogant when we assume that our thought processes and nature converge.

Sorry I don't follow what you are actually saying.....

What I'm saying is that we might look at a very complex system that has evolved over many millions of years (nature) and because we cannot grasp how it all works, we assume there must have been some intelligence involved in the process.

That's a purely human assumption. There is no evidence that it is true.
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #256 on: 07/07/2010 02:58:50 »
Echo:

We (humans) are, for whatever reasons, capable of appreciating the wonders of nature on many levels.

The danger is that we might superimpose our feeble understanding of "intelligence" on nature. We may be clever, but we are being arrogant when we assume that our thought processes and nature converge.

Sorry I don't follow what you are actually saying.....

What I'm saying is that we might look at a very complex system that has evolved over many millions of years (nature) and because we cannot grasp how it all works, we assume there must have been some intelligence involved in the process.

That's a purely human assumption. There is no evidence that it is true.

I'm speaking of design in nature, not intelligence.

I virtually have no idea of intelligence, that may seem strange at first but when you do an IQ test, the test is only as good or intelligent as the person who wrote it, so you are being judged against the person who wrote it. So intelligence I assume has nothing to do with IQ.

There are intelligent computers, intelligent stem cells, intelligent biology, blah blah blah.
Trying to understand intelligence is like trying to imagine that there is nothing, not even a void.
What ever degree of intelligence our cells have is beyond me,... if the cells have intelligence that is.

I can however imagine design [and see it] in the universe. If some like to give it a name and call it nature, fine. Whatever.

I am bias in regard to seeing this 'design' to those who can't see the design but they are entitled to their opinion of course.

Maybe its related to computer intelligence? or stem cell intelligence? If there is intelligence.
I am not saying there is intelligence.

Maybe the cells just have a job to do (survive) and that is all they know how to do, no matter what it takes them to do it. Say, cells didn't need intelligence to network it's just what they do. Yes, the process is complex but it don't need intelligence for complexity,.............Isn't complexity associated with 'design'?

So why do we need intelligence for design?
« Last Edit: 07/07/2010 03:04:08 by echochartruse »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #257 on: 07/07/2010 05:51:10 »
Echo:

We (humans) are, for whatever reasons, capable of appreciating the wonders of nature on many levels.

The danger is that we might superimpose our feeble understanding of "intelligence" on nature. We may be clever, but we are being arrogant when we assume that our thought processes and nature converge.

Sorry I don't follow what you are actually saying.....

What I'm saying is that we might look at a very complex system that has evolved over many millions of years (nature) and because we cannot grasp how it all works, we assume there must have been some intelligence involved in the process.

That's a purely human assumption. There is no evidence that it is true.

I'm speaking of design in nature, not intelligence.

I virtually have no idea of intelligence, that may seem strange at first but when you do an IQ test, the test is only as good or intelligent as the person who wrote it, so you are being judged against the person who wrote it. So intelligence I assume has nothing to do with IQ.

There are intelligent computers, intelligent stem cells, intelligent biology, blah blah blah.
Trying to understand intelligence is like trying to imagine that there is nothing, not even a void.
What ever degree of intelligence our cells have is beyond me,... if the cells have intelligence that is.

I can however imagine design [and see it] in the universe. If some like to give it a name and call it nature, fine. Whatever.

I am bias in regard to seeing this 'design' to those who can't see the design but they are entitled to their opinion of course.

Maybe its related to computer intelligence? or stem cell intelligence? If there is intelligence.
I am not saying there is intelligence.

Maybe the cells just have a job to do (survive) and that is all they know how to do, no matter what it takes them to do it. Say, cells didn't need intelligence to network it's just what they do. Yes, the process is complex but it don't need intelligence for complexity,.............Isn't complexity associated with 'design'?

So why do we need intelligence for design?


All you are doing is superimposing another human concept on nature. Intelligence and design are both human concepts.

How is there design without intelligence? Designs only happen if something intelligent designed them. If they "just happened", they are not designs.
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #258 on: 08/07/2010 23:18:48 »
How is there design without intelligence? Designs only happen if something intelligent designed them. If they "just happened", they are not designs.

So you say they just happen?
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #259 on: 08/07/2010 23:56:32 »
How is there design without intelligence? Designs only happen if something intelligent designed them. If they "just happened", they are not designs.

So you say they just happen?

Yes. Random mutations happen all the time. If they are beneficial to the species, they are inherited by subsequent generations. If they are detrimental to the species, they are much less likely to be inherited.

Adaptation is largely a process of trial an error. It may be a bit crude, but it's highly effective.

The "design" if you like, is for living organisms to continually experiment with random small changes. The environment determines if those changes are for the good or not.
 

Offline BreakBeatPoet

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #260 on: 30/07/2010 04:48:35 »
How is there design without intelligence? Designs only happen if something intelligent designed them. If they "just happened", they are not designs.



So you say they just happen?

Yes. Random mutations happen all the time. If they are beneficial to the species, they are inherited by subsequent generations. If they are detrimental to the species, they are much less likely to be inherited.

Adaptation is largely a process of trial an error. It may be a bit crude, but it's highly effective.

The "design" if you like, is for living organisms to continually experiment with random small changes. The environment determines if those changes are for the good or not.

Trial and Error? How could something that does not "have" a "master plan" try or fail at something? If by "Error" you mean that the species dies off, may I remind you that everything dies at some point. Who's to know to keep track of the cause of death? How is it determined that a genetic mutation was or wasn't beneficial to a certain specimen, or even an entire species? and if this is determined at all, where is the information preserved?

Besides.. if the point of evolution is to progress a species further, it must be progressing towards something. Otherwise, progression would not exist.

I'm not saying there has to be a master plan.. I'm saying that at this stage in human evolution, it should appear to all of us that there is no other option. However, (there are humorous, obviously human-created, ideas for intelligent design(ie. religions)) and loads of other external (human created) stimuli that causes humans as a whole to view things in a very closed-minded way. I fear we have evolved so far in the wrong direction by misusing our intelligence, that we are likely not going to get back on track for hundreds of thousands of years if at all. The whole point of our species is to survive, yet we still exterminate each other. I know that the reasons for this are very deep and varied, which is why I mentioned that we have evolved to accept "that's just how it always has been and always will be" which is disappointing to say the least. We're talking about our species as a whole probably being a failure... Perhaps frogs will take our place once we have blown each other up lol.

 Though by the obvious complexity of nature.. I wouldn't be surprised if everything on Earth were to exist only to serve humans just to be able to create weapons to blow up the Earth itself killing everything on it just so a piece of rock can shoot out from the Earth into space colliding with another by passing asteroid just to slightly change it's direction(for whatever reason). This may sound unlikely, but at this point, it is just as likely and unlikely to us as every other theory.

 But It is most likely something we cannot fully comprehend with the limited brain power our species currently possess. We assume it's "intelligence" simply because we have no other way of wording it. Humans are "intelligent"- we are conscious and aware and we have the ability to think and create ideas and make things... so we personify what we can't understand and say that since everything is here, it had to be made by something, and if it was made, then it had to be by some sort of "intelligence".

Considering all the infinite amount of other possibilities, I should assume that the chances of everything being the result of another "being" or intelligent designer are incorrect.

I have many theories and I would love to believe them all, but then I remember that I'm probably incorrect and will also probably never find the answer. But like the Yucca Moth, I must do what my INSTINCT tells me- think, explore, and expand my knowledge..even though I may never see the results.

If evolution is random, why are we able to explain it?
If it can be explained, it is not random. By the way, I believe there is no such thing as "random."

And to add to the OP's topic.. Think about how wings for animals and insects were developed in the first place.. How did evolution learn air molecules could be manipulated? How do strawberries "know" they will be eaten so that their seeds are distributed in animal sh1t(let alone, how are they developed to withstand stomach acid...or that there are beings with stomachs that eat)?

How do dandelions know to use the wind to their advantage to spread their seeds?

Everyone who brushes these clues of nature off as "that's just how it is" has a lot of learning to do.
Nothing exists because that's is "just how it is". Take your heads out of the box, and try to look at the big picture... and I'm not talking about the big picture everyone looks at. Think of you're own "Big Picture"..There are so, so many things that we don't know and have not discovered.. The only thing we can do in our search for explanations is allow room for all the potential variables of undiscovered things in our theory results. This leads to an unlimited number of theories. Which is a good thing, cause as they say if everyone's thinking the same thing, someone is not thinking.

If you break it down to main points and byproducts of that point... Everything becomes a byproduct of something else.. continuing back until you have the beginning of time..but then is that a byproduct of something? Theoretically, everything should be a byproduct of one thing.. that One thing is the answer.

My personal favorite theory- Life(and everything) is a result of the most beautiful fractal "equation". How it was created or why it exists is open for discussion, but I feel this can explain the conservation of information theory, and how "instinct" exists. This means that to me, God is, and is in Everything.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #261 on: 30/07/2010 06:04:02 »

By the way, I believe there is no such thing as "random."


That's strange, because it struck me that your post might just be a collection of random thoughts.  ;D

Anyway, can you back any of this up with scientific evidence?
 

Offline BreakBeatPoet

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #262 on: 30/07/2010 08:42:27 »


That's strange, because it struck me that your post might just be a collection of random thoughts.  ;D

Anyway, can you back any of this up with scientific evidence?


Yes, indeed it WAS a collection of seemingly-random thoughts. Was just surfin the forums and thought I'd add in my 2 cents -which turned out to be closer to a few bucks. lol I do apologize for my disorganization, though.. And as far as scientific evidence... which part? Most of it is abstract thought about what shouldn't be abstract. Again, I just wanted to lay down my own opinion. What do you think?
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #263 on: 02/08/2010 18:29:37 »
Besides.. if the point of evolution is to progress a species further, it must be progressing towards something. Otherwise, progression would not exist.
Evolution does not have a point. what makes you think it does?
 

Offline BreakBeatPoet

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #264 on: 16/08/2010 20:32:11 »
Evolution does not have a point. what makes you think it does?

Why else would it exist? Progression/improvement would not occur if there was no reason for it. We see the small scale of it's purpose as being "species survival" but why must a species survive? What is the large scale purpose for evolution?

The logic behind my thinking is that since nature is obviously continually "improving" itself through evolution, nature must be considered a progressing entity. And progress of any kind cannot occur without a beginning AND an end or "goal". (that goal may be to infinitely improve or arrange itself, but it is still a goal). The need for an end for progression to exist is why I believe that nature must have a point or goal for evolution.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #265 on: 16/08/2010 20:47:48 »
I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. It's not at all logical to assume that because there is improvement, it is for a reason. A very basic understanding of the process of evolution would show you that this is not the case.
 

Offline BreakBeatPoet

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #266 on: 16/08/2010 20:59:32 »
Do not be sorry! Disagreement is good! It helps us learn. What I'm saying is I don't think a basic understanding of evolution yet exists. I believe we have but scratched the surface of that process. But explain to me how you can have improvement without having a purpose for improvement?
« Last Edit: 16/08/2010 21:22:42 by BreakBeatPoet »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #267 on: 17/08/2010 09:28:39 »
The "improvement" is merely a result of the process.  But a basic understanding of the process is enough - things that are better suited are more likely to survive and pass their "better suited-ness" on to the next generation.  Therefore the next generation is, on average, better suited to it's environment.  No aims, no goals, no intention.
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #268 on: 17/08/2010 12:27:44 »
Evolution does not have a point. what makes you think it does?
Why else would it exist?
What is the purpose of gravity? What is it for?
Why does hydrogen combine so readily with oxygen? What is the purpose of that?
Why does the universe create heirarchical structures? What is its purpose?

 
Progression/improvement would not occur if there was no reason for it.
1. What makes you think the evolution of eukaryotes constituted an improvent? Why do you beleive that the emegence of intelligence was progress?
2. Do you insist that the progress from an amorphous gas/dust cloud to an ordered suite of star, planets and attendant bodies had a reason?

We see the small scale of it's purpose as being "species survival" but why must a species survive? 
Why must a stone fall to ground? Why must hydrogen atoms combine, under the right conditions, to form helium? Why do the right conditions exist? Surely they must exist for a reason?
[/quote]There isn't one.

The logic behind my thinking is that since nature is obviously continually "improving" itself through evolution, nature must be considered a progressing entity.
Breaking news: Nature's peak of progress and acme of improvement is currently in the process of destroying much of the diversity painstakingly built up over millions of years. Is this a normal practice for a progressive entity?
 

Offline BigBuddha

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #269 on: 24/03/2015 17:42:34 »
I have read most of the replies in this post. That being said my added voice will most likely be drowned out sheer magnitude of replies. However since the discussion has devolved into an evolution vs. design debate I would like to add my two cents.

First cent. I think that the first thing that must be proven is can there be both evolution and intelligent design or must it be one or the other. Through my admittedly humble education - mostly self taught - I have never found a single case of intelligent design, including the examples here. Which I will debunk in part two. that cannot be explained by long slow evolution. Evolution on the other hand is not only evident but faster than many believe. Take the humans for example. The advent of glasses and laser eye surgery has eliminated natural selection of the poor sighted as a result the numbers of poor sighted humans are growing astronomically. Women will mate with nearly blind men and produce nearly blind babies. Who throughout most of the world would have died or at least not propagated as little as 400 years ago. Then there are dogs. Forced evolution by breeding all manner of oddities have been created just by selective breeding.

Second cent. In the originating post the possibility of co-evolution was discarded off-hand. That is what I find absurd. It must seem illogical to you because as a creationist your mind does not allow for a timeline so vast that the human mind can scarcely fathom it much less practically apply it to a theory. The very small blip of one million years is so long it defies understanding and could create a great many changes in a single species series until it settles into something that lasts for a few thousand years. Long enough that the miracle that is fossilization might catch a few and give us a snapshot of a species. Most species are never fossilized so quoting the absence of a species fossil is scientific folly. Yet species evolution often spans Hundreds of millions of years and the variations and details of evolution could account for every example given here and so much more. The whale with legs was given as a counter example and then discounted as being the possible result of human pollution. I would say that is how evolution works. A pollutant or is introduced, some animals develop genetic anomalies those that help survive and thrive those that don't eventually die off. If in a few thousand years the whales start leaving the polluted water on their legs then evolution has done its job. Evolution is not always fast enough which is why there are no dinosaurs anymore. 

Lastly. I am very dissappointed I was really hoping to read about some brain scans and behavioral analysis. Some real in depth studies on what is passed down from generation to generation. Answers to questions like "are new things added or lost generationally? If so, How? Why?" You know science.

 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #270 on: 30/03/2015 06:46:02 »
First cent. I think that the first thing that must be proven is can there be both evolution and intelligent design or must it be one or the other.
Your subsequent argument proves nothing. You assert that evolution has been observed. This is true. You assert that intelligent design has not been observed by you. It does not logically follow that you have demonstrated that evolution and intelligent design cannot co-exist.

A suggestion: don't talk of proof. Science does not generally deal in proof.

Second cent. In the originating post the possibility of co-evolution was discarded off-hand. That is what I find absurd. It must seem illogical to you because as a creationist your mind does not allow for a timeline so vast that the human mind can scarcely fathom it much less practically apply it to a theory.
The OPs objections appears to be that there is no obvious reason for instinct to evolve, not that there is insufficient time for this to occur.

Side comment: you overestimate the role of "pollution" in generating diversity. While "pollutants" do induce mutations in the germ cells, most mutations are a consequence of "chance".
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #270 on: 30/03/2015 06:46:02 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums