As humans, we do need morality to get along with each other and therefore survive. Morality has become instinctual to us in a sense, and I think that if bears needed it, they would develop it and cubs would be taught morality as well as salmon fishing.
Morality, in a general sense, is not necessary to survive. How could having a particular set of moral principles help you to stay alive while coexisting with others that hold different morals? A large percentage of the population in the Southeastern United States consists of conservative Christians. But individuals who live within the same neighborhoods who believe and practice different things get along just fine even though some of their acts are viewed as wrong by the conservative Christians. Of course being aware of certain moral standards help individuals to survive, those concerning murder and theft for example, but we tend call these laws more often than morals. There are moral principles taught in parenting that exists above the plane of moral standards (those necessary) held by our respective societies.
I personally think that all thoughts are memes (and therefore we don't have free-will) but I don't think that means we can't have original ideas, and as far as intinsic instincts and abilities, I believe certain memes (instincts, etc) can be inhereted much like genes.
I believe that the term as originally presented by Richard Dawkins was used only to describe the transfer of ideas in cultural evolution. Thus a thought can only become a meme once it is conveyed to someone else. Sensory perceptions, fantasies, and revelations do not immediately become memes. Suppose you discover a new species on an uninhabited island and study its structures and unique behaviors then formulate a theory on how it came into existence. These thoughts will only become memes after they are passed on to others.
Everyone's brain is unique and different. The way a person's brain processes and interprets information is different from everyone elses becaused it's based on how they think, which is unique to them. When a person is introduced to a new meme, their brain will interpret it in their own unique way. Likewise, within the brain, memes affect each other based on how the brain works, so the way my memes affect each other in my brain is different from yours, etc. That said, it is very easy to accept that people can still have original ideas with memes and without free-will...does that make sense?
Yes, when Einstein formulated the equation energy equals mass times the speed of light squared he used pieces of information that were already known. Yes, it was his unique abilities that allowed him to use these pieces of information that were known by others to create something that was not known by others. But it was his choice to use his reasoning abilities and discover the equation or to put it in autopilot and sit back. It is this primary choice that is both caused and necessitated by the nature of man. Given any set of circumstances, man must choose. The choice to focus or not is the expression of volition.
And as for where the memes came from, that's an excellent question! I would say that they evolved much like anything else. By the process of natural selection, those who possessed the meme 'eat when you get hungry' survived and those who didn't died off, etc.
Evolution of memes does make a lot of sense. Ideas can mutate be cut in half, added together, changed here and there but synonymizing the evolution of ideas to genetic evolution is oversimplifying the issue. DNA is composed of chemicals, ideas are formed with brainwaves. We sometimes observe analogous structures that are shared by two different organisms. According to the theory of evolution we presume the more advanced species inherited the structure from the more primitive species. If the structure is not helping the organism in any way, we presume the structure was passed on to the new species because it is genetically attached to a trait that is helping the species. This is supported through the observations of various genomes. Brainwaves, however, are different from the sections of DNA because they are not chemically attached to other brainwaves. We cannot say that we still have thoughts unnecessary for survival because they are attached to thoughts that are necessary. Yes, brainwaves are created via chemicals, but we can form new thoughts and alter old ones. This idea that thoughts can be changed indicates that thoughts are at least partially independent of our DNA. Evolution of memes can only explain how they have developed, not how they were created.
Has anyone considered the studies done on Alex the African Grey Parrot? Dr. Irene Pepperburg began them in the seventies- she is still working with him now. I would say that he can display all of the above qualities that a seven year old displays.
I actually did some research for this one and found out that Dr. Pepperbergs studies have determined that the African Grey Parrot is able to: (1) request, refuse, quantify, identify, and categorize objects, and (2) control, to a limited extent, its immediate environment. (alexfoundation.org) While quantification and categorization are amazing abilities for an animal, it is very different from the example that I gave concerning the conservation of volume. Around age seven children typically enter a phase of development known as the concrete operations stage. The significance of the example is that it shows the child can perform mental operations on concrete objects and apply previously attained knowledge to new problems.
Of course arguing this is pointless since you could easily say, Well what about a child that is six years old. However, if you look at a dog or a parrot in a comparable stage of development you will find that its abilities are not equal to the dog or the parrot that has become a fully developed adult. Comparing the capacity of a developed animal to that of a human child is irrelevant since the child still possesses the potential to exercise free will at some point. Of course there are some adults that will never use their ability to reason; they would rather just float through life believing what others tell them and doing what others say. That is their choice. That is free will the decision to use reason or to ignore it.
Many scientists are beginning to think that the difference in cognative ability is one of quantity not quality.
Im not exactly sure what difference you are referring too, but I assume you mean the difference in cognition between humans and animals. Cognition is only the mental process of knowing. Yes, a major difference between human and animal cognition is how much we know. But another difference between humans and animals worth noting lies within our intelligence, which is the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge, especially in a purposeful, rational, and effective manner. (The Concept of Intelligence and Its Role, Sternberg)