Charles Brown wrote: > The main question > that occurred to me is why don't the authors consider such things > as digging a burrow or migrating to avoid cold as genetically > based instincts, as essentially phenotypical expression of > genotype. Isn't there such a thing as instinctive animal > BEHAVIOR ? If so isn't a form of phenotype ( the paper mentions > Dawkins' "extended phenotype")? Finally, why do they treat it as > if it is incipient animal culture ? Are they saying that child > animals learn , for example, seasonal migration by imitating > parents , and that it is not genetically based instinct ? Probably I'm missing something here, but how does this affect the concept of gene-culture coevolution, assuming you're right? > > CB: Are they saying this web construction or the subsequent > camouflage, protection and communication behaviours are > instintive or incipiently "cultural" ? Are they passed on > through genes or as a "tradition" ? I would assume the former. I'm sure you're right, but again, I don't see this disqualifies the notion of coevolution. > ))))))))) > > > > Most cases of niche construction, however, do not involve the building of > artefacts, but merely the selection or modification of habitats > (Odling-Smee, 1988). For instance, many insects choose particular host > > (((((((((((( > > CB: They "choose" it ? Is this instinctive choice or "conscious" choice ? > > ((((((((( I'm sure the word choice doesn't imply cognition, in context. > All organisms constantly interact with their local environments, and they > constantly change them by doing so. If, in each generation, populations of > organisms only modify their local environment idiosyncratically, or > inconsistently, then there will be no modification of natural selection > pressures, and hence, no significant evolutionary consequence. > If, however, > in each generation, each organism repeatedly changes its own > environment in > the same way, perhaps because each individual inherits the same genes > causing it to do so, then the result may be a modification of natural > selection. > > ((((((((((((( > > CB: Why do they say "perhaps" ? Isn't this definitely so. And > isn't this an important point in a paper that compares > instinctive behavior and cultural behavior ? > > I can understand that the authors are pointing to ecological > inheritance as structures external to the organisms's bodies and > thereby different than the bodily phenotype. But the behaviors > that generate the physical structures that persist to a next > generation or influence the upbringing of infant animals here are > INSTINCTIVE behaviors, not learned as a culture or tradition. > > clip I think the whole thrust of the paper is to show how forms of co-operation and altruism can emerge in a grounded way, out of the evolutionary logic itself, ie as *necessary* adaptations which optimise survivability of the genotype (the "selfish genes"). This is much better than just an appeal to good behaviour! > (((((((((((((((((( > > CB: Seems to me that human culture still has a unique status with > respect to its capacity to modify natural selection. Absolutely: 'The hive is at bottom one bee', as Marx said. Mark _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
