Dogs are not people, does anyone else find it weird how some seem to equate the two?

[Dragonfli]

325. Anthropology classes

According to what scientists currently say, humans have no instincts.

For example, baby sea turtles know to move toward the water from the shore where their eggs have been laid by nature. This is an INSTINCT. Humans, however, have no such natural behavior. All supposed instincts which some people may tell you, are not actually instincts, but simply learned responses to stimulus.
Correct, most of those are reflexes; which are not the same as instincts.

Humans DO NOT have instinct! We have response and learned response. Instinct does not exist in our DNA. As for babies squeezing a finger that is a response to something being in their hand. An instinct to squeeze a finger would mean that babies would run around and find a finger to squeeze and would not ever let go, unless forced. In which case they would then move on to another finger. As for "sucking" it is a response from their stomach being empty and telling the brain it is hungry. Read a book!

The following comment supporting the idea that humans have instinct is wrong.

"Sex is not a learned response. How did the first humans mate without the general knowledge of others? Because it's an instinct.]

Hominids (the first humans), did have instincts, because their ancestors (primates) from which they evolved and were still closely linked DO have instincts. Hominids retained some of the instincts from their primate ancestors. However, MODERN DAY HUMANS DO NOT HAVE INSTINCTS. This is a scientifically proven fact that is irrefutable. Any other comments that humans do have instincts are simply misinformed opinion.

Humans have lost instincts. Early hominids may have had instincts, for they were still somewhat closely related to primates, which do have instincts. However, modern day humans DO NOT have instincts.

To be fair there are a few dinosaurs that follow the 18th century view, a doctrine known as the “psychic unity of mankind.” Adam Smith, considered by many as the grandfather of free-market capitalism and economics, espoused this shared human nature.

A good article about the conflicting theories and their evolution would be worth your time
http://www.livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/human-nature/

Anthropology says there is no such thing as human nature.

Here, it is useful to return and ponder the Tim Ingold quote at the beginning of this section:

Human capacities are not genetically specified but emerge within processes of ontogenetic development. Moreover the circumstances of development are continually shaped through human activity. There is consequently no human nature that has escaped the current of history. . . .

This does not mean, of course, that a human being can be anything you please. But it does mean that there is no way of describing what human beings are independently of the manifold historical and environmental circumstances in which they become–in which they grow up and live out their lives. (Ingold 2006:259,273) [See note 4]