Are my beliefs coherent with all that we know to be true?

[sleepyhead]

Hello,

To begin I will make the following claims about instinct.

1. It is a guiding force in all creatures (including us).
1a. It is most noticeable in the insect kingdom. Because they have smaller brains they are totally controlled by instinct. With larger animals (with more advanced brains) it is still observable. We are the least effected by instinct but it still has an effect on us.

2. It is one force.
2a. When a species mutates and eventually separates into two separate species there is never a separating of instinct into two separate forces. This one force provides the guidance for both creatures.

3. It is possible for humans to communicate with there instinct.
3a. If instinct has the ability to communicate its will to all creatures then it only sounds reasonable that ability should operate in both directions. Is there a reason to assume that communication is only one way? This would likely include meditation, prayer, etc.

[A Troubled Man]

Hello,

The problem is the instinct for survival would naturally cause the chicken to go out and look for food. Most species lay there eggs and off they go. Not chickens. Somehow, instead of chickens evolving eggs which didn't need to be tended to, they developed eggs that required there presence in order to hatch. I can't imagine that a biological based instinct would figure out that the eggs needed tending.

While reptiles are cold blooded, birds are not, hence they must keep their eggs warm.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/stanfordb ... ation.html

[Sonofason]

[Replying to post 10 by A Troubled Man]

A Troubled Man had written:

...chickens evolved from something else, which evolved from something else, etc. There was no first one chicken.

Sonofason intelligently responded:

Although I believe that you are correct that chickens likely evolved from something else, which as you say, evolved from something else. But I do believe that there was indeed a first chicken.

I'm certainly not suggesting that the first chicken was the first of it's kind to lay eggs. Although all chickens must lay eggs, not all eggs are lain by chickens. Thus I would suspect that some particular species, close to that of chickens, that preceded chickens, that were ancestors of chickens likely laid eggs too. But a mutation that affects the genetics of a population of some particular species does not enter into all individuals of that particular species to change all members of the previous species into a new species at the same time. Such a genetic mutation would have developed in one chicken, and that chicken would have had offspring and passed along his mutation to his offspring. And then the offspring would have offspring and introduce the new gene into other individuals in the population, until, possibly, all or many individuals in the population inherited the gene.

Thus, I do believe there was a first chicken.

Argumentatively, A Troubled Man wrote:

Technically, chickens evolved from non-chickens

Technically, that's what I said.

A Troubled Man continues:

...it was the changes in DNA that slowly evolved into chickens...

Apparently, you know a lot more than I do. Please tell me what species preceded chickens, so I can be clear. Because you surely cannot determine how long it took for chickens to evolve, unless you can at least provide the direct ancestor to the chicken. Then we will see how fast this evolution occurs that changes a species into a new species. So what was the species of bird called that preceded chickens?

A Troubled Man continues his thought:

...it was not something that simply happened overnight...

No, your right, mutations can occur in an instant. It doesn't nearly take all night. If chickens have particular characteristics, then it only takes one mutation to complete the requirements of those characteristics. Thus a chicken becomes a chicken in an instant.

I could however be mistaken. You could be right. But to discover who's right and who's wrong, I'd like to see a specific list of necessary characteristics to qualify a creature as a chicken.

Are you sure chickens are even chickens anymore?

What do you suppose human beings will be calling themselves in a million years? Surely, we won't be homo sapiens sapiens any more, right? We may indeed be more like homo habilis by then. So how do you tell your dad that you've evolved or devolved and he hasn't? When do we change the name of what we are? -- You know, now that we are growing up in the "age of science", when everyone thinks they're a genius and a scientist, and everyone is capable discussing such things as evolution. Surely, homo habilis didn't have a name for himself, right? Surely he did not have the power of mind to discuss such things before he was wiped off the map, right?

Then, maybe he didn't get wiped off the map. Maybe he just faded away into history as his species moved on. Maybe we're still homo habilis.

What exact features distinguishes a homo habilis from it's most direct ancestor, or his most direct offspring? Did we evolve from them? Did we creep up somewhere else, and wipe them out? What features did a homo habilis have that a modern human being cannot ever have?

I've heard that the human brain size is now decreasing. Maybe in a million years, it'll be back down to 550 cc. Maybe we're not evolving at all anymore. Maybe we're devolving? What would be the difference anyhow?

If all creatures evolve because particular mutations happen to serve them well at some particular time in history, it certainly could be that conditions could one day exist where our present genius and genetics prove fatal to our species. I mean, it's not like evolution necessarily makes us any better in general. It only makes us better for the moment under the present conditions, right? Better today could be quite detrimental tomorrow.

Well, if you can make any sense of my rambling, you're a better man than I.

[A Troubled Man]

[Replying to post 10 by A Troubled Man]

A Troubled Man had written:

...chickens evolved from something else, which evolved from something else, etc. There was no first one chicken.

Sonofason intelligently responded:

Although I believe that you are correct that chickens likely evolved from something else, which as you say, evolved from something else. But I do believe that there was indeed a first chicken.

I'm certainly not suggesting that the first chicken was the first of it's kind to lay eggs. Although all chickens must lay eggs, not all eggs are lain by chickens. Thus I would suspect that some particular species, close to that of chickens, that preceded chickens, that were ancestors of chickens likely laid eggs too. But a mutation that affects the genetics of a population of some particular species does not enter into all individuals of that particular species to change all members of the previous species into a new species at the same time. Such a genetic mutation would have developed in one chicken, and that chicken would have had offspring and passed along his mutation to his offspring. And then the offspring would have offspring and introduce the new gene into other individuals in the population, until, possibly, all or many individuals in the population inherited the gene.

Thus, I do believe there was a first chicken.

Argumentatively, A Troubled Man wrote:

Technically, chickens evolved from non-chickens

Technically, that's what I said.

A Troubled Man continues:

...it was the changes in DNA that slowly evolved into chickens...

Apparently, you know a lot more than I do. Please tell me what species preceded chickens, so I can be clear.

Excuse me? Firstly, you did not say chickens evolved from non-chickens, but for some reason state that "Technically, that's what I said" and then go on to say that I know more than you and ask what species those non-chickens were?

Curious behavior. If you "Technically"said that, then you would know, so why are you asking me, then?

Because you surely cannot determine how long it took for chickens to evolve, unless you can at least provide the direct ancestor to the chicken. Then we will see how fast this evolution occurs that changes a species into a new species. So what was the species of bird called that preceded chickens?

Sorry, but how is that relevant to the discussion? And, why are you asking me if you already stated you knew that?

Again, very curious behavior.

Of course, the adding in of "intelligently" to your response and "Argumentatively" to my response is quite disingenuous behavior, as well.

So far, it would appear that it is you who is being argumentative for that sake alone. If your comments were intelligent, you wouldn't be asking me what you claim already know.

No, your right, mutations can occur in an instant. It doesn't nearly take all night. If chickens have particular characteristics, then it only takes one mutation to complete the requirements of those characteristics. Thus a chicken becomes a chicken in an instant.

I could however be mistaken. You could be right. But to discover who's right and who's wrong, I'd like to see a specific list of necessary characteristics to qualify a creature as a chicken.

Then, look it up if you so desire.

Are you sure chickens are even chickens anymore?

You tell me, you claim to be the intelligent one here.

What do you suppose human beings will be calling themselves in a million years? Surely, we won't be homo sapiens sapiens any more, right? We may indeed be more like homo habilis by then. So how do you tell your dad that you've evolved or devolved and he hasn't? When do we change the name of what we are? -- You know, now that we are growing up in the "age of science", when everyone thinks they're a genius and a scientist, and everyone is capable discussing such things as evolution. Surely, homo habilis didn't have a name for himself, right? Surely he did not have the power of mind to discuss such things before he was wiped off the map, right?

Then, maybe he didn't get wiped off the map. Maybe he just faded away into history as his species moved on. Maybe we're still homo habilis.

What exact features distinguishes a homo habilis from it's most direct ancestor, or his most direct offspring? Did we evolve from them? Did we creep up somewhere else, and wipe them out? What features did a homo habilis have that a modern human being cannot ever have?

I've heard that the human brain size is now decreasing. Maybe in a million years, it'll be back down to 550 cc. Maybe we're not evolving at all anymore. Maybe we're devolving? What would be the difference anyhow?

If all creatures evolve because particular mutations happen to serve them well at some particular time in history, it certainly could be that conditions could one day exist where our present genius and genetics prove fatal to our species. I mean, it's not like evolution necessarily makes us any better in general. It only makes us better for the moment under the present conditions, right? Better today could be quite detrimental tomorrow.

Well, if you can make any sense of my rambling, you're a better man than I.

Sorry, but I can't make sense of your rambling, I'm not the self-proclaimed intelligent one here.

[Sonofason]

[Replying to post 10 by A Troubled Man]

A Troubled Man had written:

...chickens evolved from something else, which evolved from something else, etc. There was no first one chicken.

Sonofason intelligently responded:

Although I believe that you are correct that chickens likely evolved from something else, which as you say, evolved from something else. But I do believe that there was indeed a first chicken.

I'm certainly not suggesting that the first chicken was the first of it's kind to lay eggs. Although all chickens must lay eggs, not all eggs are lain by chickens. Thus I would suspect that some particular species, close to that of chickens, that preceded chickens, that were ancestors of chickens likely laid eggs too. But a mutation that affects the genetics of a population of some particular species does not enter into all individuals of that particular species to change all members of the previous species into a new species at the same time. Such a genetic mutation would have developed in one chicken, and that chicken would have had offspring and passed along his mutation to his offspring. And then the offspring would have offspring and introduce the new gene into other individuals in the population, until, possibly, all or many individuals in the population inherited the gene.

Thus, I do believe there was a first chicken.

Argumentatively, A Troubled Man wrote:

Technically, chickens evolved from non-chickens

Technically, that's what I said.

A Troubled Man continues:

...it was the changes in DNA that slowly evolved into chickens...

Apparently, you know a lot more than I do. Please tell me what species preceded chickens, so I can be clear.

Excuse me? Firstly, you did not say chickens evolved from non-chickens, but for some reason state that "Technically, that's what I said" and then go on to say that I know more than you and ask what species those non-chickens were?

Curious behavior. If you "Technically"said that, then you would know, so why are you asking me, then?

Because you surely cannot determine how long it took for chickens to evolve, unless you can at least provide the direct ancestor to the chicken. Then we will see how fast this evolution occurs that changes a species into a new species. So what was the species of bird called that preceded chickens?

Sorry, but how is that relevant to the discussion? And, why are you asking me if you already stated you knew that?

Again, very curious behavior.

Of course, the adding in of "intelligently" to your response and "Argumentatively" to my response is quite disingenuous behavior, as well.

So far, it would appear that it is you who is being argumentative for that sake alone. If your comments were intelligent, you wouldn't be asking me what you claim already know.

No, your right, mutations can occur in an instant. It doesn't nearly take all night. If chickens have particular characteristics, then it only takes one mutation to complete the requirements of those characteristics. Thus a chicken becomes a chicken in an instant.

I could however be mistaken. You could be right. But to discover who's right and who's wrong, I'd like to see a specific list of necessary characteristics to qualify a creature as a chicken.

Then, look it up if you so desire.

Are you sure chickens are even chickens anymore?

You tell me, you claim to be the intelligent one here.

What do you suppose human beings will be calling themselves in a million years? Surely, we won't be homo sapiens sapiens any more, right? We may indeed be more like homo habilis by then. So how do you tell your dad that you've evolved or devolved and he hasn't? When do we change the name of what we are? -- You know, now that we are growing up in the "age of science", when everyone thinks they're a genius and a scientist, and everyone is capable discussing such things as evolution. Surely, homo habilis didn't have a name for himself, right? Surely he did not have the power of mind to discuss such things before he was wiped off the map, right?

Then, maybe he didn't get wiped off the map. Maybe he just faded away into history as his species moved on. Maybe we're still homo habilis.

What exact features distinguishes a homo habilis from it's most direct ancestor, or his most direct offspring? Did we evolve from them? Did we creep up somewhere else, and wipe them out? What features did a homo habilis have that a modern human being cannot ever have?

I've heard that the human brain size is now decreasing. Maybe in a million years, it'll be back down to 550 cc. Maybe we're not evolving at all anymore. Maybe we're devolving? What would be the difference anyhow?

If all creatures evolve because particular mutations happen to serve them well at some particular time in history, it certainly could be that conditions could one day exist where our present genius and genetics prove fatal to our species. I mean, it's not like evolution necessarily makes us any better in general. It only makes us better for the moment under the present conditions, right? Better today could be quite detrimental tomorrow.

Well, if you can make any sense of my rambling, you're a better man than I.

Sorry, but I can't make sense of your rambling, I'm not the self-proclaimed intelligent one here.

Exactly.

[sleepyhead]

Hello soas and tm,

I began the thread to obtain input with regards to whether my views were coherent with what we know in nature to be true. DI pointed out that the scientific community would not consider instinct a force. I used the example of the chicken to attempt to show that instinct could be a force. The discussion going on by you two has no bearing on the original topic of discussion. Please either end it or discuss it in some other thread.

[Sonofason]

Hello soas and tm,

I began the thread to obtain input with regards to whether my views were coherent with what we know in nature to be true. DI pointed out that the scientific community would not consider instinct a force. I used the example of the chicken to attempt to show that instinct could be a force. The discussion going on by you two has no bearing on the original topic of discussion. Please either end it or discuss it in some other thread.

No worries. I think you're right to some extent. I think that instinct is a force. But honestly, everything that causes motion is a force, is it not, especially if it causes neurons in your brain to fire off signals to the body.

[micatala]

Exactly.

Moderator Comment

Please remember that one-line responses that add nothing to the debate are against the rules.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.