Korean Job Discussion Forums

[huck]

I believe in evolution....but I have questions.

How does a learned behavior get passed down so that it becomes instinct? For instance, let's say the first beavers didn't make dams, but then one day, one of them made it by accident, or it slowly learned over time how to make one...Maybe this beaver's offspring learned from watching daddy, and they passed on the knowledge.

But that doesn't explain how all beavers are born with this instinctive knowledge...

Or spiders and web-making...

Or birds and building nests...

Or even humans and walking upright...Even without anyone around, I think a baby would eventually learn to walk on two feet...how did this become instinct when it was probably originally a choice...When did it change from standing upright to reach food or look for danger to instinctively walking upright?

I can accept physical changes due to evolution, but I don't understand how behavior or imitation can eventually make it's way into the dna so that it's passed on to the offspring...especially when other members a thousand miles away (over time) of the species exhibit similar behavior.

If you were to consider spirits, you could say that all beaver spirits come from the same place (ala The Celestine Prophecy), and when a spirit returns to the place after living, it passes on any important knowledge that it's learned during it's stay on earth, and this knowledge get incorporated into the DNA......but I don't think this is right.

Or maybe there is another invisible way of passing on knowledge, such as DNA of separate animals of the same species communicating with each other, but again...I don't think so..

Maybe all of these instincts are already encoded and certain actions trigger them to make them become dominant, instinctive actions....

But mine are just conjectures. Does anyone have anything more substantial?

[out of context]

[khyber]

Some random thoughts;
most of it is kinda rabbling on, so take what you will.

*Sometimes behaviours aren't "learned" so much as they are adapted. More on that at the end.

*But I think to frame the discussion, it should be noted that a study of how ancestral beavers survived, and how they constructed their homes would be of great benefit. It isn't a matter of just "a beaver suddenly learning to build a dam" necessarily: Perhaps there were many populations of beavers who all created homes; some created dams out of necessity, some didn't.
Those who didn't (i'm talkin about a whole "population" here) create dams found their ecosystem had changed in such a way (or, more than likely, they were more succeptable to hunters) as.
It's possible that these sorts of changes came about during the ice ages.

*Perhaps natural dams had been in place and beavers took advantage of those places. Then slowly, the individuals who lived in those types of homes were reproducing more than the damless (who would have been dying off). Then perhaps several individuals learned to patch UP broken dams...then perhaps...half dams... and so on....

just like "What about bob?"...

Baby steps out the door...baby steps down the hall...baby steps to the elevator...baby steps get in the elevetor...
like so

[RACETRAITOR]

Behaviour can be based on genetics in some ways. Humans are a little less obvious than other animals, but we're wired to behave in certain ways just like every other animal.

And just to throw some fire on the Creationists, why did God program us to have sexual thoughts?

[Moldy Rutabaga]

[Rteacher]

Here's some food for thought - I think relevant to this topic - developed by a western-trained scientist who is also a follower of the Vedas:

Inverse Evolution
The Vedas elaborately describe a complex process of evolution proceeding from subtle designs to the physical manifestation of these designs in matter. According to this account, the universal controller directly generates a primary subordinate controller who generates secondary controllers by an asexual process. These secondary controllers have the capacity for sexual reproduction. not only to generate their own kind but also to generate other species. They contain within their bodies design information for varieties of organisms. This information, which exists in seedlike subtle forms, originates in the intelligence of the universal controller, who transmits it to the subordinate controllers (demigods). Finally the lesser controllers manifest this design information in the forms of varieties of species, which go on to reproduce themselves. The Vedas, written thousands of years before Darwin's time, thus contain the world's oldest account of evolution. However, this Vedic process reflects the original meaning of the word evolution, which refers to an unfolding of something existing in an undeveloped form rather than the random production of something entirely new by physical processes.

The account of the origin of species given in the Vedas is similar to Darwinian evolution in that it involves physical descent from a common ancestor and the appearance of new species by sexual reproduction. The Vedic evolutionary concept differs from the Darwinian in that the common ancestor is a superintelligent being, not a single-celled creature. Also, the progression of descent is from more complex forms to simpler ones. It may thus be called "inverse evolution," with some of the first steps occurring beyond the earth.

Even some modern scientists have considered the idea of design information being transmitted from a higher source. Robert Broom, who discovered some of the the early australopithecus remains in Africa, wrote. "The origin of species and of much of evolution appears to be due to some organizing and partly intelligent spiritual agency associated with the animal or plant, which controls its life processes and tends to keep the being more or less adapted to its environment. But in addition to this there seem to be other spiritual agencies of a much higher type which have been responsible for what may be called greater evolution. . . . These spiritual agencies appear to have worked by directing from time to time the inferior agencies which are associated with the animals and plants."(7) Broom's idea, although not exactly parallel to the Vedic concept, shares with it the notion of higher directing intelligences.

Similar thoughts have been expressed by Alfred Russell Wallace, who along with Darwin is credited with the formulation of the theory of evolution by natural selection. He wrote in The World of Life, "If there is such an Infinite Being, and if . . . his will and purpose is the increase of conscious beings, then we can hardly be the first result of this purpose. We conclude, therefore, that there are now in the universe infinite grades of power, infinite grades of knowledge and wisdom, infinite grades of influence of higher beings upon lower. Holding this opinion, I have suggested that this vast and wonderful universe, with its almost infinite variety of forms, motions and reactions of parts upon part, from suns and systems up to plant-life, animal-life and the human living soul, has ever required and still requires the continuous coordinated agency of myriads of such intelligences."(



Unlike the majority of scientists, Wallace is prepared to accept that there is such a thing as purpose in the universe. But his statement about "the human living soul" shows he is adhering to the standard Western conception that only human beings have souls. The Vedas, however, teach that all living organisms have souls and that in addition to the evolution of physical forms, there is a second evolutionary process involving the transmigration of souls.

The soul is understood to be a unique indestructible unit of consciousness emanating from the universal conscious entity. These individual units of consciousness can be seen as identical in substance with the universal consciousness but much smaller in relative size and power.

The units of consciousness within the bodies of all species are thus qualitatively identical with each other, yet display a certain range of powers and abilities based upon the particular characteristics of the physical forms they inhabit. To understand this principle we can consider how a human driver can manifest different abilities according to the type of vehicle he is riding in. On a bicycle, a human can achieve a certain speed, but in a high-powered sports car, the speed and power increase. In an airplane, the human can fly and in a boat can cruise over water. In the same way, the conscious selves inhabiting different bodies manifest different powers and abilities, although they are all essentially identical
http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~ghi/origchap.html

[Porter_Goss]

Does anyone even bother to read posts by Rteacher?

[Rteacher]

Probably most don't bother with 'em - they're way too deep, clearly exceeding the prevailing common denominators of mundane secular meat-head fare...

[Moldy Rutabaga]

mmm.. prevailing common denominators of mundane secular meat-head fare...

Ken:>

[the_beaver]

[khyber]

behaviour CAN be based on genetics to SOME extent but not to the "gene for dam building"...<an exaggeration of your point...i know you're smarter than that>

apes using shoots of grass to get ants out of an ant hill is a behaviour that gets TAUGHT.

Behaviours can, of course, be LIMITED by genetics. Or perhaps they can create a NEED for a CHANGE in a behaviour but they aren't directly related.

just for fun...let me read rteacher...wait..fun?
Ahh....I see...a vague lexicon of words hijacked from everyday English and invested with new meaning that isn't described.

So THAT'S why people don't read the man.

But from what I understood...it isn't all THAt similar to evolution.

This is my favourite overly verbose selection (and there were a LOT):

[SirFink]

[Rteacher]

At least "Moldy rutabega's" post was funny and clever. "Porter Goss" made a clever post at my expense, but too mean-spirited. (I won't comment on "beaver's" post 'cause he's still evolving...) "Khyber's" criticism is unfair as it is based on a relatively short excerpt from a much longer work by Richard L. Thompson, who has written numerous books and is well credentialed:

About the Author
Richard L. Thompson is a mathematician, who received his Ph.D. in probability theory and statistical mechanics from Cornell University in 1974. He has written over 25 academic papers, scripts for several video productions, and several books on science and philosophy including: Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science, Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy, and Mysteries of the Sacred Universe. He also has a number of published works in the field of mathematical biology including the textbook, Computer Simulations of Self-Organization in Biological Systems, with N. S. Goel.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0963530909/103-1016574-5780624
http://www.bagchee.com/BookDisplay.aspx?Bkid=B26036

[shortskirt_longjacket]

[shortskirt_longjacket]

pentagons don't tesselate as nicely as hexagons.