Do Instincts Travel Over Time By DNA Alone?

In thinking about information transfer, especially of the nature demonstrated by viruses transfering info by plasmids, why would thinking about how animals get behavioral traits transferred by something more than just genetic info, be so unusual?

Couldn't certain behaviors, as animals get more behaviorally complex (having the abilities to do more and more decision based interaction with their environment), get transferred, more and more, by some simpler form of "savant?" Wouldn't that give a special place for "Body Meaning Space" for all more behaviorally complex animals? And then take some of the information transfer limitations of chemically stored "instincts," off of genetics?

I ask this because it has always seemed something of a stretch for me to say that very complicated, muscle memory sequences, tied to specific environmental contingencies, and the best decisions to make in those contingencies; that this could be conveyed entirely by DNA. Not to say that a lot couldn't be transferred by DNA, mind you, but only to suggest that, the more and more you go up the figurative ladder of complexity to full sentience, the more relying on DNA to do all of the carrying capacity here becomes quite problematic.

What do you think?

What Do Morphogenetic Fields, Viruses Sharing Plasmids In Hospital Sinks, And meaning processors sharing ideas in general have in common?

See Also:

What if the Placebo Effect Isn’t a Trick

[Post Note: At the very least, this kind of evidence ought to suggest that the power of belief in meaning processors is a good deal more tangible than the Rationalists would have us acknowledge; especially as it relates to our role in the duality of energy, and the whole notion of what the limits might be as also relates to causality without physical instrumentality; unless of course you think of language, and from that ideas, as something that is more than just mind meaning space, or body meaning space, abstracts (each with their own sets of codics with which to set forth experience associations into something that can be held onto over space and time, as well as grasped in the immediate moment). J.V.]

Believing without evidence is always morally wrong

[Post Note: I understand what is intended here. It is certainly a worthwhile notion that you should have some semblance of actual information that, collected together, forms a cogent, representation of an actual, existential contingency, for which you are trying to state a fundamental relationship for. That being said, however, doesn't let you state something this important in such a, what is in my opinion, sweeping way; with, in effect, so little wiggle room, so to speak.

And the main problem here is that what a statement like this does is only to beg the question as to what constitutes "evidence" in the first place; because, too often in the past, "evidence" could only be that which is "objective;" or put more succinctly, that which is Mind Meaning Space rational only.

As such, one could ask the question: Am I being immoral if I believe in the power of Love (or even just in the power of thinking positively)? Is the subjective evidence of love enough for our philosopher here? Do we really need to worry about the fool's errand of  trying to measure what happens when I hold somebody I love meaningfully, with all of the connection inherent in that act? Simply to know that it has the right be be evidence at all? I certainly hope not.

By the same token, though, going too far into the subjective can get you into just as much trouble as going too far into the rational can. So I would like to think that what is actually being intended here gets taken care of if one simply follows a path of balance; listening to the truth from both sides of each contentious clash of opposites; the most prominent, certainly being that between the basic, figurative notions of "Father Fortress," and "Mother Earth." Listening to both sides and then being willing to do the hard negotiations to work out a compromise interpretation that utilizes as much of both as is appropriate for a given situation. J.V.]