Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 02-18-2003, 06:50 PM

One serious problem: socio-cultural adaptation. Which can easily mimic genetic adaptation.

Thus, warniks are more common than peaceniks because warniks tend to defeat peaceniks in battle.

Also, instinct and learning can be closely intertwined. Consider from Chapter 7 of Gary Cziko's book "The Things We Do":

Quote:

Some striking examples of the necessary interaction of genetic and environmental factors in determining behavior have been provided by the common laboratory rat. A mother rat will normally build a nest before bearing offspring and then groom her newborn pups. That she performs these behaviors even if she is raised in total isolation from other female rats, and so has never seen other rats engage in such behaviors, is the reason that such activities are referred to as instinctive. Nonetheless, certain experiences are necessary for these behaviors to take place. For example, when provided with appropriate nesting materials a pregnant rat will not build a nest if she had been raised in a bare cage with no materials to carry in her mouth. Also, a mother rat will not groom her young if she had been raised wearing a wide collar that prevented her from licking herself (Beach 1955). And failure to groom her babies can have serious consequences, since a newborn rat cannot urinate until its genital area has been first so stimulated, resulting in burst bladders for the unfortunate unlicked pups (Slater 1985, p. 83).

(online here)

Also, learning can be restricted in certain ways. From the same chapter,

Quote:

Rats also can make certain associations between stimuli and their effects, but not others. If a rat is made sick after consuming a food with a certain taste, it will consequently avoid all foods having the same taste. And if a sound or visual stimulus regularly precedes an electric shock, a rat will associate this as a signal of the impending shock and will learn to make an appropriate avoidance response. But rats cannot learn to associate taste with electric shock or use auditory or visual cues to learn that a food is noxious (Garcia & Koelling 1966; Garcia et al. 1968).

These findings may be puzzling for the psychologist who has no appreciation of the evolutionary past of the rat, but they make quite good sense from an evolutionary perspective. For rats, which often scurry about in dark places and eat an amazing variety of foods, taste is a better indicator of the quality of food than its visual appearance or the sounds they make while eating. In contrast, physical dangers are usually accompanied by visual and auditory signals, not gustatory ones. So it makes sense that evolution would have selected rats that learn what is bad to eat by taste and what is physically dangerous by sight and sound.

New Jerry Smith · 02-18-2003, 07:23 PM

I have not finished reading the Pinkerton paper, but after I read the abstract, I saved it to my HD for further reading. I read along far enough to see that the sum total of his argument is that there is no adequate explanation apart from selection to account for human language.

I am inclined to agree. Now, on the other hand, I haven't read the critique of his paper - because I believe I may have arrived at similar complaints before I saw the link to the critique, and since it's bedtime, I wanted to sound off first and find out whether I'm being foolish later. Pinkerton's paper seems to be positing a "selectionism-of-the-gaps". Who is really going to be satisfied by this?

I think what we need is more data. When I started reading the paper, I expected an analysis of the evolutionary history of the development of language. When I quit reading, I was disappointed, because the paper only promised to show that it must have been regular old selection because no other theory seems to explain it. To settle a debate like this, you need data.

Doubting Didymus · 02-18-2003, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by New Jerry Smith

To settle a debate like this, you need data.

This is precisely why I asked if anyone who read his books could tell me if he ever got around to supplying any data. So far, nothing. I guess I'll just have to read him myself.

jayh · 02-19-2003, 04:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
This is precisely why I asked if anyone who read his books could tell me if he ever got around to supplying any data. So far, nothing. I guess I'll just have to read him myself.

As with most of evolution, experimentation is not possible and there is no single smoking gun. It is necessary to arrive at conclusions by looking at the implications of various arguments and lines of research, and this cannot be summarized in a few paragraphs.

02-18-2003, 07:23 PM	#42
New Jerry Smith Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Tennessee Posts: 9	More data please I have not finished reading the Pinkerton paper, but after I read the abstract, I saved it to my HD for further reading. I read along far enough to see that the sum total of his argument is that there is no adequate explanation apart from selection to account for human language. I am inclined to agree. Now, on the other hand, I haven't read the critique of his paper - because I believe I may have arrived at similar complaints before I saw the link to the critique, and since it's bedtime, I wanted to sound off first and find out whether I'm being foolish later. Pinkerton's paper seems to be positing a "selectionism-of-the-gaps". Who is really going to be satisfied by this? I think what we need is more data. When I started reading the paper, I expected an analysis of the evolutionary history of the development of language. When I quit reading, I was disappointed, because the paper only promised to show that it must have been regular old selection because no other theory seems to explain it. To settle a debate like this, you need data.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.