Darwin Day Questions: How does learned behavior evolve into inherited instinct?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лют 2025
- Richard Dawkins answers your questions about evolution in honor of Darwin Day 2015.
“How does learned behavior evolve into inherited instinct?”
Edited by Stephanie Renee Guttormson
Copyright 2015 Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science
Our milk bottles were always being opened. But some birds had learned a rather mischievous behaviour of shitting on milk bottle tops. Possibly a rival faction.
Birds just shit everywhere...EVERYWHERE!
I hate birds with such a seething passion.
my uncle used to do that to the neighbours' milk bottles too, for a lol
Mr. Dawkins looks very good for his age.
He was really good looking as a young man, it's no surprise you can still see that.
Does Mr.Dawkins look good for his age...
...or is it just that all of the rest of us look dreadful for our ages instead?
(And, of course, the answer is "yes". In a probabilistic fashion.)
Dr. Dawkins :D
He does indeed. he looks right, he looks left, he looks straight ahead...he looks all over the place....
It most be God's blessing.
The world would be a better place if these videos were the ones getting millions of views
every time i watch Dr. Dawkins videos i just feel sad we dont have teachers like him in school...
سورية 123
He is a professor.
Big guys like Dawkins don't teach in schools. They teach in universities
Or could he be back?....
ua-cam.com/video/uLC0akD1WOE/v-deo.html
BE HAPPY HE'S TEACHING US HERE AT LEAST
"Learned behavior evolves into inherited instinct" - Great point everyone should understand. This is how morality evolved right along with us.
morality is not in your genes
Kevin J. Dildonik well it's just my opinion of course, but I think nurture plays a far bigger part in governing how we behave in society than anything that might come from our genes.
Dan Searle My comment was mostly about the religious argument "where do our morals come from."
Now that you brought it up I should add that we now know that we are born with logic and altruism intact. Basically your brain develops logic simply by osmosis from the real world. That "nurture" is were the damage is caused, like a Fire and Brimstone household as opposed to a logical household. You get a Serial Killer with one and a Normal Human with the other.
Dan Searle I guess you weren't listening to Dawkins. It is in your genes !! If you have an instinct, it's in your genes.
Dan Searle Let me ask you, Do you have an Instinct to murder? probably not, the idea repulses you doesn't it? Instinct my boy.
The intersection of Darwin's theory of evolution and Mendel's principles of heredity provides a compelling framework for understanding how learned behaviors can evolve into inherited instincts. Darwin's theory of natural selection suggests that behaviors which increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction are more likely to be passed on to future generations. Over time, these behaviors could become ingrained in a species, especially if they offer a distinct survival advantage.
Mendel's work on inheritance, particularly the laws of genetics, provides insight into how these behaviors might be passed on through genetic material. Mendel’s principles revealed that traits, including behaviors, are inherited through discrete units (now understood to be genes), which are passed from parents to offspring. This means that behaviors that provide evolutionary benefits could become genetically encoded over generations.
The evolution of learned behaviors into inherited instincts likely involves a process of gradual genetic adaptation. Initially, a behavior may be learned through individual experience, allowing an organism to adapt to its environment in a specific context. If that behavior contributes to reproductive success, the genetic factors influencing that behavior may become more prevalent in the population over time, eventually being encoded genetically. In other words, a learned behavior that proves beneficial for survival may, over many generations, become a more instinctive, genetically inherited trait.
For example, certain behaviors in animals, like migratory patterns in birds, start as learned behaviors where the younger generation observes and mimics the actions of older, more experienced individuals. Over time, however, as these behaviors continue to enhance survival and reproduction, the genetic components that govern these behaviors might become more ingrained in the species. This transition from learned behavior to inherited instinct is a gradual process shaped by natural selection.
Ultimately, the integration of Darwin’s ideas on survival through natural selection and Mendel's insights into the inheritance of traits creates a powerful model for understanding how behaviors, once learned, can evolve into fixed, inherited instincts over time.
I think I understand what you’re saying. So is it basically a matter of that it’s showing the potential evolutionary reducibility of some animal instincts because they could at first simply evolve traits that aid in learning the behavior when observing it in others, but then once they’ve evolved enough of these traits, they become so predisposed towards the behavior that they no longer need to learn it? That’s actually really clever.
I wish I would have had Mr. Dawkins as my teacher in school...for all my classes...I could listen to this man all day!! Thank god for Dawkins!!
Thank God for dawkins!! 😂
Thank Dawkins for helping our species evolve past all gods.
The instinctual behavior I tend to focus on the most is the songs of cockatiels which are a breed of parrot that I've bred. Male cockatiels. like most parrots can learn to imitate all kinds of sounds but there are a number of very recognizable songs they are born just knowing, even if they've never heard another cockatiel sing them. Those songs are somehow a language that's passed along from generation to generation in their genes. I do subscribe to the idea that the sounds and songs produced by these intelligent creatures don't function like language but rather, they actually are language. Their songs have meanings and having lived with them for decades myself, I know what their meanings are. The new songs they learn during their individual lives will also have meanings in addition to the songs they're born knowing and function for the bird in the same way, only the ones the know from birth were learned by earlier generations and are 'hardwired' into their brains.
I feel the topic of instinct is a nearly completely ignored science. I often think of it as being like the subject of gravity prior to the time of Isaac Newton, gravity was already known of and the word gravity already existed but, nobody ever bothered trying to quantify it. Everyone knew things fell if dropped that was pretty much all that was known, Newton's brilliance really wasn't in all the work he did to measure gravity, his brilliance was just in recognizing that there were questions that needed to be asked. Sometimes the most important revelation is the ability to see that there's something you don't know. I think the science of instinct is similar in that when I Google looking for information on that topic, the results I get are sorely lacking.
I think the reason instinct isn't talked about more is because this topic does have areas that are politically dangerous as it pertains to human behaviors and can become controversial in a bad way very quickly. But it is a very important field of study that deserves more attention.
I love you prof Dawkins !!! ❤️
I love nature and being able to learn so much about animals in such a relaxed and engaging way, is simply awesome. You are truly gifted, to be able to explain such complex matters in a way that everyone can understand. I have been binge-watching your video's since Growing up in the Universe. It sparked my interest in biology and I started to do volunteer work in protected habitats, making many new friends along the way and finding beautiful plants and creatures. Just wanted to say thank you, for making my life better. I wish you all the best. Much love from the Netherlands.
Probably Mirror neurons are a part of this, they are implied in Imitation of actions in animals.
The one that learns faster survives more, and so there is a memetic transmission of some knowledge even among animals
This is a question that's been on the back of my mind for a while. This makes a lot of sense.
How does it make sense? All he said was a learned skill became a gene? That's so stupid. It's a non-answer
this guys intellect is so inspiring it makes me cry
+IgnatiusM How can you cry, he only lies and guesses. Animal wisdom and knowledge is NOT in the genome. It is metaphysical. How does a spider know how to make a perfect web? How does a bird know how to build a nest? He explains nothing. Natural selection DOES NOT implant wisdom into DNA. DNA deals with the body plan and proteins and repair, but not knowledge in the brain.
MrTruth111 this guy has a PHD in evolutionary biology from oxford., your just an internet trole that believes in god without evidence.
+MrTruth111 that comment of yours is proof enough that you most likely didn't even pass year 10 biology. Or as you probably recall it "the one with the frogs"
@@betterpurple Siince Dawkins has a PhD, he should have some insight into how animal behavior evolved. This video indictates he has no clue.
@@MrTruth111 He is literally explaining it in this video. Animals that have faster skill learning dna inherit this dna untill the skills themselves have become an instinct. Just listen to the video!
I hope I can meet him one day. I grew up in complete darkness about religion and evolution because of where I live. I only had my precious internet and boy did I watch a lot evolution/religion videos during high school. I remember feeling complete discomfort while watching his videos on youtube, but I never stopped watching. If it wasn't for him, I don't know If I could still find the truth. I bought the god delusion yesterday, I am reading it secretly. I hope I can meet him, get him to sign his book(s) and maybe get a photo with him. I really don't really have a lot of expectations from life. But this is certainly one thing that I want to do very much. I hope he lives long enough so that my dream will come true.
Dawkins changed the world. Genius. He'll be in the textbooks for ages to come. Memetics will flourish.
nice, you should do a lot more of this, not just for darwin day
100! Agree!!
Still doesn't explain how a learned skill got incorporated into a gene. He's explaining how the ability to quickly learn (freshly in each generation) is a result of gene survival though
Exactly, he has explained natural selection, not the altering of genes (dna) during a lifetime or even instinct at all.
Yes, like building a nest, how on the earth programed into the DNA?
This is marvelous. I've wondered about this question myself, but never thought to actually 'ask' the question. I should probably get on Quora and pump out a thousand questions.
There is a series of lectures (an entire curriculum's worth) presented by Stanford's Robert Sapolsky, right here on UA-cam. He discusses in immensely intriguing details how behavior can be heritable in animals generally and humans specifically. I strongly recommend it, if you have the free time and the interest.
I am very interested. The evolution of behavior is a fatal flaw in DArwinian evolution. It you can point me to something specific that would refute this, I would appreciate it. I'm not interested in broad, sweeping statements.
even if I knew all this before (except for the milk bottle opening story) it is always exciting to hear it from you, Mr. Dawkins. as a homo sapiens I just love your way and the effort you put into passing on this knowledge
I wish Richard Dawkins was one of my proffs.
Mr Dawkins, I think you have a special place in gods heart! I can’t think of many people who spent more time thinking about god than you! Lol! And that’s got to please god. Sir, I was not raised in a religious house. I am 63 next week. My dad was also not raised in a religious house. And my mom barely religious. I think people who are deep thinkers read parts of the Bible and scratch thier heads like you and I do. I don’t know much about the other major religions of the world.
Some of us are born with an innate sense of god. I remember praying at 5 years old. Dear god please don’t let my mom be mad at my dad so much. I never set foot in a church or Sunday school. I was 20 years old and got married in a church. Because my wife was raised in it.
I think it takes more faith to think all this amazing life, and natural food just happened by accident. I sometimes close my eyes and try to imagine, the pathetic creatures crawling out of the swamp, lake or ocean. In search of a better life on land. Gills and no lungs yet . It had to be a sight to see. Crawling out of the soup! With things that crawled out 100-1 million years before. Just sitting on the shore of the evolutionary womb of soup. And helping themselves to the all you can eat buffet? The water has to be your idea of the first womb right? And it would have to be water that is not too cold? I close my eyes, and try to picture life being formed by the sun and lightning and star dust. Which is a big stretch. And it’s doing fine in the water. But for some reason it ventures on to land? I have seen the evolutionary tree of life. There is this creature I call the quivering liver. That you guys think is the first mammal? It is like a swimming hovercraft piece of liver. And then the tree of life jumps straight from this thing, into the mammals we know of today. Too many missing pieces? The quivering liver would have had to evolve, and leave many skeletons and fossils behind. On its evolutionary journey. But yet you have found none? You jump from this pathetic thing, you say is our first ancestor. To monkeys and caveman? I know there are monkeys and cavemen. And we might have evolved from this. But they are still amazing creatures. That are too complex, to be an accident of the sun and water?
I have seen your interviews with both cardinals in the church. And I love the way you are so respectful of us believers. We are just people who don’t have it all figured out. We just don’t think it could happen without a creator. I know you are against brainwashing children into religion. And I am one of those children who was not brainwashed. I asked my mom when I was 25 or so. Why didn’t you take us to Sunday school or church. And she said she didn’t want to brainwash us.
Richard, sir, I respect you and your work. But we are all born with the inate ability to seek god. Everyone except my dad I guess. And it’s because he sees the crazy stories in the Bible. And he says if that’s in there I can’t believe the rest of it. He sees the pain and suffering in the world. And says if there was a god it wouldn’t be this way. But like one of the cardinals said. Maybe god made it and doesn’t tamper with it, or try to perfect the recipe. Maybe he can’t? Back to this inate stuff born into us, planted by god I believe. At 3 years old you know not to hit the family dog in the head with a heavy object. At 5-6 years old, you see a baby bird fall out of the nest and you have to get help. The law of the jungle, and survival of the fittest, would have us eating our own children. Or others? And about our sexual relationship. Women kiss a man with hopes of a future with him. She has to take this risk. A single man will kiss any woman he’s attracted to, who will kiss him back. But he knows in his heart this is wrong to kiss and have sex , and use women . We used to see more natural sexual behavior in years before us. Now you have women thinking they can have one night stands, and not get thier feelings hurt. But they can’t. The creator designed us this way. He gave women the control over sex in the relationship. To form strong families. The girls always pick the guy! Look at the emotional damage infidelity causes in humans? I think the creator put it there . Other species don’t have it?
You just have to take too much for granted to be an atheist! All this amazing life! And food ! The complexity of all life forms. You can eat a sweet juicy peach . And then an orange, apple, pear. And so much more. And look at the sky and see the amazing life. Look on land and see the amazing life. Look at the water same thing.
I have lost a few close friends over
my close examination of the Bible.
Even these high ranking cardinals you talk to understand. I mean humans were searching for god for 10,000 years before the Bible. When they parted the Red Sea and a million Jews fled to safety. Don’t you think someone would have said, “ nobody is going to believe this, we have to write a separate book and all sign it” for those who follow behind us!
When you meet god Richard, and you will. He will love you and welcome you as much as he does the pope. Or billy graham. He will say welcome home my curious student. You gave 10 x more thought to me than almost everyone. You studied my creations more than anyone.
I started watching near death experience videos in 2005. And I have seen hundreds and hundreds and hundreds. The only ones who wanted to come back were people who thought family needed them.
Richard, I like the way when you try to disprove god. You do it in a respectful, soft spoken manner. It’s almost like your learning from us believers. The way we are learning from you. I remember you asked the astronomer cardinal, if he lives on after death or something like that. And he said I sure hope so. It’s just faith, nothing more than faith. I believe in a creator I can’t see, for all the things I can see.. Emerson I believe said it? Keep up the good work! Keep studying gods creations! And most of all.. keep being nice like you always are!
I am speechless. This completely blew my mind. Beautiful.
Dawkins trained as an animal behaviourist under Tinbergen no less. This is his home patch so well worth listening to. Many know him for his efforts to spread reason, but he wrote what has been called the most important science book of the 20th Century linking behaviour (altruism) and genetics, "The Selfish Gene".
This is brilliant - 1 of the few evolutionary concepts I couldn't quite explain was inherited knowledge (instinct) but the baldwin effect explains it excellently!
How does it explain it excellently? He makes a huge leap from “instant learning” to altered DNA. There is no explanation of how this happens though.
Really hope Richard will live 20 more years from now on... He's my idol in life, a very wise,wide-open minded person. Stay stong , much support here :)
This is so cool and interesting! Very clearly explained too!
I fell there is still a leap there though. To go from natural selection of genes that enable quick learning of a skill, or proficiency in a skill, to in the end having to not even be taught, rather a reactionary or instinctual response to stimulus is a considerable jump. Surely there are limits to this. I.e some behaviors are so complex that they will never be instinctual. For example, children will never be born able to read will they?
This man's a walking encyclopedia of biology!
We need more of this iin UA-cam... remarkable people talking about what they know best! as a cience lover this is just so good! :)
I love this man. Truly.
Very interesting. :)
But if instinct is basically "instant learning", how come sometimes an instinct is present even without any stimuli of the enviroment that would trigger the need to learn it?
To believe in evolution, you have to deny fundamental facts of biology, such as the ubiquitous existence of instincts in all animal species. Instinctive behavior is not "instant learning". How does a crane "instantly learn" to migrate across the Himalayas? How does a newborn turtle, who has no contact with parents, "instantly learn" to crawl out of the sand and race toward the ocean?
@@johnandelin5693
@"the ubiquitous existence of instincts in all animal species. "
Would confirm causal determinism -- i.e natural selection.
Nice try, tho.
@"Instinctive behavior is not "instant learning".
For group selection orgs, behavior of one generation unwittingly builds a selection niche for the next.
@"How does a crane "instantly learn" to migrate across the Himalayas? How does a newborn turtle, who has no contact with parents, "instantly learn" to crawl out of the sand and race toward the ocean?"
Standard _variation and selection_ -- i.e natural selection.
yep I agree vojife... it seems like he kind of makes a leap from really fast learning to no learning required (instinct)
and I really respect richard. but not the most complete answer.
i suppose just one more topic science is still working on learning.
@@danchisholm1 I agree - I was not very satisfied with this explanation, but I suspect its one of those things that will remain a mystery for a long time. Its level beyond DNA coding for the construction of neurons, to then preload them with instinctive behavior.
Dawkins pulled this one out of his ars. Lol.
He just denied instinct. He is a science denier! Lol
I'm not entirely satisfied with this explanation. It seems to me that it must be many genes that are selected for in order for a behaviour to become innate and not the result of simply improved learning speed. For example, many animals appear to have an innate fear of their natural predators, but not of other animals that do not pose a threat. A generalized gene for learning would not likely produce this effect, nor would a generalized gene for fearfulness. Instead, it would almost have to be a complicated mix of genes that would work together to produce exactly the specific behaviour to fear one species and yet have no response to another. In this way, those individuals with the correct combination of genes would be more likely to exhibit the beneficial behaviour, and over time, this effect would be strengthened by better combinations of genes.
I could listen all day long
This is really interesting because it shows that all instincts were at one point a result of intelligence. So we may think we are the only truly intelligent species, but there it is intelligence working at the very basic level of evolution.
+QuantumBraced Depends how you define intelligence...There isn't really a strict definition for it.
Yes, but we're still the only species intelligent enough to be able to dominate all others.
So Richard said qualities of being quick at learning are selected for and then it looks like inherited instinct.
He gave as support examples of birds learning skills from each other and this knowledge radiating out.
That is completely wrong and deceptive.
Realize that there are 2 types of knowledge in brains, instinctive knowledge and learned knowledge.
Humans have a large percentage of their brain for learning, and a small amount for instinct. Animals, to varying degrees, have a large amount of their brain for instinct and a small amount for learning. Some, like dolphins, ravens, parrots, dogs and monkeys can learn quite a bit, within limits.
Fish and Insects are mostly instinct. This means they are BORN knowing how to do all the important things they need to do. They don't need another to teach them and don't really have the brain to learn and remember anyway. Monarch butterflies take several generations to fly from Canada to particular groves in Mexico. None of them have been there before so none could teach another the way. Birds instinctively know they can fly and how to do it. Same with insects.
All animals have behaviors which are characteristic of their species. One can say, a sheep will behave a certain way. A goat will like and dislike certain things. Animals have an affinity for particular actions. Some species love to hide, others to swim tightly in a group. You could take new baby creatures with no exposure to parents and a dog will still act like a dog and a cat like a cat.
Human babies instinctively know how to suckle and to doggy paddle. They are hard wired to immediately learn language. Boys and girls instinctive begin liking the opposite sex at the time their bodies are ready for them to do so.
Many more possible examples. The upshot is that Richard's answer was a non-answer. It was an evasion that answered nothing because he doesn't know. Evolution doesn't have a workable explanation for how random point mutations could give something instinctual unlearned knowledge.
One cannot learn something and have a later generation know it without learning. Such would have to be programmed into their DNA. Which is an excellent case for a wise, loving Creator to hard-wire each type of creature with instinctive and beneficial, crucial knowledge and skills to define their uniqueness without having to learn it.
The "Was it Designed?" series examines many such fascinating abilities.
wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1204088
Absolutely incredible answer. You explain concepts SO WELL! Thank you for making these videos!!
I fell in love with Richard Dawkins
I do understand how a species could evolve the ability to learn the skill faster and faster, it feels vaguely explained(and possibly also vaguely understood) how the learning-skill-quicker goes to natural instinct.
This man is such a goat, he explained instinct with great detail so easily, very intriguing! :D
He explained a theory. That doesn't make the theory correct.
I'm even here learning english with my favorite genius ❤️❤️❤️
Keep up this series, it is most interesting!
I really enjoy this series of "lectures". Smart questions and informed answers. Just excellent.
Dawkins gave no explanation how learned behavior becomes instinctive. His explanation evaded the question.
Hello Richard, thank you for producing these series of discussed 'Questions'. I've wondered for a while and maybe this could be posed as a further Question topic; 'what is the purpose of death in life? There are creatures that exist that don't appear to have a genetic pre-disposition to dying, why is it however, that virtually all life on earth does not share this ability to endlessly regenerate?
This, along with "Why do most animals need sleep?" is one of the big mysteries of biology.
In this case, however, there are some theories. One is population control. A species that can reproduce without death reaches the point where the population cannot be sustained with the available resources much sooner. And if they start draining resources even further, they run the risk of
a) mass starvation, and/or
b) taking the whole ecosystem with them.
Guided cell necrosis is also important within higher organisms. Cells that "forget" that they are supposed to die become cancerous.
I can follow Dawkins up to the point where you have incredibly fast learners. But from learning a certain type of behaviour very fast, to having that behaviour built in in ones genes is still a giant step. It is hard to believe that all those babies which instantly know how to drink milk, are offspring of mammalian babies which were just quick learners and that initially a large number of mammalians had offspring which didn't have clue about how to suck milk. It is all very difficult to understand and it helps me to understand why still so many people believe in intelligent design. Developing milk glands is one, but parallel to that newborn mammals had to develop an instinct to suck that milk. It truly mind boggling. I don't think Baldwins theory is very convincing.
+Peter Hendriks There is no clear boundary between learning quickly and knowing from birth. Learning quickly could be also interpreted as doing instinctively, or learning instantly, which is, by definition, the same as knowing because it is "built in". There is no clear definition of what is "built in". A gene cannot dictate to one's mind: "do this or that". It is done instinctively. So, by natural selection only those individuals are promoted and do thrive which instinctively do this but not that. That's learning smoothly becomes "built-in". As explained in the video, it is not getting "built in" by some force or process outside. It is just an illusion, but in fact it is just promotion of one gene and declining of another. The more the gene is promoted, the more "instinct" it looks like. But at the end, it is still just a combination of genes that make an animal behave this way but not the other. And the gene was naturally promoted because it allowed for individuals to survive better.
+Anton Andriyevskyy If motor programs of instictive behaviours are stored in the striato-pallidal complex from birth, there must be a genetic code for them.
+Peter Hendriks the milk drinking he's talking about here isn't that of a mammal nursing at birth. That's been around since there were mammals and, in some theories, before! Regardless...
Here Dawkins is applying the Baldwin Effect to a much more recent phenomenon where milk - delivered in a glass bottle in the early morning (this was before every home had a refrigerator), would get opened by birds to drink off the fatty cream that floats on top. I've heard this particular story other places and the milk bottles were said to be capped with foil, Dawkins said cardboard, the modern ones I've seen had cheap plastic. The top would be removed and discarded by the consumer, while the empty glass was left for the milkman to refill. Whatever the top was, a cheap disposable cap wasn't much of an obstacle to a bird, assuming they *knew* that a reward of fatty cream lay underneath. So what happened?
My understanding is that two behaviors were at work here: Blue Tits have relatively powerful brains that incline them to investigate certain objects, including shiny foil lids, generally by pecking. They also have a tendency to investigate something another Tit or group of Tits appear to find interesting. Taken together, once one bird discovered the rich store of food under a milk cap, other Blue Tits by observation saw there was *something* worthy of their attention in the bottle's cap. This lead to them investigating the bottle cap themselves, which they were quite capable of finding a way of opening once they had reason to try.
Given a consistent environment of milk bottle deliveries, there would be a selection pressure for Tits that can quickly translate the "hint" of watching another bird open a milk bottle into investigating the lid and discovering a method to open it themselves. Perhaps brain "circuitry" for pecking at something shiny would gain an addendum to the effect "especially if it's milk bottle shaped". Further on down the generations, the Tits that identify a milk bottle fastest, get to the fatty cream fastest and thus are more likely to survive. And if THAT continues long enough, you'd have a Blue Tit that can open a milk bottle by "instinct" just as a Thrush cracks a snail's shell. At least, that's the idea behind the Baldwin Effect.
And I've now spent an hour and a half and writing up a thoughtful response to a two month old question on a year and change old youtube video. I hope that someone, somewhere got something out of this response. :P
I do, thank you very much.
Thank you. Cleared up my confusion.
2:08 i don't think he believes it either. How could genes make anything specifically faster at learning one specific behaviour? how can a physical gene correlate to a set of actions that a animal decides to carry out?
2:17 I beg your pardon.
Greatly explained
What a great question. And answer. Great vid.
Information and learned behavior passed down generations is called a culture. So if it is not Darwinian evolution than it is cultural evolution. Animals have cultures too but he does not mention as much here and I think this is an important way to approach these phenomena
we need more of these
I've been wondering this for a while. Amazing!
I wish i had calculus as an inherited instinct
I'm confused by what he says at the end - "They learn so fast, that it looks as though they haven't learned at all."
So are they learning? Or are they acting on instinct?
So if it becomes an instinct, the animal doesn't require it's parents or other animals of it's kind to learn from? If an animal is born and you immediately isolate it, will it be able to perform the actions such as in the case of smashing a snail open?
Could an instinct kind of be compared to a twitch? Just a reaction of your body that you have no control over. Or kind of like how you sneeze when there's pepper in your nose. You don't have to SHOOT air out through your nose, but actually your body takes the initiative. Is this the same a putting a snail in your mouth and just having the reaction to wanting to swing your head towards the ground? - ie. to smash the snail.
Could it also be compared to some kind of internal programming. When A occurs, B follows. Where in a normal case, this would be a pattern of behaviour that has to be learned. But where in the case it is an instinct - it's kind of like a downloaded script. There is no learning required.
This is really interesting and makes me think what else we could PRE-LEARN.
Download all neuronal information for what we learn at school. Install it into our brain when we are born to save us 18 years of schooling.
brod2man I think you missunderstood what Dawkins meant, I found it very easy to understand...
hasábburgonya
Care to point out where I may have misunderstood?
My problem is that he said Learn and instinct in the same sentence. I feel like these things are mutually exclusive.
brod2man You have to bear in mind that instinct and learning (in the sense of learning from another) are just different in terms of the medium through which the information that informs the behavior is passed on. Instinct is just when this medium is the genes, learning is when this medium is just social interaction. You then have to realise that it doesnt have to be just one or the other, but that each can have some share in informing the behavior. It can even be that some particular "part" of the info is largely present in both, so they can reinforce each other.
The key thing to realise imho is then that one medium can gradually take over the role of the other, thus some behavior being largely a function of learning becoming largely the function of instinct.
And indeed there is no reason why such a medium couldnt be accessed directly through advanced technology, because information is an abstraction, it doesnt matter essentially what medium it is on.
***** The animal doesn't need its parents to learn from???. Yes, if you are aware of the cuckoo. I'm not sure how many countries the cuckoo visits but living in Ireland it migrates here every spring. It spends the winter in Central Africa and flies here in springtime to feed on the abundance of insects but also to breed. When a pair have mated the female lays its eggs in the nests of birds totally unconnected to its own species. They do it several times in a season and then disappear back to Africa. When their eggs hatch in the nest of the "host" bird they shove out the real off- spring and the hapless "host" parents begin to feed them as if they were their own. When they are old enough and sufficiently nourished by their "host" mother the cuckoo too takes off for Africa and without being taught carry out the same procedure when they have reached breeding stage by returning,mating,laying their eggs in a "host" nest and migrating back to Africa.
***** Thank you. This is a most interesting subject and I never even thought about chickens. Also we have swallows, swifts and house martins which arrive here in springtime from Africa. In fact I saw my first swallow of this year's season today which never fails to thrill me. These three species have about 5 broods during our spring and summer. The parents head back to Africa around late September when our insects have become scarce and the temperature begins to drop. At around the same time the young birds begin to assemble on telegraph wires etc and make their own way south and return here the following year without being taught.
It has recently been discovered that when it's time for the adult birds to return to Africa they will actually abandon a brood to die in the nest such is the strength of the instinct to begin their great return journey.
A few years ago ornithologists in England managed to capture some swallows and fit them with tiny satellite trackers. I assumed it would take these tiny birds weeks to make it back to warmer climes but the trackers showed it takes them only about 5 days. Also, many didn't make it and probably fell prey to other birds, got lost or simply became exhausted.
Best wishes,
Alan.
A very thoughtful question answered splendidly. Thanks Richard!
Very interesting question. thank you mr dawkins.
Evolution is just significant
Great video! This is very well stated and digestible but i still have more questions.
very interesting series!
Wow. I was just contemplating this earlier today and it just so happened to also be in a feed. Good stuff!
They call it the "Baldwin Effect" because all of the younger Baldwins 'learned' their acting from Alec... obviously the 'Baldwin Effect' takes more than one generation to be completely.......effective.
This is brilliant. I always wanted to know about this ...
4:34 And this is why education is important, people.
absolutely outstanding
Mr. Dawkins. I like to know your opinion on if you believe that Religion was totally a bad idea for humanity or it was necessary in a certain time of civilisation.
Could we be better off without it at all.??
I can answer that question for you.
monty tout
Please do so. .. I like to hear that cos it's been a question in my mind for a long time.
Lamarkism is now just called "epigenetic inheritance" or neo-Lamarkism and seems to be no longer taboo or heresy.
I Love the subtitle subtleties
The most interesting application of Baldwin effect is human ability to come up with and understand things as Baldwin effect.
So still in the end, the learned or acquired characteristic wouldnt be incorporated into genes right? They just seem normal due to selection on the ability to 'learn' right?
Fascinating.
Does Baldwin effect explain fear of snakes too? or is that explained by other mechanism?
How would you explain learned behavior in species like the Monarch Butterfly? They instinctively travel thousands of miles to the same spots in Mexico but the butterflies that started the Journey to the North are not the ones that make it to Mexico actually all the Monarchs that make it to Mexico have never been there before and will never be there again? Why they keep making the exact same journey every year? How do they learned something they have never seen done?
Hypothetically, if we had a situation in which people must be able to solve quadratic equations in order to survive & reproduce, would we eventually evolve such that humans instinctually knew how to solve quadratics?
Behavior unwittingly builds a selection niche.
Then standard Natural Selection (variation and selection [bottleneck/scarcity]) from there.
Very good..
Does a gazelle that stands up right after birth and is jumping around minutes later learning that particular skill very fast, or this it some other mechanism of inheritance?
This is great. Thanks
what about transgenerational epigenetic inheritance? could it be partially a causative factor here?
That is clever. How about epigenetic inheritance, does it still look like that would allow acquired qualities to be inherited to some degree?
MichaelKingsfordGray Oh ok Russians that die millions from starving this ok hundred thousands Jews starved in concentrations camps this ok too but Dutch...ohh you so patetic.
I know i am a fish out of water for being this guy here, but i strongly believe there may be another factor for more advanced social behaviors and even archetypal roles that seem to even predate complex society (like chiefs, shamans, warrior classes etc) and i theorize it has something closer to do with death. Some of the more credible cases that would give a compelling argument for reincarnation and psychic phenomena seem to indicate the possibility of information, and specifically traumatic last memories being passed on or accessible. As an atheist, i truly welcome the possibility of their being some Macrocosm of data that exist and is somehow transferred in ways that we have yet to grasp.
I think learned skill is a genius explanation but taking that to be an instinct of a newborn (with no learning) is a major leap. To learn, you need to first be taught, whereas instinct just happens without being shown how, right? For example, would you expect humans to be born ready to speak a language as an instinct (yeah, i mean after MANY generations, like in a billion years!) ? Please explain. thanks
And there's a big difference between saying that the Baldwin effect is yet another avenue of evolutionary effect, as opposed to attempting the extrapolation that the Baldwin effect is proof that the behavior of humans can be identified by inspecting the individuals DNA.
Fantastic! Thanks.
One might say that there was genes present already, perhaps dormant and unused or used in some other capacity, that were used when discovering an ability and that the rest of the species probably have most of the same genes. In order for selection to happen they has to be culling and thus already the animals that cannot learn it will have a slight disadvantage just like the animals that are slower than an potential improvement to learn it faster. Thus the genetics doesn't start after an ability is learned rather it continues. How we make choices are rooted in genetics and instinct. The more complex the instinct the more "thinking" we think we do.
It turns out that epigenetic inheritance of acquired trait does happen. An example is germline transmission of learned odor in mice, see Dias & Ressler (2014) Nat. Neurosci.: Parental olfactory experience influences behavior and neural structure in subsequent generations.
3:40 "They wouldn't need to learn at all"
That obviously implies the information is stored genetically and present from birth.
One would then ask : how does the genetic code store the information for building a spiders web ?
DNA acts as a template for RNA, which is a template for proteins etc
But how does one transmit a spiders web algorithm ?
What a great question. I learned something!
Interesting question I had never thought about!
Do you include breathing as being a learned behavior at one point rather than instinct?
Neither, its a reflex from having too much CO2 in blood
No, that's a consequence of our need for oxygen. If we didn't need oxygen, we wouldn't have to breathe and we wouldn't have a buildup of carbon dioxide in our bodies, thus negating the evolutionary benefit of a respiratory system.
Due to the fact that oxygen is required to process fatty acids and sugars in order to produce energy, we in turn require oxygen to live. Because that process produces waste in the form of CO2, we need a way to expel that waste from the body. This need to obtain oxygen and get rid of the waste product is the reason we have a respiratory system. The way that respiratory system functions is by expanding and contracting a muscle underneath the lungs called the diaphragm. When it contracts it creates a vacuum which draws air into the lunges and expels the waste product when it relaxes again. This is the process of breathing.
Breathing, thus, is not a learned behavior but a consequence of the way our respiratory system works which in turns is a consequence of our need for oxygen in order to break down fats and sugars to provide life-giving energy.
I remember having the phenomenon of birds opening milk bottles as an exercise in a test back in high school lol
Nice!.. I always feel that something is missing with so many explanation regarding the phenomenon of instincts..Now, picking into the bottle--needs a lot of observing birds observing other birds doing the deed and a lot of milk-bottles--how would the developing bird have acquired the knowledge (instinct) how to pick itself out of the egg?
i love this question!
This is borderline Lamarckism... Fascinating! I never thought about it!
+Bob. Hahaha Prof Dawkins managed to touch on that too
Cool, yes it is. Evolution theory busted.
Never thought I'd see Dawkins wearing a cross! I hope that's his microphone.
The effect this man explaining is just about the natural selection of genes helping the bird to learn a skill quickly and easily. But instincts are not things we have to learn.
Can we breed a hybrid bird which can carry Baldwin effect?
That bass line at the beginning is doooooope
I wish spanish subtitles so much! (I´ll do it but my english is not so good)
Hello Richard,
this is great .