Culture may be encoded in DNA
POSTED BY: kpo
UPDATED: Saturday, September 5, 2026 00:24
VIEWED: 9894
PAGE 4 of 14
Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
Yeah, you sort of have to wonder about the quality of the bird experiment if the "scientists" bring up other ridiculous scenarios and think they are logical... But who knows? Sometimes smart people can be smart in some instances and say some pretty strange/illogical stuff in others... Francis Crick codiscovered DNA on the one hand and then supported "directed panspermia" (life evolved when some random alien biomolecules in space landed on the earth), which also doesn't have much, if any, hard evidence (according to wikipedia).
The weird thing is, that's a theory that's become increasingly popular with the idea that water was seeded on earth by objects from space, as well as biomolecules from certain carbon rich meteorites. It's what they tried to push on me when I was in school.
Now, of course, they're starting to find more and more water on the moon than they ever anticipated, and thinking more about likely "material" rings that would form based on mass as the proto solar system "disk" collapsed and spun, and they're slowly building to an idea that Dreamtrove had a long while ago, which is that the MOON came from somewhere around Jupiter, and the Earth stole water from it en mass.
It's an interesting theory, and the more I've looked at the available evidence, the more it makes sense to me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, I'm doubting the assumption that this is "culture." How much of the song has to do with the physical structure of the bird? Are their beaks and throats designed for that particular sound, since it's the only one that species makes? Make happens if "lost song" birds were raised with different species?
Originally posted by Bytemite:
He was very surprised when the babies didn't spontaneously develop the ability to speak Egyptian as they grew into children, but that no less didn't change the fact that the entire thing was an example of an extremely poorly designed study.
It seems that the bird scientists are arguing along the lines that English babies left alone for four generations will genetically revert to speaking English, Chinese babies speaking Chinese, etc. Maybe it should be more about how human babies always revert to making human noises while dog babies revert to dog noises.
One interesting study I recall as far as English/Chinese: The "r" sound is tough for a native Chinese speakers to make, but some scientists claimed that Chinese DNA'd babies who hear spoken English for their first year have no problem. I think this article was in Science magazine, or something like, a good decade ago, and the argument was that language patterns are set in the brain during year 1, even before babies speak.
(Not sure how that relates. Still trying to work out the meaning of this bird experiment.)
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Very likely a case of the write-up not fully understanding the science.
That was more what I was getting at. Its staggering the number of times people have told me some scientific law has been overturned (and we're talking the biggies, like thermodynamics and causality) because of some staggeringly badly written hack piece in the media.
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
True, I remember Rue and I arguing over something like this in regards to a morality study. The write up sounded like a basic morality study, I was seeing more sinister undertones. Rue told me I couldn't possibly conclude the things I had determined from the study.
Of course, when I went to find the ABSTRACT, turned out that the study really WAS evaluating how consistent some people were making the choice to kill in an ethical dilemma, and claiming they did so because they were more "intelligent."
Really, I find that you can't trust write ups OR many studies to not have a slant. Skepticism must be practiced, and studies themselves must be read to determine whether proper procedure was followed. .
Ah yes... I think that was the thread that had the "Would you push a fat guy in front of a truck to save 5 people?" and "What would you do if you were the captain of a submarine with a leak?" questions in it.
Quote:
Here's a better description, but still a write up.
http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/2009/05/the_universal_grammar_
of_birdsong_is_genetically_encoded.php
Rats, it froze my computer. The part I did read didn't seem to say the new generations developed the identical song, just a similar one...
Quote:
I think this is the study, dated 2004.
http://mitralab.org/papers-src/REG-13258681Doc.pdf
.
No, this appears to be describing the technology used to measure various aspects of bird songs, not the particular study in question. I could be wrong, I only scanned it, as it was pretty dry reading...
Quote:
This one is also related, and has a conclusion I can buy a lot easier, that the neurology of the birds has some sort of constraint that eventually produces an auto-correction when trying to imitate a note.
http://www.mitralab.org/papers-src/ScienceMarch2001.pdf
Very likely a case of the write-up not fully understanding the science.
Haven't looked at this link, yet, but that seems to be a bit more specific. Of course, there is probably some gene (or several) in the DNA that puts that "constraint" in place. ETA: And, this may make the original bird study we were discussing seem more logical -- though the questions about "culture" being inherited may still be up in the air.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ooh, thanks for that, M4P. That actually is a perfect segue in to the study I found from the same people, above, the one dated March 2001.
It's possible that a certain neurological structure is DEVELOPED early on. In humans this structure is influenced by proximity to other humans. In birds... Maybe other birds?
In any case, it's often dangerous to make assumptions of atavism in biology and generations.
The reason I say that, well... Remember when I said you have to be careful about slants and biases? Some groups are out to "prove" or support ideas with studies you would never expect to be related.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism
Quote:
The notion of atavism was used frequently by social Darwinists, who claimed that inferior races displayed atavistic traits, and represented more primitive traits than their own race. Both the notion of atavism, and Haeckel's recapitulation theory, are saturated with notions of evolution as progress, as a march towards greater complexity and superior ability.
In addition, the concept of atavism as part of an individualistic explanation of the causes of criminal deviance was popularised by the Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso in the 1870s. He attempted to identify physical characteristics common to criminals and labeled those he found as atavistic, 'throwback' traits that determined 'primitive' criminal behavior. His statistical evidence and the notion that physical traits determine inevitable criminality (an idea closely related to the concepts of eugenics) have long since been debunked, but the concept that physical traits may affect the likelihood of criminal behavior in the individual remains popular in some circles.
Politics and science... Number one reason for healthy skepticism whenever you're reading ANYTHING.
But this is about birds, you say. Studies of animals are often a jumping off point for studies to try to understand HUMAN development.
Maybe that's what's happening here, maybe not, but I'm familiar enough with the dark side of atavism social theories that I tend to step carefully when I see claims of atavism.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Neat discussion, all... You've made this last half hour fly by. Thanks!
Citizen: Great reminder about not judging a study by its media coverage
Mal4Prez: Thanks for the alternate hypothesis. I'm more on board with that than with "Culture is in the DNA"..
Byte: Thanks for the links with more solid evidence. You also mentioned Rue. I haven't seen any posts from her lately. Did she retire?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not that I know of. I see Sig around sometimes, they're coworkers. She might just be busy.
I'd be interested to know what SHE thinks, she and Sig are more biologist than me. Plus I thought up a great zoology dirty joke that I think I could get a laugh out of both of them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The only thing worse than me saying that our Big-lip brethren are animals and live as such .....is you people debating about it.
...Have you any shame?... Really...I am a black women and find your debate repulsive...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The only thing worse than me saying that our Big-lip brethren are animals and live as such .....is you people debating about it. ...Have you any shame?... Really...I am a black women and find your debate repulsive...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The only thing worse than me saying that our Big-lip brethren are animals and live as such .....is you people debating about it. ...Have you any shame?... Really...I am a black women and find your debate repulsive...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME