Whenever a behavior is inherently preformed without being based on teaching, modelling, or past experience (trial and error) we call it “instinctual”. Recently however scientists are concluding that it is more likely that these propensities and abilities are somehow already written in the genetic code or are pre-coded into what becomes their developed brain. In the former such actions would occur on a purely biological basis but if the latter is more correct (still being based in genetic transmission) then it could constitute what we could call “knowledge”, or imply that important survival based memory is itself inherited.
Most likely in the end we will discover it is both the pre-planned program of the DNA but also the knowledge/experience being somewhat passed on (thus not nature or nurture or nature versus nurture but nature plus nurture).
Examples include why Marsupials naturally know to climb into their mother’s pouch, or why all animal infants naturally suck or go for the breast, or why fish are born already knowing how to swim properly, or why newly hatched turtles automatically migrate toward the water.
These are complex systems of behavior automatically specific to each particular species. It even plays out in later ritually fathomed behaviors like courting rituals and the determination of social status within the group.
Being curious to some as to why humans, whom we allege to be potentially the most intelligent of creatures, seem to need the most assistance in adjusting and survival, some believe there may be an almost inversely proportional relationship between the higher order of brain and a lesser need for determined or encoded instinctual know how.
One can see how such pre-planned results (not similar to reflexes or the product of mere chemical reactions, yet still inherent in the newly born or developing offspring) are already built in. They are the result of code expression may be interpreted in a number of ways. It is directly analogous to how a software might be specific to a particular hardware.
Some of these that we label “fixed action patterns” appear to be initiated by a type of “sign stimulus” having once occurred kicks off the remaining or subsequent program function until it plays out to perform its intended end result or purpose (see the work of Konrad Lorenz). Therefore, though to call this “part of the design of each species” (though it would offend some depending on their paradigm) is not at all unlike a predetermined programming which is simply far beyond our ability to figure out at this time, and thus predetermined or pre-coded design is a possibility equally plausible to any other explanation of the actual data we observe. However, though present and observable in all primates and all great apes just as in all lesser species, human beings alone exhibit no such FAP’s.
From what we can tell, this species specific and survival essential programing directed the first of each of these species as assuredly as it has its offspring all the way down to present times. There is nothing to suggest the first (however many) fish offspring did not automatically know how to swim properly and know how to seek and obtain food and distinguish the good from the not good or that the earliest turtles did not migrate toward the water immediately following the hatching process, and so on.
Should one really just assume that such pre-coded knowledge, unique yet specifically essential to each different type of organism, just came about by random coincidence and mutation? If random as opposed to specific instructions were in play, I would suggest a far wider range of difference would occur within each species.
What do you think?
Most likely in the end we will discover it is both the pre-planned program of the DNA but also the knowledge/experience being somewhat passed on (thus not nature or nurture or nature versus nurture but nature plus nurture).
Examples include why Marsupials naturally know to climb into their mother’s pouch, or why all animal infants naturally suck or go for the breast, or why fish are born already knowing how to swim properly, or why newly hatched turtles automatically migrate toward the water.
These are complex systems of behavior automatically specific to each particular species. It even plays out in later ritually fathomed behaviors like courting rituals and the determination of social status within the group.
Being curious to some as to why humans, whom we allege to be potentially the most intelligent of creatures, seem to need the most assistance in adjusting and survival, some believe there may be an almost inversely proportional relationship between the higher order of brain and a lesser need for determined or encoded instinctual know how.
One can see how such pre-planned results (not similar to reflexes or the product of mere chemical reactions, yet still inherent in the newly born or developing offspring) are already built in. They are the result of code expression may be interpreted in a number of ways. It is directly analogous to how a software might be specific to a particular hardware.
Some of these that we label “fixed action patterns” appear to be initiated by a type of “sign stimulus” having once occurred kicks off the remaining or subsequent program function until it plays out to perform its intended end result or purpose (see the work of Konrad Lorenz). Therefore, though to call this “part of the design of each species” (though it would offend some depending on their paradigm) is not at all unlike a predetermined programming which is simply far beyond our ability to figure out at this time, and thus predetermined or pre-coded design is a possibility equally plausible to any other explanation of the actual data we observe. However, though present and observable in all primates and all great apes just as in all lesser species, human beings alone exhibit no such FAP’s.
From what we can tell, this species specific and survival essential programing directed the first of each of these species as assuredly as it has its offspring all the way down to present times. There is nothing to suggest the first (however many) fish offspring did not automatically know how to swim properly and know how to seek and obtain food and distinguish the good from the not good or that the earliest turtles did not migrate toward the water immediately following the hatching process, and so on.
Should one really just assume that such pre-coded knowledge, unique yet specifically essential to each different type of organism, just came about by random coincidence and mutation? If random as opposed to specific instructions were in play, I would suggest a far wider range of difference would occur within each species.
What do you think?
