How do Parent Behavior Memories transfer to Offspring? Via DNA?

Conversation
1

Brainstorming QUESTION:

1-What does science know about HOW instinctual memories, behavior traits, and skills needed for survival, present in (primarily here) the parents of mammals and birds, get transferred to their offspring? Via DNA?

For context, The simple alternative method that offspring utilize to acquire needed skills is to learn them from watching others of their species DO something, after being born. Either from their parents, or from others of the species group. Certainly primates have a very long period of nurturing during growth to adulthood.

But many creatures, reptiles and some birds, pop out of eggs, and get busy living right away! And they already know what to do to survive. When separated from the group, they often are still able to survive. It’s amazing to me…

Or, the third possibility, that offspring are relearning skills independently, on their own, after each birth.

ONE Simple example that may NOT require a specific instinct imprint: A chimp or bear, may not be born innately KNOWING the following SKILL: They can push a stick into a bee hive, or hollow log, let the insects cover it, and then pull the stick out and lick the insects off the stick. This skill may be RELEARNED independently by each creature, via their basic visualization and problem solving instincts, and little else.

A FEW MORE EXAMPLES of survival skills, mostly just listed without further details: Nature or Nurture? Innate Instinct or Acquired after birth? How do they pass survival behavior to offspring? >> >> >>

1-BIRDS, the core skill of building a nest. Can most nest building birds construct a nest if they have never seen another bird do it?

CALLING a great ornithologist: @John_Harshman

2—OTTERS, the skill of using a rock to break open shells to consume the contents. Did they see the ROCK AS TOOL trick once, BINGO, it was learned? Or do they all do it from instinct?

3—VOCAL LANGUAGE in humans, vs the different, more modern skill set needed to read and write

The puzzle centers around how vastly different cognition functions in a living brain, which requires constant heat, and nutrients supplied by circulating blood - compared to how DNA functions, during reproduction. (Am trying to avoid the loaded word “information” here.)

All thoughts inside a brain require living tissue to utilize and save them, or the contents are LOST at death. So how can this be “saved”, and then send thru genetics to the offspring? (I’m repeating myself alas…)

One last pertinent BRAINSTORM nugget:

THE HUNDREDTH MONKEY EFFECT, no longer well supported by experimentation, but intriguing. Linked here, primarily as food for hypothesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_monkey_effect

1 Like
2

Many bird behaviors are instinctive, and nest-building is clearly one. Few birds have seen a nest being constructed before doing it, though I suppose they might get a little information from having been hatched in one. One must assume that this behavior, which in many species is very elaborate, must ultimately trace back to some bits of DNA. Then again, other elaborate behaviors are learned. In songbirds, song is learned by listening to adults (not necessarily just the parents), but it’s been shown that birds are strongly biased toward learning the songs of their species, so they aren’t complete tabulae rasae. But working out the details at the genetic level would be very difficult. Anyway, some behaviors are instinctive, some are learned, and others are a combination of the two.

5 Likes
3

One thing I find interesting in my birdwatching excursions is how the song of the ubiquitous Song Sparrow varies depending on locale, even though it is always unmistakable which species it is coming from.

1 Like
4

The brain itself is not in the DNA, but the “instructions” for it’s development and basic structures are.

Since the basic structures of the brain develop embryologically, and the behavior of the organism is a product of the brain (and presumably central nervous system too), and since the brains’ development is encoded in DNA, it follows that instinctive(not to be confused with learned) behavior is encoded in DNA too.

Learned behavior isn’t passed on and doesn’t develop embryologically. A lot of the brains wiring responsible for learned behavior develops later in life, but isn’t directly encoded in DNA. The capacity for learning is encoded, but not what you learn specifically.

Instinctive behavior, in so far as it is instinctive and not learned, must develop evolutionarily first.

If it is learned it can’t be passed on. Learned behavior also isn’t somehow written back into DNA simply because it is learned. While you could imagine selective pressures favoring any mutations that contribute to programming in behavior similar to the learned one, the mere fact it is learned isn’t going to write it into the DNA.
The environment has to favor any spontaneously arising mutations that contribute to and produce that behavior, and if it does favor those mutations and if those mutations do arise, it’s irrelevant whether the organism has also learned that behavior first or not.

1 Like
5

There is a whole field of Evolutionary Game Theory that deals with completing behaviors, and the behaviors may be instinctive, learned, or a combination of both. This is a mathematical way to study how behaviors interact, and has nothing to do with biology, but it could effect fitness.

The Hawk/Dove game (also “Chicken”) is an example where more/less aggressive strategies compete. Level of aggression is tied to hormone expression, and that is something that can be passed on to descendants. Learned behavior also modifies aggression.

Nest building is more complicated, and young birds are not always good at it, so there is more learning going on there too. It is an active field of study.

2 Likes
6

Not around here it isn’t. Bewick’s wrens often produce a very similar song. You have to listen closely to tell the difference.

7

ALL these first responses to my query, have given me lots of great threads to follow up on. Thanks Y’all ! :+1: But the above quote from Rumraket gets to the heart of my conjecture in physical terms, with the word “Directly” doing a lot of heavy lifting. That so far as science has discovered about the CHEMISTRY, knowledge in the form of learned skills, stored in a living brain is not translated specifically into unique DNA and then passed to offspring.

But hormone levels, I just learned, that are produced by physical glands, can be passed forward to offspring in some manner, it seems to follow. And there is so much more for me to learn. And I can easily visualize that it might just take a very, very long time for significant changes in the instincts of a creature to be reflected in the offspring. We have 3.7 billion years to work with here, no stop watch needed.

THE EXAMPLE THAT CREATED MY QUESTION: I forgot to mention this one creature’s puzzling pattern, I live around a lot of suburban rabbits and hares and come across them all the time on walks in the woods. And it confounds me to no end: They do NOT fear predators! WHY ! “Wake up you fools! GET SCARED!” So they become the common snacks of raccoons, coyotes, hawks, etc. The wild hares here with more ancient heredity will hop out of the way, but still do so, with very little urgency. But the rabbits, which may have originally arrived from pet store stocks around here, their primary response is to FREEZE. I could grab them off the grocery shelf, but don’t want to be cruel. the freeze choice is like the extremely well camouflaged ruffed grouse chooses to deploy. Except the ruffed grouse are so well disguised, that this behavior is obviously well chosen. I once sat down to have a sandwich, and did not see a grouse, with mottled brown and grey feathers, smack dab in front of me!- on a wooded, overgrown railroad grade for about 10 minutes. Scared me spleen-less, when they suddenly bolted, and flew away. But my local rabbits all have dirty white fur coats, and strongly stick out against ALL backgrounds. Sitting ducks, as the ducks say.

So I’m thinking, “Rabbit! Why can’t you get the message, over time, in your DNA, …and BE AFRAID, and fear all these predators?”

And this RABBIT puzzle has led to ONE HYPOTHESIS, as how one type of memory might be IMPRINTED, and then maybe is passed on to offspring. Imagine a creature, that when young, it watches their own parents be consumed by a predator. ACK! A big trauma. One assumes some degree of PTSD would occur in that young creature. Several of my own earliest memories as a human stem from disasters occurring at age 5-6 years old that have never left me…yet the rest of childhood is a blur. TRAUMA prints to the brain strongly. Therefore, this individual would lead a life with much more fear of predators than many of the others in the group. That may alter the hormone mechanism, or it’s adjustments to stimuli, in the next generation.(maybe ??) Perhaps most rabbits tend to get eaten well BEFORE they get a chance to reproduce, so the gene pool is not affected by the fool rabbits with no fear. But that only describes the basic “differential reproduction” engine, not the rest of the genetics driving biological evolution.

It seems to me, that there is still quite a bit of mystery as to HOW such patterns end up being inherited by the next generation. And yet…I seem to be missing how much LEARNING seems to occur within the lifespan of many creatures. MMMnnnn…

RABBIT FOOD FOR THOUGHT: Here is one mind bending hypothesis, that takes a HUGE leap into trying to describe the situation of how nature preserves its PATTERNS of behavior. The proposal of Rubert Sheldrake. His idea of MORPHIC RESONANCE. Don’t laugh too quickly, because 1-Sheldrake has spent vast amounts of time brainstorming with a good buddy in polymath Freeman Dyson. Dyson, for me, is absolutely (!) one of the greatest cross discipline scientific thinkers of all time. 2-This idea sprung forth trying to discover how homing pigeons always find their way back home, with no testable sense input known. And he has spent DECADES doing unquestionably hard science trying to sort that one out. Respect. 3-Never once has Sheldrake called his principle of Morphic Resonance a Theory, instead, he is quick to clarify that it is only a hypothesis. So for me at least, Sheldrake does not qualify as a “loon”. (LOL)

QUOTE from the Wikipedia page: "Sheldrake’s morphic resonance posits that “memory is inherent in nature”[2][15] and that “natural systems … inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind.”[15

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake>

Sheldrake, Rupert (2011). Icon books: The presence of the past: Morphic resonance and the habits of nature

Google Books link < The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature - Rupert Sheldrake - Google Books >

8

No, please no. It’s impossible to have a serious discussion of morphic resonance. This is woo of the most virulent kind. Epigenetic inheritance, also, is mostly woo and can have no significant effect on evolution. Inheritance is genetic, and any changes in DNA arise by random mutation, and changes in species happen by drift and selection.

6 Likes
9

Another quote from the same article:

He proposed the concept of morphic resonance, a conjecture that lacks mainstream acceptance and has been widely criticized as pseudoscience.

(My emphasis)

I agree with John that this is woo of the worst order.

3 Likes
10

So the behavior of flying evolved in step with the physical capability of flight?

11

I don’t know what you’re asking or how it’s a response to what I said. I would however suppose that the ability to fly and the behavior of flying would co-evolve. How else? We can’t see behavior in fossils, generally. We infer behavior from anatomy. Thus we suppose that Archaeopteryx both flew and was capable of flight, though not to the degree that most modern birds can.

2 Likes
12

Okay, I will drop unpacking 'Morphic Resonance" for the following reasons.

1- To spare us tilting at windmills, on your wise counsel.

2- While I have not read either of Sheldrake’s papers in full on the concept, I’m not aware of any evidence, or see any compelling hypothesis on how one might design a TEST to demonstrate the effect Sheldrake describes may be occurring.

3-Thou I see Sheldrake has having done some solid science in his career (especially a 20 year botany study that published some discoveries) real credentials only get one a seat at the table of being able to submit research for publication. Each study must be evaluated on it’s merits. So far, it’s just the framework of an idea expouded upon with some detail. He says that “Nature has a collective pattern memory for each kind”, well that is almost the same thing as saying that “Each species shares the same instincts” which I doubt anybody disagrees with. (Thou he used that “kind” word, that smells of apologetics) It’s a mystery…being discussed in mysterious ways.

However, I would note the following before continuing to wait for some evidence:
Morphic fields are REAL in biology. An example is how mammals create a FIELD during development that acts like a three dimensional invisible MAP that guides where the organs are to be placed in space, in a body cavity. However, morphic resonance steps far beyond that function into…some sort of perplexing notion of memories being inherited in a way I cannot even comprehend. Yet. (?)

I do notice that Evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis (at one time the wife of astronomer Carl Sagan before she died) introduced the concept of “symbiosis in evolution”. Her work tried to unpack how creatures are interdependent within an ecosystem. The way populations of predator and prey balance each other is a simple example, but she explored other such interdependence she saw in Nature. We see bees and ants, for example, working together in colonies in ways that are remarkable and not yet fully understood. There may be unique types of communication between organisms that we do not yet understand. But she managed to create some useful data, and expand on her hypothesis at the cellular level. It is a little similar, but not the same idea as morphic resonance.

< Lynn Margulis - Wikipedia >

I do not see much we can even talk about, from Rupert Sheldrake yet. I hereby proclaim, if others wish to discuss morphic resonance, they should start a fresh thread on the topic. I am happy to leave the subject here. Keeping the focus on the role of genetics and instincts is seems sensible and on topic. One mystery at a time.

John, et all, I fully accept neutral theory, and have a long time fascination with the research of Motoo Kimura from 1968 onward. I do NOT feel that biological evolution is really a “random” or “undirected” process at all, because some manner of natural selection is always occurring at the same time. The two cannot be separated, so they are ONE process in action.

I especially find the idea of “genetic entropy” to be dead wrong, because species can obviously last a VERY long time, and tend to refine themselves over a VERY long time to an exquisite degree. The modern horse, the hummingbird WOW! However, I have a squishy hunch that there are lots of aspects of natural selection that are yet to be discovered that are occurring within the realm of genetics.

No Tim, it may be “tilting at windmills” but It is NOT woo “of the worst order” because Rupert Sheldrake has never claimed to have anything more that a speculative hypothesis to share. If one clearly qualifies oneself with honesty, that cannot be 'Woo" of any kind in science.

In my strong opinion, by example, molecular biologist Michael Behe is more guilty of spreading WOO because he has continuously made claims, that he does not submit for peer review, (even thou he has a PHD giving him the privilege) and then when shown evidence by other credentialed scientists outside of academia, that he is wrong on many aspects, he NEVER retracts his flawed claims. He primarily tosses responses to criticism from inside his own bubble to the propaganda mills as a response. That has another name, wasting everybody’s time in P.R.A.T.T. That is Master WOO. Sheldrake is not hiding within a bubble of his own making, he’s been a transparent biologist at Cambridge, and done research at Harvard. And he just has far reaching speculative ideas.

Sheldrake has tried to find evidence of telepathy, which is why many throw spitballs and paper airplanes at him, but so far has not succeeded. That he has TRIED to find evidence of telepathy, and will honestly admit what his results consist of, means he does not engage in WOO. We all must maintain this distinction of what WOO really consists of, in science. Freedom of thought supported by HONESTY are “the rules of the game”, not engaging in gossip.

Faith in a mysterious deity creators WOULD be “Woo”, if one did not admit that one accepts this position on faith, rather than empirical physical evidence that can be shared and built upon.

13

VladtheDestroyer, you asked John Harshman this question, but I’ll take a speculative stab at it. I’ve spent time watching squirrels. They have long bushy tails that have become incredibly key features of their bodies. Their tails 1-act as a weighted counter balance to ordinary movement on the ground, and also, 2-when they tumble off a high branch, this tail is so big and bushy, that it acts like an emergency parachute slowing their descent to the ground. Having this tail, in turn, makes them confident, and brave about ascending to the very top of tall fir trees. They nest with the birds, a dray on a branch, 100’s of feet up!

Therefore it is easy to imagine that the skill of FLIGHT developed much like squirrel parachuting. Also, we have the example of the flying squirrel, which is a hang glider pilot. I can visualize that flight is a learned activity, a little bit at a time. It might take thousands of generations before it happens. Being able to fly is a very powerful skill, so I see a strong incentive to make it happen.

14

Yes!!

15

So that would require one set of random mutations for wings and another set mutations for the behavior?

16

Beware. Lynn Margulis had a reputation for contrarian crankiness. Endosymbiosis, which she championed (though others actually demonstrated conclusively), kinda developed into an overwhelming worldview or lens (pervasive symbiosis) through which she viewed much of evolution. Her HIV/AIDS contrarian views pretty much sealed my opinion of her objectivity and good sense.

2 Likes
17

I think Sheldrake was talking about morphology, not instinct. So quite different. Nor do I think we can equate instinct with memory.

Not sure you would call that a field, in the physical sense. It’s more a distribution of transcription factors. There’s a word for that, which I currently forget.

Submission isn’t a privilege, and you don’t need any sort of degree to do it. Just saying.

4 Likes
18

Sure. Is that a problem? The selective environment of one locus includes all the other loci in the genome. A mutation that makes flight work better makes a mutation that increases flight behavior more advantageous, and vice versa.

1 Like
19

Yes Irikevig, he has:

Do you have evidence for your hypotheses?

Yes. For the hypothesis for morphic resonance, several other scientists and I have tested it in the realms of human and animal behaviour over the last 30 years. This evidence is summarised in the third edition of my book A New Science of Life (2009), called Morphic Resonance in the US, and I propose 10 new tests in the Appendix to this book. In addition, there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence from experiments with crystals, cell cultures, fruit flies, rats and humans which I summarize in The Presence of the Past (1988; new edition 2011).

For my hypotheses about the extended mind and telepathy, much evidence is summarized in my papers on these subjects, and in my books Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home and The Sense of Being Stared At.

– Frequently Asked Questions, Sheldrake’s website.

I could probably find more evidence of him claiming “anything more that a speculative hypothesis”, but this was the obvious ‘low hanging fruit’.

1 Like
20

Yes, Argon, thou I tend to admire those who push themselves to ask difficult questions, I agree that Lynn Margulis sense of scientific judgement seemed to fade later in life. More pertinent, is thou ecosystems are obviously symbiotic, she fell on deaf ears for about 20 years. But that is the rules of the game, “SHOW me the evidence IN THE DATA” and ALL ears will perk right up.

I’m beginning to think that ALL humans begin going functionally senile, in some dimension or other, after about age 65-75. :wink: And because people are living much longer today, society is going to have respond to this reality.

This reminds me of Linus Pauling, who got two Nobel prizes and was an extremely productive scientist. Did the work of 3+ people. But then >> >> >>

LINK to Linus Pauling Linus Pauling - Wikipedia

Pauling was known most widely for his work on vitamin C, an inexpensive, yet now identified as an essential nutrient, that could now be easily distributed to the world’s most impoverished people without access to enough fruits and vegetables. I read his short book, “Vitamin C and the common cold”. However, Pauling himself took 10 grams of vitamin C per day (!) defiantly on an empty stomach, and promoted this dosage far and wide, primarily on how he envisioned the chemistry, without waiting for further research on how large doses might play into human nutrition in the a bigger picture. You know, from TESTING on himans.

Years after he passed, I read once (cannot back this up) that some papers determined that a human usually cannot absorb more than about 66 mg of vitamin C per day. And, if a person is sick, there is some indication that 3000 mg and up, may have an effect on healing, by giving short “kicks” to the immune system. There is just one problem. If you consume 10 grams of vitamin C per day, this leaches out, and/or cancels out, all kinds of other essential nutrients, that are being consumed. So today doctors have steered me clear of bigger doses. (Vitamin C is water soluble thou, and thus, I’m guessing that an overdose is probably difficult or impossible.)

The caveat I put in evaluating scientists, is just like for entertainers, politicians. No quarter, for YOUR OWN FIELD of expertise. However, it can be hard to accept, and ultimately we don’t HAVE to accept it, but, humans are just too multi-diminsional to all be PERFECT in all aspects of their character. Example: Bill Cosby’s brand of comedy, in my opinion, really did change society for the better, for several decades. But then we found out what Cosby appears to do outside of performing on stage and video. Do we share their older comedy with children? I dunno…depends. Maybe we just put it in a vault for 50-100 years, then dust it off, and share it again. (??)