"Wayne Bagguley" <snowbirdGetRidOfThis@ThisToo.snowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bgumh7$d7m$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
"Joe Blow" <joeblow@volcanomail.com> wrote in message news:31dd8bee.0308071356.3dda3634@posting.google.com...
"Wayne Bagguley" <snowbirdGetRidOfThis@ThisToo.snowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<bgt6jb$p0q$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
"Joe Blow" <joeblow@volcanomail.com> wrote in message news:31dd8bee.0308061435.4644d9b0@posting.google.com...
"Wayne Bagguley" <snowbirdGetRidOfThis@ThisToo.snowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<bgr6pf$2d6$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
"Joe Blow" <joeblow@volcanomail.com> wrote in message news:31dd8bee.0308060520.2af85aa5@posting.google.com...
"Wayne Bagguley" <snowbirdGetRidOfThis@ThisToo.snowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<bgphhs$v8o$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
"Joe Blow" <joeblow@volcanomail.com> wrote in message news:31dd8bee.0308050851.17fcb638@posting.google.com...
"Wayne Bagguley" <snowbirdGetRidOfThis@ThisToo.snowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<bgo9uo$2vf$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message news:IknowHim-2907031116090001@pm1-22.kalama.com...
Instinct-Evolution's Conundrum
Instinct is the innate aspect of behaviour that is unlearned. Animals
have this unlearned behaviour coded into their DNA. It tells them what to
do and when to do it. They do not take thought or reason as do humans.
Instinctual behaviour is usually triggered by changes in sunlight,
temperature and chemicals.
And lots of other things besides.
There is no evolutionistic explanation for instinct in animals because, as
with complex prebiotic polynucleotides and polypeptides, there is no
precursor available before life.
Non sequitur.
Instinct remains a burr under the saddle
of the horse of evolution and always will be for it cannot be explained
away in a naturalistic supposition.
Incorrect conclusion based on non-sequitur.
Humans do not possess instinct
Yes, we do.
but have thought and reason for doing what
they do. If the temperature goes down we get cold
And shiver.
so we reason that a
sweater might help or if we wish to procreate we take thought about
visiting our wife or husband in a conjugal way.
But the desire for sex is instinctual as is the desire for survival.
Our thinking is based on
facts, reason and consideration not on automatic triggers as with
animals. "As a man thinketh in his heart so is he." Prov 23:7
The thinking of the creationist is not usually based on facts, reason or
consideration because otherwise they would not be creationists.
Evolutionists are claiming that the human genome is smaller than many
other creatures(even some plants have more than we do). However, what they
fail to see in their myoptic view of God's creation is that God has
already programmed animals and plants with instinct or unlearned
behaviour.
Plants have instinct?
How about germination when the soil is warm enough, following the sun
throughout the day, and that about that Venus Fly Trap!
It's not called instinct because there is no brain involved.
But what can one expect of his houseplants?
You can expect them to grow if you take care of them. Just like when humans
grow it is not called instinct, plant growth is not instinct.
Yes, we do not have the equivalent of a long dormant state. But it is more
like hibernation.
Pardon? Who was talking about hibernation? Talk about chaning the subject!
I guess I was not clear enough for you.
Nope.
I started out mentioning germination.
You said growth was not an instinct. I said it was more like hibernation
when a living entity went dormant and then returned to an active state. That
is a good analogy since both are triggered by temperature.
But in the case of the animal, it's a nerual response.
How do you account for single celled animals or other simple animals without
neurons? For example, they have an innate, inherited response to light. Do
you claim that this is not instinct?
Does that help you understand what I was saying?
Yes, thanks. You are still wrong.
In your humble opinion.
BTW: This does seem like a logical
extension of instinct into plants that do not have the benefit of a brain.
It's certainly not a logical extension.
Why not? I think you are perhaps being a little too serious.
So you think this is all a joke.
I'm certainly not taking this as seriously as you are.
Clearly your attention to the facts is not serious at all.
Perhaps my ability with analogies is larger than yours?
The question was,
Why do you not think that this is a logical extension of the common use
of instinct into the plant kingdom?"
Because that's the way it's defined. Just like it's not logical to extend the
definition of a square to include circles.
Yes, the early work in instinct was done with animals. Just like early work
in language was done in humans but is now extended to the "lower" animals.
Certainly it is a heritable response to a stimulus that does not involve
reason.
Instinct is a hard wired neural response. Since plants don't have neurons
they don't have instinct.
I just don't see that kind of limitation in the definition of instinct.
You see what you want to.
For example, the first online medical dictionary I found says:
http://www.books.md/I/dic/instinct.php
That definition supports my arguement, not yours.
I think you are seeing what you want to. Where does it talk about neurons?
It talks about animals.
The definition is more general than that.
1. Natural inward impulse; unconscious, involuntary, or unreasoning prompting
to any mode of action, whether bodily, or mental, without a distinct
apprehension of the end or object to be accomplished. "An instinct is a
propensity prior to experience, and independent of instructions." (Paley)
"An instinct is a blind tendency to some mode of action, independent of any
consideration, on the part of the agent, of the end to which the action leads."
(Whately) "An instinct is an agent which performs blindly and ignorantly a
work of intelligence and knowledge." (Sir W. Hamilton) "By a divine instinct,
men's minds mistrust Ensuing dangers." (Shak)
All of the above refer to animal actions.
Only the last one uses an animal (men's) example.
2. <zoology> Specif, the natural, unreasoning, impulse by which an animal is
guided to the performance of any action, without of improvement in the method.
"The resemblance between what originally was a habit, and an instinct becomes
so close as not to be distinguished." (Darwin)
Also refers to animals.
Yes, that is what <zoology> means.
3. A natural aptitude or knack; a predilection; as, an instinct for order; to
be modest by instinct.
Nothing to do with how we are using the word in this context.
I disagree. It gives you a flavor of the word.
Of course I admit that I can not think of an instinctive action that does
not involve some neuron in animals.
Instincy only exists in animals. It doesn't exist in plants.
You keep saying that, but I'm not sure you are correct.
That's how it's defined. Either accept it or not.
not
And even if that were
the common defintion, there is a direct analogy in plants.
Analogy does not mean equvalence.
I would bet that you can not tell the difference between an instinct
in a single celled animal and the analogous action in a single celled
plant.
The communication pathways are just chemical rather than neural.
Um, neural pathways ARE chemical (and electrical) so your argument
falls flat.
I was making the distinction more like hormonal verus neural
communications in animals. Plants certainly do not have neurons
but do have chemical communications more like hormones.
But they do not have instinct, as your definition from
http://www.books.md/I/dic/instinct.php
shows.
I don't see it there. Can you help me see it?
See above. They were all refering to animal actions.
See above. They do not.
Joe
.
