We covered this exact same question here not so long ago. As almost everyone else has noted, the question what an instinct is remains far from clear and degenerates into semantics fairly rapidly. I personally always favour the idea that a behaviour has to be complex to qualify as an instinct, that is it has to be composed of at least two distinct actions. Other will argue otherwise.
But to point out some of the more serious flaws in your understanding
[QUOTE=Constipated Mathematician]
As far as I know, with the exception of humans, every living thing on this earth has survival instincts.
[/quote]
Depending on how you define instinct humans also have survival instincts, probably stronger than any other species. People have an absolute dread of dying and will go to extremes to ensure their own survival. People don’t need to be taught to fear death, it is entirely natural.
No, it’s not. A reflex technically occurs without reference to the higher brain centres and will occur unconsciously, even during sleep. So the knee-jerk response is a reflex, as is blinking. Nobody pulls their hand away from a flame when they are asleep, they need to wake up first. So this response is not a reflex, it is entirely conscious and learned.
That simply isn’t true.
A lion raised in a cage, even if raised by its own mother, is totally incompetent at hunting and will starve if left alone even in the most prey rich environments. Many male birds if raised in isolation are totally unable to attract mate because they have never had the opportunity to learn the species song. Cattle introduced to a novel environment will routinely poison themselves because they are unfamiliar with the toxic plants. I could go on for pages with examples like these.
The simple fact is that many animals, probably all mammals, aren’t pre-wired to handle much at all. They need to learn all their survival skills, either from members of their own species or by trial-and-error. Humans are no exception.
Not really. With a few minor exceptions plants only exhibit tropisms, which means they simply grow towards or away form stimuli, nothing more. Plants ‘fighting’ for water is no different from a human child becoming tanned in response to sunlight. It’s an inevitable and immutable physiological response, not a behaviour. As such plants exhibit no instincts whatsoever.
I could make an equally strong argument that since we evolved intelligence and self-awareness the need for instinct is greater than ever to stop us from harming ourselves in the course of our experimentation.
See the earlier thread for the basics.
In some cases, yes.
I think first they would be astonished by the discovery of a web building bird. :eek:
More seriously, such behaviours aren’t controlled by a single gene or a single brain centre, rather they are caused by a complex interplay of multiple genes. What genes can do is strengthen certain parts of the behaviour or even cause it to cease altogether.
Well, no.
The second neat trick to do with neonates (after dangling them from washing lines to demonstrate the grip reflex) is to gently stroke the side of their cheek. They immediately turn towards the touch and start making suckling motions. They even do this when asleep. It’s terribly cute, but it also demonstrates that this behaviour is instinctive/reflexive and in no way learned.