Culture may be encoded in DNA
POSTED BY: kpo
UPDATED: Saturday, September 5, 2026 00:24
VIEWED: 9894
PAGE 7 of 14
Quote:
Interesting theory - perhaps we would then expect each bird to slowly tweak the song, rather than it needing a new generation to come along and tweak it.
It says they do.
Quote:
It's both learnt and genetic, is the impression we get from this study.
Have you read the actual study, or just articles on it? I say that because skepticism is fine, but don't expect the article to have answers for all your (quite valid) questions - that's not the article's job.
I went looking for it, but apparently didn't find it. I could check Nature, that's where it says it was published, but I suspect that's going to have a subscription fee. These online journals often do.
We might just have to settle for the write ups, imperfect though they may be, unless you have a copy?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
KPO
ah, I see that you are correct. I misread how the new generations came in, I thought they weree their own hatchlings.
It would not invalidate the first generation theory though, if there were one male. Females would mate with one male given sufficient time and no competition, because reproduction is more survival conducive for the species than no reproduction. This is what I was assuming, one male in the first generation, but multiple males in subsequent generations. Actually, it seems we don't have that data, but if the children are new eggs, then the generations might be quite short, and so the total population is increasing, every male is increasing the total number, and thus the competition.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
It seems pretty obvious to me. Listen to the audio files. They start out random, and evolve towards the wild song. It's natural selection. Some songs attract the females more than others. They keep trying new things until they get it right. I, personally, find the journey more interesting than the destination, and I would think others would find the same thing, but maybe only others of my genetic background ;)'
Seriously though, its pretty cut and dried. Listen to the songs, and envision the whole scenario, and mentally walk through how it happens, how it has to happen, and you'll realize, I suspect, that this is the way it is. Its the guiding hand of evolution, and of that means that on some level, the creationists are right, and were all walking towards a preplanned destiny, then sobeit, at least to some extent.
The argument works because it makes sense, and the alternative does not. There is no reason for a mating song to exist at all if there is not a matching pattern algorithm in the females brain. There would be no slow evolution of songs if they were simply taught, so we know this is not the case. Listen to the songs.
I don't see that the non-model males do contribute, and so they wouldn't seem to be contributing to increased competition.
I'm afraid I just have to disagree.
Logically, it doesn't make sense to me for someone to call a dialect genetic. What does make sense to me in this case is that circumstances nudge learning with respect to the environmental influences.
I don't think we know enough to rule everything out but genetics.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hard Rocker Ozzy Osbourne Wants His DNA Mapped To Find Out Why He's Still Alive And Not Buttraped By Satan In Hell
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/68952
Because anyone who takes a drunken shit in an elevator is obviously a superior life form.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting theory - perhaps we would then expect each bird to slowly tweak the song, rather than it needing a new generation to come along and tweak it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It says they do.
Sorry, I explained that badly. I'm suggesting that if the evolution of the song was simply towards what is easiest/simplest for the bird to sing, then would we need successive generations of hatchlings, for the song to evolve? Wouldn't the first generation gradually change their own song, to what felt 'easier', and eventually reach the normal song? But there is no mention of individual birds changing their own song over time (beyond the later generations and their initial 'tweaking' of what they hear).
Quote:
We might just have to settle for the write ups, imperfect though they may be, unless you have a copy?
Sorry. But the study was featured in a recent BBC documentary on the origins of human speech... so they considered it reputable at least.
Quote:
Logically, it doesn't make sense to me for someone to call a dialect genetic.
As I said before, I don't think we can equate a mating call with a 'dialect' or a language. It's more, and less (it's a communication that only ever means one thing, not a language??) than this.
Heads should roll
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Byte,
I'm not sure your post addressed my post at all. I thought the songs pretty clearly disprove the hypothesis of coaching, and that the scenario does paint itself pretty well as a social competition in a drive towards a predetermined imprint, one which can be passed through generations, hence is genetic. Since we know images which create impressions of fear can be passed down genetically, why not ones of love? Or any other emotion? An if so, and people change their behavior to suit that impression, than do they not create a culture by doing so?
You have to be very careful to not impose upon the world the filter of what you want to be true over the truth which is actually in front of you. Marcus Aurelius said that, or words to that effect. Probably in Latin.
ETA:
I found this "Vex not thy spirit at the course of things; they heed not thy vexation. How ludicrous and outlandish is astonishment at anything that may happen in life." he goes on to say rather revel in every discovery that might open a door to a new understanding or some such thing, it's pretty Taoist of him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm hesitate to commit to something I don't think we have enough evidence for. For example:
Quote:
Since we know images which create impressions of fear can be passed down genetically, why not ones of love? Or any other emotion? An if so, and people change their behavior to suit that impression, than do they not create a culture by doing so?
What? We "know" this?
Do you mean to tell me that culture dictates genes? That the current perception of anorexic human "beauty" is genetically encoded now?
Stresses dictate genes. Culture is a stressor? Functionally it seems to act, as far as I can tell, only as an aesthetic.
I think the issue here is that you're on the extreme end of nature. I'm in the middle, think some things are nature (gender identity and heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual/transgender), but that anything that can be argued to be learned is nurture. And everything I read in the article to me suggests learning.
But perhaps part of the problem is I can't hear the birdsongs, perhaps they would be very convincing. I'm just dubious that there really is a progression; the individuality of the "tweaking" of the birdsongs, and the suggestion that both isolated and wild birds tweak the song... How do you define what is a normal, wild song is there's clear variance in the population? What if all the songs are within standard deviation for normalcy?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Rouka,
But why we have all of this is that were ruled by a judeochr istian elite. That you also are is not proof of anything genetic.
I'm confused. Are you arguing that culture has a genetic basis or are you not? Because this would, yes, be the influence of a dominant culture, not genes.
Quote:
Check out sometime how iran has rebranded Islam, and recreated it's image to fit the persian mind, and what that mind wants, which I would assume would be Scheherazade' just as the european Christians have rebranded christianity into Narnia, and Harry Potter. If what you say was true, then there would be no need to do this.
But that can just as easily and more likely be explained by the fact that there was a thriving culture already existing when these religions were introduced, in both places.
If I understand correctly, you claim that culture develops according to a specific genetic model that is disparate between, say Europe and the Middle East, etc.
I don't think your fairy tale anecdote does enough to support that theory. It can equally be used as an example for how tradition is passed on so subtly is doesn't seem present yet expresses itself in preferences. Unless you were raised in a culture that was predominantly NOT European-influenced, I don't think you can make the claim that it was genetic preference that drove you kids to ask for those specific fairytales.
More than that, I don't believe it can be measured, at all, whether there is merit to your theory because it would involve raising children in unethical circumstances. Unless there is a large segment of children adopted into families from notably different cultural spheres - without ever receiving knowledge of that difference or their original cultural sphere. If you had a group like that you could try and examine whether they naturally gravitate toward their unknown "genetic" culture. It would be difficult to verify, though.
I think culture as it develops has more to do with environment, but once developed templates are carried on for a long time even with superficial changes simply because children learn them like language fairly early within the family and without much conscious effort.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Sorry! I wasn't clear. What I meant was that I couldn't make any kind of solid assessment of the study until I knew more about bird speech, about the physical as well as the mental mechanisms (mating choices). Actually, I think it likely that both nature and nurture are involved, I'm just not sure to what extent.
Originally posted by kpo: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?
Surely, to some extent - but why did it take 3 or 4 generations for the song to evolve back to normal sound? This suggests that both learning, and innate sense (of how the song should sound) is involved.
Quote:I'm not sure I agree with this as a conclusion. But really, I don't know enough about speech in general, much less bird speech, to debate it usefully.
No, I don't think they're suggesting that. The birdsong is more than language it's a mating call - which is a display of beauty designed to attract a mate (think peacocks), not just to notify one... So it's an art/culture thing more than a language one.
I will say that I've long had a pet theory about color. I think we have emotional reactions to color that are hardwired into our brains.
Pardon me, I must explain: I got this idea while in an airplane, when I was thinking how lucky we are to live on a world with this color of sky. It really is nice to look at. Then I thought - but it's just a wavelength (or combination of several - but you know what I mean.) If Earth's atmosphere happened to scatter the wavelengths making up the color I call poo brown/yellow, and if humans shat light blue, my ancestors would have learned to associate the poo brown/yellow wavelengths with peace and tranquility, and light blue wavelengths would mean "ick". I'd be sitting on the airplane taking great pleasure in a shit colored sky. I'd be disgusted by light blue.
So then, "light blue" isn't defined by it's wavelengths as much as the emotional reaction I have to it. But was this hardwired into my DNA by my ancestors? Or did I learn these associations while I was young, from real life experience as well as the use of color in my culture? Would an isolated, blinded baby have these reactions if her eyes were turned on later in life? I really don't know. I suppose the bird song study is an attempt at carrying out this kind of experiment.
Which is all to say: yes, I believe it possible that art and culture are at least partly DNA based. But I've never seen anything that could definitively prove it. I would need to read about this study more - I hope someone does find a link to the whole thing eventually. I'm not going to look it up, though. I'm on vacation.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I agree. Like that study about Chinese/English language ability, (Oh - thanks for the personal experience with this, Kwicko!) and my own highly unscientific observations of how young children pick up subtle characteristics from their parents: I think a lot of traits are learned before they are exhibited, which makes it seem like they are inherent.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I don't think your fairy tale anecdote does enough to support that theory. It can equally be used as an example for how tradition is passed on so subtly is doesn't seem present yet expresses itself in preferences.
I don't mean to say that about the bird study (I'm still not clear on how exactly it was carried out. My fault - I haven't read carefully enough.) But I do think this applies to the fairy tale situation. By the time kids are old enough to ask for a fairy tale, they have already learned a ton of cultural information from their environment. I would have a hard time separating nature and nurture in this situation.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME