Help with genes, behaviour, instinct, & the whole damn thing

Forums: Science And Math
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I admit it, I am ignorant and confused.

Is there a mechanism posited (or indeed, substantially supported by data) by which genes affect behaviour?

I presume it is accepted that numerous animal behaviours, which there is no chance for them to learn, such as courtship rituals in insects etc etc are genetically determined?

HOW!!!????

I know there have been claims of a this or that gene for humans (eg the "risk taking" or "warrior" or "antisocial" [ain't language fun!] gene) determines some behaviours......but I understand that this is considered way too simplistic, both re the number of genes involved, and their interaction with the environment...where does all of this thinking stand?

And evolutionary psychology (which often seems to make a sort of immediate a priori sense)...how is this regarded? HOW would behaviours become part of the instinctive/genetic make up? By what mechanism?

In plain simple language, please!

I know you scientists are out there...can you help?

I'll give you a carrot!

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,758 • Replies: 25

No top replies

Hi dlowan, Give this link a try. http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/lessons.cfm?BenchmarkID=6&DocID=448

0 Replies

My memories are hazy, but I remember reading an article--probably in [/B]Discover about cross-breeding Newfoundlands which suggested strongly that their enthusiastic impulse to save floundering swimmers was genetic.

I read in the last few days that breeding foxes for fashionable coats has resulted in a infantilized fox. Behavior seems linked somehow to the smooth and silky plumage.

Livestock breeders for thousands of years have been trying to incorporate "docile" into their herds.

0 Replies

I only remember from my time at university: Virtually all behavior is influenced by genes - virtually no behavior is determined by genes.

This helped my a lot professionally, but I must admit that I never looked up some (more recent) scientific sources since those days ...

0 Replies

That's quite a can of worms, rabbit. Quite a can of worms.

If you're just talking about risk-taking stuff, I think there might be some reasonable evidence out there that it's as simply as polymorphisms for various neurotransmitter receptors. I seem to remember something finding that adrenaline junkies tended to have some receptor conformation or other that made them less sensitive to certain signals (like adrenaline, I suppose), and so to work harder to get a good stimulus. Just like depressed people having less-sensitive serotonin reeptors or whatever the thinking is.

Grander schemes of behavior, though -- like salmon returning to their home river to spawn every year or honeybees doing their little dances -- no stinkin' idea.

Would be interested if someone came along to post with some good ideas about it. Not a-holding my breath, though.

0 Replies

Thanks P Dog.

I seem to recall there be some reasl geneiouses here though?

(bumping)

0 Replies

I know I can't answer the question, but I was recently talking with some people at work about how much I see my sons father in my son and since my ex played no part in raising him, I'm convinced that genes play a large roll.
I can't understand how, either, so it would be interesting to see an explanation.

0 Replies

Oh, and thank others, too!

It is just I am hoping for horse's mouth stuff.

0 Replies

It seems genes influence sexuality and life spans. There are other studies that include bi-polar and schizophrenia. Anything beyond these topics seems difficult to find.

0 Replies

While we are waiting for the geniuses to arrive, what I have read is that genes only provide tendencies or proclivities--breast cancer in certain ethnic groups, fragile x syndrome (more pronounced in boys than in girls, because girls have two x chromosomes, thus giving them a backup chromosome); hemophilia and on and on. In other words, they don't always guarantee a certain outcome.

I would think that in humans, with our varied and sometimes perverse emotions, the genes wouldn't have as profound an effect on our behavior as they do in animals, because in animals those genes are there for life and death reasons.

0 Replies

Well...I'll give this a feeble stab. Genes are simply recipe cards for proteins...proteins that affect tissue in some way...either creating it destroying it or making it do something or making it not do something. Hormones and enzymes are the primary proteins or protein/lipid combination, but others are parts of complex neurotransmitters that affect various parts of the brain.

Neuotransmitter production (and other protein/lipid combos) can also be triggered by reactons to the environment...an experience triggers a chemical response to it.

That is the best I can do. I know soneone more learned can expound.

0 Replies

Much genetically programmed animal behavior is easily accepted as a matter of neurological hardwiring, but there are complex behaviors that seem to be almost Lamarkian in nature. Lamark's notion of the Genetic Transmission of Aquired (i.e., learned Behavioral) Characteristics would answer many of our confusions. But the Lamarkian thesis has no support in terms of the mechanisms for that transmission. Frankly, I admit to a degree of "faith" here. While Darwin did not know about the genetic basis for inter-generational transmissions of behavior, he assumed that something occurred on the physical level. We simply have to learn more to explain (not explain away, as the evangelists would do) how highly complex behaviors are transmitted on a genetic basis. I, too, await the input of our more knowledgable members.

0 Replies

I think a lot of the difficulty that the psychobio people run into in trying to tease apart the nature/nurture question is the possibility of nongenetic inheritance.

Events that occur during fetal development can have profound physiologic and anatomic effects and have nothing to do with genetics. I've read about studies in mice, for instance that show that the stress levels that a mouse embryo experiences -- which is to say, the stress experienced by its mother during pregnancy -- has effects on that mouse's parenting skills when she goes on to have little mouselets. Mice exposed to stress in the womb also appear to reach sexual maturity younger and at a smaller body size, which presumably favors reproduction in stressful environments. (For what it's worth, stress in mice usually boils down to lack of food.) Not only that, but there are demonstrable differences in the neuroanatomy of the brains of the in-utero-stress mice vs. in-utero-unstressed mice, with the former hyperresponsive (as measured by chances in serum corticosterone) to stressors. Curiously, in the series of studies I'm thinking of, lots of attention given to the stressed mice as they developed improved their child-rearing skills and blunted their physiologic response to stress as compared to unhandled mice, but did nothing to ameliorate the neuroanatomical changes associated with their in utero stress exposure. Kind of like Montessori handling her "retarded" orphans way back in the day and salvaging their supposedly lost emotional and intellectual skills...

But that's sort of where the research is at this point, I think. If you're looking for well-researched, well-delineated models establishing links between genetics and development and subsequent behavior in animals -- well, I'm just not sure it's been done.

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

I think a lot of the difficulty that the psychobio people run into in trying to tease apart the nature/nurture question is the possibility of nongenetic inheritance.

Events that occur during fetal development can have profound physiologic and anatomic effects and have nothing to do with genetics. I've read about studies in mice, for instance that show that the stress levels that a mouse embryo experiences -- which is to say, the stress experienced by its mother during pregnancy -- has effects on that mouse's parenting skills when she goes on to have little mouselets. Mice exposed to stress in the womb also appear to reach sexual maturity younger and at a smaller body size, which presumably favors reproduction in stressful environments. (For what it's worth, stress in mice usually boils down to lack of food.) Not only that, but there are demonstrable differences in the neuroanatomy of the brains of the in-utero-stress mice vs. in-utero-unstressed mice, with the former hyperresponsive (as measured by chances in serum corticosterone) to stressors. Curiously, in the series of studies I'm thinking of, lots of attention given to the stressed mice as they developed improved their child-rearing skills and blunted their physiologic response to stress as compared to unhandled mice, but did nothing to ameliorate the neuroanatomical changes associated with their in utero stress exposure. Kind of like Montessori handling her "retarded" orphans way back in the day and salvaging their supposedly lost emotional and intellectual skills...

But that's sort of where the research is at this point, I think. If you're looking for well-researched, well-delineated models establishing links between genetics and development and subsequent behavior in animals -- well, I'm just not sure it's been done.

Ah...I know quite a lot (or think I do, I know about the research to a reasonable extent, anyway) of the stress etc factors intrauterine. I suspect mousie's parenting also has a lot to do with how her mummy treated her.

THAT I understand.

But am interested in how genes are posited to affect behaviour...from egg rolling in geese to humman beans.

IS there anything posited to explain it?

JL.....I am also struggling to understand how neurological hardwiring creates behaviour, too. I understand a ittle of how it AFFECTS behaviour, but creates?

Thankee Swimpy.

0 Replies

Hell, we barely have an understanding of seizures, and that's about the simplest thing a brain can do...

0 Replies

(Reading with interest...)

0 Replies

<reading, but not sure why>

0 Replies

Bumping.

Hopefully, but less so.

0 Replies

Noddy24 wrote:

I read in the last few days that breeding foxes for fashionable coats has resulted in a infantilized fox.

I actually saw a program about that on the Discovery Channel a couple of years ago. The idea of breeding them for their fur didn't actually work out because the genetic changes made their fur not suitable.

0 Replies

Montana wrote:

I know I can't answer the question, but I was recently talking with some people at work about how much I see my sons father in my son and since my ex played no part in raising him, I'm convinced that genes play a large roll.
I can't understand how, either, so it would be interesting to see an explanation.

It would be interesting if their was more than one son. I obviously share a lot of my brother's genes, but we're almost polar opposites in many traits. He's a risk taker, I'm cautious. He's very artistic, I can't draw a stick figure. He was a gifted athlete (before his motorcycle accidents damaged his ankles), I was a pathetic athlete. I got good grades at school, he was useless at school. And there is only 13 months age difference between us, so we had virtually identical upbringings.

0 Replies

Help with genes, behaviour, instinct, & the whole damn thing

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know