Genetics and Imprinting

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This is a theory suggested by Peon on IRC, which was widely ridiculed. He said to post it here, so here goes.

 

According to Peon, imprinting (such as imprinting to a mother) is controlled by genetics. The genes control what is imprinted into and what is not, and when this happens.

<Peon> What I am saying is we are bigger slaves to our genes then what we would like to admit

 

A summary of his argument:

<Aeternus>well for instance, first of all it appeared that you [Peon] were saying that everyone is genetically predisposed to find thin or slim women attractive, you clarified this by saying that they are genetically predisposed to find extremely obese and unhealthy women unattractive and then i personally tried to point out that it is far less specific than that and is more based on ones ability to survive in an environment

 

<Peon> I simple asked what is the biological stem from which imprinting occurs?

[...]

<Peon> Maternity imprinting occurs ALWAYS in a certain window for different species

 

Peon thinks that DNA is the root of imprinting, while the rest of the people on the channel believed it was not, but instead a result of memories and neurological functions (although these functions are also indirectly controlled by genetics, imprinting is not directly controlled, at least according to the rest of us).

 

Opinions?

[The Peon]

This is a theory suggested by Peon on IRC' date=' which was widely ridiculed. He said to post it here, so here goes.

 

According to Peon, imprinting (such as imprinting to a mother) is controlled by genetics. The genes control what is imprinted into and what is not, and when this happens.

 

 

A summary of his argument:

 

 

 

 

Peon thinks that DNA is the root of imprinting, while the rest of the people on the channel believed it was not, but instead a result of memories and neurological functions.

 

Opinions?[/quote']

 

I dont think this should be under debate. Your genes decide the window in which you imprint certain things. Some are instantaneous, like what you define as mother, and others take an entire childhood, like sexuality. (please dont blow that last sentence out of proportion). If it were not the genes, various animals and species would imprint things whenever they wanted. This is FALSE. For instance, Ducks imprint a mother figure within the first week IIRC of hatching. It can be a real duck, a human, or even an orange balloon (in one test case). This imprinting does not occur any other time other then the first week. I use this example because every species imprints things differently then other species, but always consistant with its own species. This "window" must be dictated by genetics, and nothing more.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

http://scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=11529

 

Please read.

[Mokele]

From that I recall, The way imprinting works is thus: DNA makes the baby organism, which hatches / is born with a particular neural morphology already in place. This means some things, like breathing or crying are already in place. In other areas, there's room for future learning, of the normal kind like "don't eat that, it tastes nasty and makes you sick". But certain neural pathways become active only in certain sensitive periods, and then only to certain stimuli, and imprinting is on such pathway. Whatever triggers this area in the right time will become permanently encoded, such as when human-raised birds imprint on humans and then try to associate with humans from then onwards.

 

So pretty much, the DNA sets up a recording center with certain timing and triggers, and the environment supplies the actual input that is recorded (correct or incorrect).

 

How much of this applies to humans is unknown and hotly debated. Humans *do* have instincts, but unravelling them from culture and learning can be dificult.

 

Mokele

[The Peon]

Mokele, how would you define incorrect imprinting? In other words, Mal-Imprinting?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

However, Peon seemed (I say "seemed" because it was rather hard to understand him at times) to believe that genetics determined things such as the perception of beauty, imprinting to the mother (and that imprinting to a mother of a different species was "mal-imprinting" and not natural, while some experiments proved that geese will imprint to anything that cares for them when they are young) and so on.

[The Peon]

However, Peon seemed (I say "seemed" because it was rather hard to understand him at times) to believe that genetics determined things such as the perception of beauty, imprinting to the mother (and that imprinting to a mother of a different species was "mal-imprinting" and not natural, while some experiments proved that geese will imprint to anything that cares for them when they are young) and so on.

 

Since genetics determine imprinting itself, I was merely linking the 2 together. I did not say genes were the die all of deciding things such as beauty. I merely meant that they are the beginning of such views. Just like this sentence begins with a letter and ends with a period, genes are the beginning of defining what is beauty and and the enviroment is the end all of it.

 

This debate stemmed from obesity. I was trying to make the point that people missing limbs, who are severely obese, or have sores on the skin are viewed as "gross" because of our genetic roots. I did not articulate well and state in time the process of imprinting before this was blown out of hand. Now that we have discussed it, its really a matter on how you want to view it. I tend to view things "from the bottom up." Thus to me, genes play the deciding factor in most things we might consider to be our "choice." I have really bad grammar and dont tend to put my thoughts or words well into text, and I try to avoid debating things like this in text because of that. I am sorry if I caused any people to get upset or confused over the debate.

[Glider]

Imrpinting is an instinctive behaviour, not a learned behaviour. An instinct is defined as a hard-wired (unlearned) behaviour that is universal to the species. Thus, it is genetic. Many animals are 'hard-wired' to imprint on the first moving thing they see (which is usually a parent).

 

Because this imprinting instinct is not specific to 'mother', but to the first moving thing (with a few specific instinctive exceptions), animals sometimes 'mis-imprint', but not often enough to make it a disadvantage.

 

Having imprinted, the baby animal will follow the object of its imprint. It has been shown that the harder the baby has to work to follow its 'mother', the more the bond is reinforced (a kind of compensatory mechanism ensuring the continued viability of the imprint and improving a weaker baby's chances of survival).

 

Whilst many animals have an imprinting instinct, imprinting is particularly pronounced in certain birds, e.g. ducks, geese and the corvids (crows, jackdaws, magpies etc.).

 

You should look up the work of Konrad Lorenz for more information on imprinting.