How we behave

Why do u think Dogs wipe their arse off the grass after a shit? OK some will argue that there unpleasant stings and pains if it doesn't (truly sorry for this :) ) but I believe that there was a dog way back one time who started off doing this behaviour because he had a mutant gene for doing so and that gene was spread through the gene pool over time. Probably not VERY fast becasue having a dirty arse isn't a matter of life and eath in most cases but it is slightly advantageous!
 
I also believe a slower method of adaptation may also be involved in this evolution. For example I believe that out of a huge population, one or two dogs realise that wiping on the grass will remedy the painful feelings (and that is what we call learning). If this has any sort of survival advantage then I believe that those dogs' offspring are also more likely to realise and learn this trick (even without learning off parents) and hence the evolution of genetically programmed intelligence and intelligent behaviour.
 
A simple example then.

Certain chimp groups crack nuts...others don't. It has nothing to do with genes. Some individuals discovered the nutcracking and have spread this behaviour in their group not with their genes, but by others copying the behaviour.


Where are the genes here then?
 
John Connellan posts: "Why do u think Dogs wipe their arse off the grass ...........I believe that there was a dog way back one time who started off doing this behaviour because he had a mutant gene......."

The truth is, dogs do this because of annal glands. Especially small dogs have need help to keep annal glands clean. One cannot blame this on evolution so much as deliberate breeding. [This information can be verified with any vet.] PMT
 
Spurious I'm not sure what john connelan is saying exactly but what about the genetic predisposition to want to copy others?
Thats just how mammals work, their in built instincts are vague, like empty moulds that are to be filled with clay, and experience crafts them into the final product. But they were still predisposed to basically become something like this or that, relying on an adeqate upbringing to get them their. Cultural evolution is still evolution.
And chimps are also predisposed to be inquisitive and inventive, and so cracking a nut or sticking a twig into a termites nest is, in a way, instinctual. Even though one had to figure it out for himself. He was genetically set up to figure out things like that.
Same with humans to a more elaborate degree. Elaborate but, in its essence, the exact same thing and the same thing as a frog's instincts as well.
The more elaborate part is just an advanced version with more fancy "high tech" gadgets, Instincts v. 4.0, still very much a biological machine.
It seems many people think as soon as the evolutionary tree spawned homo-sapiens a huge transformation was made at the very core of this animal and it was completely unlike any other animal in the history of earth. People say humans and animals.
Well its just obviously not true. All animals are just some kind of 'advancement' on their ancestors, and so are we. Which means all the basic mechanics of our bodies and minds function the same way. They might specialise in this or go a little further into that but they are still the same kind of vehicle as any other animal. They are all just "cars" if you will, ours might have a refridgerated drink holder and heated seats but its still just a car that runs on an engine like any other car.
 
While I completely understand making comparisons between animal behavior and human behavior, I think it's easy to run the risk of making direct comparisons. We have absolutely no evidence that a dog is self-aware. Just keep that in mind when comparing the behavior of a dog to that of a human.

And for what it's worth, a dog dragging its bum along the ground is quite often a sign that said dog has worms.
 
Dr Lou Natic said:
Spurious I'm not sure what john connelan is saying exactly but what about the genetic predisposition to want to copy others?
Thats just how mammals work, their in built instincts are vague, like empty moulds that are to be filled with clay, and experience crafts them into the final product. But they were still predisposed to basically become something like this or that, relying on an adeqate upbringing to get them their. Cultural evolution is still evolution.
And chimps are also predisposed to be inquisitive and inventive, and so cracking a nut or sticking a twig into a termites nest is, in a way, instinctual. Even though one had to figure it out for himself. He was genetically set up to figure out things like that.
Same with humans to a more elaborate degree. Elaborate but, in its essence, the exact same thing and the same thing as a frog's instincts as well.
The more elaborate part is just an advanced version with more fancy "high tech" gadgets, Instincts v. 4.0, still very much a biological machine.
It seems many people think as soon as the evolutionary tree spawned homo-sapiens a huge transformation was made at the very core of this animal and it was completely unlike any other animal in the history of earth. People say humans and animals.
Well its just obviously not true. All animals are just some kind of 'advancement' on their ancestors, and so are we. Which means all the basic mechanics of our bodies and minds function the same way. They might specialise in this or go a little further into that but they are still the same kind of vehicle as any other animal. They are all just "cars" if you will, ours might have a refridgerated drink holder and heated seats but its still just a car that runs on an engine like any other car.
Click to expand...

I understand that but the particular behaviour that can make a single population succesful is not present in the genetic composition of this group. In fact, we can have 2 equal groups of mammals, but one will replace the other because they learned a succesful behaviour.

There is nothing to select upon (between the two groups) because it is not a genetically determined behaviour.

A nut cracking chimp wanders to another group wich doesn't know how to crack nuts. They learn it from the one chimp. They could have the same genetic background, they could be also totally different.

This behaviour is not encoded in the genetic material on any level but a very vague one. Chimps are smart and try out things. There is not selection for this trait, because the other chimp group is doing exactly the same thing. Maybe they discovered how to eat termites with a stick.

Where is the selection on a genetic level then?

John Connellan said:
In other words, every thing we do is (over some time-scale) calculated subconsciously to be conducive to the replication of our genes.
Click to expand...

It was clearly an important feature of the proposed theory.

If not, then there is nothing new under the sun.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
A simple example then.

Certain chimp groups crack nuts...others don't. It has nothing to do with genes. Some individuals discovered the nutcracking and have spread this behaviour in their group not with their genes, but by others copying the behaviour.

Where are the genes here then?
Click to expand...

Yes but this behaviour is another one of evolutions ways of getting the chimps to pass on their genes. For some reason u seem to think I am saying that we should all be behaving the same way according to my theory, even though I said in one of my last posts : u have to realise, Im not saying we are robots!. I think there is genetic variation within a species and so there will be beavioural variation (due to the direct link between them). The thing is, over a long enough timescale, even though there could be still some variation in the population, all of the behaviour will be driven by the underlying need to reproduce (which the animal of course may not feel).
 
John Connellan said:
I think there is genetic variation within a species and so there will be beavioural variation (due to the direct link between them).
Click to expand...

Sure, but your assumption that there is always a direct link between behavioural variation and genetic variation is wrong as can clearly seen by given examples and ones other people have give.


It is basically a revamp of the classic nature vs nurture debate.
 
Last edited:
I never would say every single behaviour was specifically selected for by evolution, but I do believe every behaviour stems from some general style of behaviour favoured by evolution.
What the behaviour becomes exactly, ie cracking nuts on rocks, is decided upon by experience and environment.
You could still say that behaviour was favoured by evolution but mean simply being inventive was favoured by evolution.
Once animals started being raised by their parents and taught thats just what instincts became; the fine details of the final product depending on experience. But there is still a predisposition mammals are born with that yearns for certain kinds of experience to fill out or sculpt the instinct into a finished product.
Like it is largely accepted that serial killers are actually born that way, BUT many people are born that way and don't become serial killers.
The predisposition has to be nurtured a certain way for it to create a real serial killer.
I think this would go for everything and I think thats just the way it is set up. We are all predisposed in general directions, experience decides what will become of us once we reach the direction we were pointed in but we will inevitably go in that direction.
People who are born with serial killer brains but don't get nurtured to become serial killers tend to be fascinated with serial killers or be psychologists or criminal detectives or something like that.
Murderer development is obviously studied closely but I bet it would be a similar situation for carpenters or whatever if anyone cared to try and understand.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Sure, but your assumption that there is always a direct link between behavioural variation and genetic variation is wrong as can clearly seen by given examples and ones other people have give.

It is basically a revamp of the classic nature vs nurture debate.
Click to expand...

Actually I made a mistake there. I didn't mean direct I meant that all behaviour is in some way, indirectly related to some way of thinking that is an evolutionary advantage (when seen in the long term). So I agree that especially for intelligent beings, many individuals could come up with creative ways for satisfying the same underlying genetic urges that control our behaviour. For example one monkey might crack open nuts with a rock and another may drop them from a height. But underlying this is the monkeys creative intelligence which had to start somewhere. Being creative had evolutionary advantages and was as such selected for. This ability to be creative was passed down through generations until all monkeys were like this.

Is that ok with u?
 
John Connellan said:
Actually I made a mistake there. I didn't mean direct I meant that all behaviour is in some way, indirectly related to some way of thinking that is an evolutionary advantage (when seen in the long term).
Click to expand...

Backpeddler! ;)

So I agree that especially for intelligent beings, many individuals could come up with creative ways for satisfying the same underlying genetic urges that control our behaviour.
Click to expand...

But that's just the thing. Genetic urges don't necessarily control our behavior in a direct sense. They my underly or be part of our behavior, but that doesn't not mean they are necessarily causal, as has been demonstrated. You could say they are causal in the sense that "you are alive because of the genetics that created the systems that make you function and as such, those systems (which are traceable back to genetics) are causal to behavior and I suppose that's correct, but it doesn't get you anywhere really in terms of explaining behavior since it is the systems that are built from the systems from teh systems that control behavior for the most part. I'd guess that behavior is also somewhat random.... so at times there is really probably no control on behavior.... depending on how you look at it.

Oh and you mentioned somethign before about behavioral science being and extention of biology. If you want to play that game, all natural sciences are an extension of physics IMO.

For example one monkey might crack open nuts with a rock and another may drop them from a height. But underlying this is the monkeys creative intelligence which had to start somewhere. Being creative had evolutionary advantages and was as such selected for. This ability to be creative was passed down through generations until all monkeys were like this.
Click to expand...

I'd say that's pretty reasonable, but it doesn't necessarily explain the behavior of an individual monkey at a randomly chosen time if you see what I mean.
 
For example one monkey might crack open nuts with a rock and another may drop them from a height. But underlying this is the monkeys creative intelligence which had to start somewhere. Being creative had evolutionary advantages and was as such selected for. This ability to be creative was passed down through generations until all monkeys were like this.
Click to expand...

I'd say that's pretty reasonable, but it doesn't necessarily explain the behavior of an individual monkey at a randomly chosen time if you see what I mean.
Click to expand...

How about this: Take the same stimulus and present it to
a) a chimp
b) a dog
c) a shark
Will they respond the same way?

To some, they might. If the stimulus is a pile of burning wood, both the dog and the chimp will run away. The shark?
If the stimulus is a nice piece of beef, the dog and the shark are likely to go at it, the chimp will behave depending whether it is a vegetarian bonobo or not.
If the stimulus is throwing a ball towards the animal: a domesticated dog will likely want to play with it, a shark might ignore it, a chimp, if not trained, might at first only stare at it, likely even scream.

But the thing is that IN NATURE, stimuli always come in a certain environment, there is always a context. And how are you supposed to observe things, but to observe them in their natural contexts?
Will the information obtained by observation in a sterile laboratory really present things accordingly? Take a wild grown-up chimp, put it into a clean white room -- do you think that it will respond to a stimulus the same way it would if out in its natural environment?
Many experiments are done on laboratory animals: animals that are used to the specific environment and the contact of people. Can you be sure that data regarding behavior obtained that way is adequate?

A hen, running across the road in front of a speeding car may appear stupid to us. But we have to keep in mind that the road is not her natural environment. In her hen environment, the hen obviously functions perfectly, as chicken have survived through miriads of years.


I join the position stated in this thread before, that there is a certain creative intelligence, which is then shaped according to the species of the animal. When talking about a certain animal species, IMO, we have to consider not just the organism itself, but also the environment it lives in. You just go and try to survive in a jungle! But without any supplies and tools, you're doomed. This means that we do need all those things that are around us, things we made, if we want to survive -- and remain ourselves at it.

So, if we observe a monkey at any randomly chosen time, it is about his specific interaction with the specific environment that he is in. The monkey was born with certain predispositions (of the "general" creativity typical for its species), and then this predisposition was shaped in a certain way by the environment he lives in: his mother and the rest of the family, the forest they live in.
Or in other words:
since it is the systems that are built from the systems from teh systems that control behavior for the most part
Click to expand...

A chimp raised by humans does not develop the same skills as a chimp raised by a chimp mother, which lived in the wild.
Chimps raised by humans can, for example, do sign language, wild chimps can't; of course, wild chimps may have it in them, but the ability of doing sign language is not actually performed by wild chimps.
So in order to explain certain behavior at a randomly chosen time includes at least the factors species and environment it lives in; whereby by environment we must consider both the environment the organism was born and raised by and the environment in which we are observing the organism.

That makes it very hard to explain certain behavior, but I think this way is more adequate.
 
DR. LOU NATIC: I never would say every single behaviour was specifically selected for by evolution, but I do believe every behaviour stems from some general style of behaviour favoured by evolution.
What the behaviour becomes exactly, ie cracking nuts on rocks, is decided upon by experience and environment.
You could still say that behaviour was favoured by evolution but mean simply being inventive was favoured by evolution.
Once animals started being raised by their parents and taught thats just what instincts became; the fine details of the final product depending on experience. But there is still a predisposition mammals are born with that yearns for certain kinds of experience to fill out or sculpt the instinct into a finished product.
Like it is largely accepted that serial killers are actually born that way, BUT many people are born that way and don't become serial killers.
The predisposition has to be nurtured a certain way for it to create a real serial killer. I think this would go for everything and I think thats just the way it is set up. We are all predisposed in general directions, experience decides what will become of us once we reach the direction we were pointed in but we will inevitably go in that direction.

......................Interesting comments.


People who are born with serial killer brains but don't get nurtured to become serial killers tend to be fascinated with serial killers or be psychologists or criminal detectives or something like that.
COLOR]

......................Do you have any basis for this latter portion of your post, or are you simply speculating?

At least, your posting is interesting. So much of this is common knowledge, stretched to prove a point.

PMT
 
If by "basis" you mean link, then no.
I could reference "understanding: murder" from the discovery channel though.
 
DR LOU NATIC: Okay, would you? By basis, I meant like scientific reading material. I deal mostly with hard copies; I love books, but if you can reference any particular place that nudged you in that direction, I would bother to look it up. Thanks. PMT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top