Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[Gene2memE]

Instincts are just a subset of genetically driven behaviors. When the behaviors are useful or beneficial they propagate. If they are detrimental the are selected against. The ones that survive thousands of generations are the ones we call instincts.

Kinda-sorta. Instincts are not just gene centered behaviours. There is an entire cascade of interrelated causal factors, and these vary from instinct to instinct and animal to animal. Everything from brain structures to gut behaviours. Potentially microbiota even play a role.

While it's clear we don't understand everything about instinctual behaviours and how they evolve, it's also clear genes do have a strong role. It's also clear that instinctive behaviours are part of the evolutionary process.

For instance, use of gene editing/deletion has been show to modify or eliminate certain instinctual behaviours in animals like fruit flies, worms and mice: Open questions: Tackling Darwin’s “instincts”: the genetic basis of behavioral evolution

Other research has shown that certain instinctive behaviours can be triggered by something as simple as light stimulation of certain brain tissue:

Lasers activate killer instinct in mice - Nature

Stimulating certain areas of the animals’ brains can trigger predatory behaviours including biting and grabbing.

www.nature.com

Here's a short and interesting article on the role of epigenetics in turning learned behaviours into instincts:

https://www.epialliance.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Robinson-Barron-2017_Epigenetics-and-the-evolution-of-instincts.pdf

Of course we can emulate it. It's called the air travel industry. All kidding aside, we have plenty of navigational skills without technologies, we just use them in a different fashion. (We also have no evolutionary need to fly under our own power.)

Birds do have innate guidance systems as well. Birds likely navigate long distances via the use of specialised cells in their eyes and beaks that help to pick up Earth's magnetic field. Short article: Magnetic navigation: Songbirds use the Earth's magnetic field as a stop sign during migration

 

[Aussie Pete]

Symbiosis is just two creatures living side by side to the benefit of both. Any change to either that improves that mutual benefit enhances both and is selectively favored.

Instincts are just a subset of genetically driven behaviors. When the behaviors are useful or beneficial they propagate. If they are detrimental the are selected against. The ones that survive thousands of generations are the ones we call instincts.

Of course we can emulate it. It's called the air travel industry. All kidding aside, we have plenty of navigational skills without technologies, we just use them in a different fashion. (We also have no evolutionary need to fly under our own power.)

Human languages are just learned sets of signals using basic grammatical (and likely instinctual) patterns. Other animals have signaling systems for communication including vocalizations. Ours are just the most sophisticated.

Science doesn't do "why". "Why" implies intent and evolution isn't about intent.

That is a sexual display that communicates the male's health to choosy females looking to select a mate. Maintaining an intact display demonstrates the fitness and health of the male to avoid disease and predators.

I counted 4.

Language is not automatically passed onto offspring. It's not genetic. If early man communicated in grunts then we would still be grunting. Then again, teenagers may be throwbacks.......... just kidding.

Symbiosis fails if the pair does not evolve at exactly the same time. If one is an insect or bird, it has to be male and female at exactly the same time. The odds on a breeding pair appearing simultaneously are absurdly low for any creature, let alone a symbiotic pair. That's a 3-way thing if it's plant/insect relationship.

Man does not instinctively fly. He had to invent navigation, sextant, chronometer and now GPS. Birds, with their tiny brains, have all the skills built in.

How can instinct be genetic? Fear, for example. Without a survival instinct, a critter is doomed. Something will eat it. That's assuming that it knows what food is, yet another unanswerable question. If the creature is not programmed to move away from danger, it will not survive. It will not be able to learn because it is being digested by something else.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Language is not automatically passed onto offspring. It's not genetic. If early man communicated in grunts then we would still be grunting. Then again, teenagers may be throwbacks.......... just kidding.

I didn't say that. We have brain structures and processes that allow us to learn language by hearing it. These are intrinsic features and are inherited.

Symbiosis fails if the pair does not evolve at exactly the same time. If one is an insect or bird, it has to be male and female at exactly the same time. The odds on a breeding pair appearing simultaneously are absurdly low for any creature, let alone a symbiotic pair. That's a 3-way thing if it's plant/insect relationship.

What?

Man does not instinctively fly. He had to invent navigation, sextant, chronometer and now GPS. Birds, with their tiny brains, have all the skills built in.

So what? And birds don't instinctively suckle milk from their mothers like humans and all mammals do.

How can instinct be genetic? Fear, for example. Without a survival instinct, a critter is doomed. Something will eat it. That's assuming that it knows what food is, yet another unanswerable question. If the creature is not programmed to move away from danger, it will not survive. It will not be able to learn because it is being digested by something else.

See Gene's post above. He is more through. Instincts are behaviors and genes influence the brain structures and neurochemistry the drives behaviors (and is influenced by stimuli). The only way a truly instinctual behavior can occur (no learning from others of your species) is if the behavior is strongly influenced by inherited characters.

 

[Hammster]

So you are saying that science as it is taught should be discontinued when it contradicts the bible.

Yes. My answers haven’t been clouded in mystery.

 

[Hammster]

Science doesn't do interpretation.

Lol. Mkay.

 

[Hammster]

The question is whether you think I am a Christian for being a scientist and no I am not Dr Who or a Gallifreyan.

I’ll try it this way. Are you born again? Are you regenerate? If so, you are a Christian.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes. My answers haven’t been clouded in mystery.

So science ends. It would be useless. Nothing could be trusted. The equipment on which you are reading this wouldn't exist. The job you have wouldn't exist. There'd be no food in a non existent fridge. Society would collapse within weeks. Literally everything depends on science working in an expected manner.

Your simplistic answer is as clear as it can be. It's not the answer that surprises me. It's your utter incomprehension of what it entails which has me beat. Is that what is required to push for what you say you want? Ignorance of the outcome?

 

[Bradskii]

Language is not automatically passed onto offspring. It's not genetic. If early man communicated in grunts then we would still be grunting. Then again, teenagers may be throwbacks.......... just kidding.

Symbiosis fails if the pair does not evolve at exactly the same time. If one is an insect or bird, it has to be male and female at exactly the same time. The odds on a breeding pair appearing simultaneously are absurdly low for any creature, let alone a symbiotic pair. That's a 3-way thing if it's plant/insect relationship.

Man does not instinctively fly. He had to invent navigation, sextant, chronometer and now GPS. Birds, with their tiny brains, have all the skills built in.

How can instinct be genetic? Fear, for example. Without a survival instinct, a critter is doomed. Something will eat it. That's assuming that it knows what food is, yet another unanswerable question. If the creature is not programmed to move away from danger, it will not survive. It will not be able to learn because it is being digested by something else.

Your earlier posts indicated a lack of knowledge re evolution. Your later ones are only confirming it. Instead of asking random questions, why not take the time to Google the answers yourself?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Lol. Mkay.

We leave that stuff to religion.

 

[driewerf]

True science does that. It starts with God and what is revealed in His word.

No.
True science starts with data.
Preferably data that doesn't fit the existent theories or understanding of the world. based on that new hypothesis are formulated, which are tested against new data.
This post is one of the many in which (despite your denial) you take an anti-science attitude.

 

[Hammster]

So science ends.

No.

 

[Hammster]

No.
True science starts with data.
Preferably data that doesn't fit the existent theories or understanding of the world. based on that new hypothesis are formulated, which are tested against new data.
This post is one of the many in which (despite your denial) you take an anti-science attitude.

Why is your starting point the correct starting point?

 

[Hammster]

We leave that stuff to religion.

Yeah. Keep telling yourself that.

 

[driewerf]

Why is your starting point the correct starting point?

It is not my starting point, but the one from the scientific method.
More to the point: because of the results it yields.

 

[Hammster]

It is not my starting point, but the one from the scientific method.
More to the point: because of the results it yields.

I see. So the ends justify the means.

 

[driewerf]

I see. So the ends justify the means.

I fail to see the relevance of your answer to my post.
So please clarify, what do you think are the means, what do you think are the ends ?
How do you think your answer was relevant about the scientific method?

 

[Hammster]

I fail to see the relevance of your answer to my post.
So please clarify, what do you think are the means, what do you think are the ends ?
How do you think your answer was relevant about the scientific method?

You say it starts with data. How do you determine what data to use?

 

[driewerf]

You say it starts with data. How do you determine what data to use?

I am sorry to say so, but I fail again to follow you. The failure is probably mine. What has the “determination” of what data to work with to do with the “ends” and “means” in your previous post?

 

[Hammster]

I am sorry to say so, but I fail again to follow you. The failure is probably mine. What has the “determination” of what data to work with to do with the “ends” and “means” in your previous post?

You implied that the ends (because of the results it yields) made starting with data right way to do science, ie. the means.

So how do you determine what data to use? Or maybe more importantly, what data to exclude?

 

[driewerf]

You implied that the ends (because of the results it yields) made starting with data right way to do science, ie. the means.

So how do you determine what data to use? Or maybe more importantly, what data to exclude?

In scientific research, excluding data is a big no-no.
Once an equipment piece is calibrated and the control tests have been done and are within acceptance range, all produced data is considered valid. And excluding valid data is a big no-no. Scientific research is meant to discover new things, to expand our understanding of physical world. So outliers, unexpected results and anomalies are not be swept under the carpet. They are to be investigated. Because they might point to something to be explored and yet to understand. So what data to use: the data that the observation, measurement or experiment provides.
Do you remember this post of mine:

Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

They really don’t need dating. The rocks don't need dating? Why not? How else shall we known the geological history of a place? (In this case eastern Washington and Oregon.)

www.christianforums.com

in which I gave some examples of stuff we see with an age that lies way out of the range of 6.000 to 10.000 years. You just dismissed it as wrong (Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...).
Again, dismissing valid data denotes an anti-scientific attitude. These measurements don’t go away because creationists don’t like them, or because they show creationists wrong. They are valid. They tell us something about the world, about the physical reality.