Learned and Adapted Behaviors

[nPeace]

Sorry, so this thread is about humans being vegetarians? Not lions?

Are you just here to make jokes, when you make mistakes?

 

[Quintessence]

I'm a biologist, but I'm not an animal nutritionist. So I'm not what you could call an expert.

From what I understand of animal digestion, however, part of the reason why different organisms cannot just about face and eat certain types of foods is that their bodies lack the enzymes or intestinal bacteria necessary to actually get nutrition out of it. Sure, you can put whatever you want in your mouth. That doesn't mean it will sustain your body. It works this way in humans, and it no doubt works this way in other animals as well.

Add to that something I have a bit more knowledge of, and that's plant defenses against herbivory. Actual herbivores in some cases have evolved counters to these plant defenses and aren't poisoned by them. Carnivores, not so much.

 

[Left Coast]

Are you just here to make jokes, when you make mistakes?

I'm not making jokes. I'm literally asking what the point of your thread is. If it's about lions and not humans, then I have no idea why you brought up dudes in deserts.

 

[Jose Fly]

So, is it the case we know all we need to know, or are we willing to admit that maybe we don't know all we think we know, and there may be mechanisms, we don't really know about, nor understand.

That's what I am getting at really.

So it's yet another thread started by nPeace where he shows examples of scientists incorporating new info into their thinking, and incredulously gasps that "scientists don't know everything", as if that's some sort of new revelation.

I still think that some folks are just as baffled by science as I am by some aspects of religion. I guess the difference is, I shrug my shoulders and move on, whereas those like nPeace obsess over it a bit.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm not making jokes. I'm literally asking what the point of your thread is. If it's about lions and not humans, then I have no idea why you brought up dudes in deserts.

He gave his reason, pretty explicitly....

"So, is it the case we know all we need to know, or are we willing to admit that maybe we don't know all we think we know, and there may be mechanisms, we don't really know about, nor understand.

That's what I am getting at really."

It's nothing more than another "See? Those smarty-pants scientists don't know everything!" thread.

 

[nPeace]

I'm a biologist, but I'm not an animal nutritionist. So I'm not what you could call an expert.

From what I understand of animal digestion, however, part of the reason why different organisms cannot just about face and eat certain types of foods is that their bodies lack the enzymes or intestinal bacteria necessary to actually get nutrition out of it. Sure, you can put whatever you want in your mouth. That doesn't mean it will sustain your body. It works this way in humans, and it no doubt works this way in other animals as well.

Add to that something I have a bit more knowledge of, and that's plant defenses against herbivory. Actual herbivores in some cases have evolved counters to these plant defenses and aren't poisoned by them. Carnivores, not so much.

Thanks. So with your little knowledge, a body that lacks the enzymes or intestinal bacteria necessary needs to remain that way, or can certain released hormones, triggers... whatever we want to call them, play a role in producing change... even if that change is gradual... unlike switching genes?

 

[Jose Fly]

Thanks. So with your little knowledge, a body that lacks the enzymes or intestinal bacteria necessary does not need to remain that way, or can certain released hormones, triggers... whatever we want to call them, play a role in producing change... even if that change is gradual... unlike switching genes?

LOL....you mean......evolution?

 

[nPeace]

I'm not making jokes. I'm literally asking what the point of your thread is. If it's about lions and not humans, then I have no idea why you brought up dudes in deserts.

I'm sorry, but you don't seem serious to me. Just go back and read your first post, and go from there. Correct your mistake, and we can talk.
Otherwise, I am not about this. This thread is not for those not interested, or who simply want to derail it.

 

[Left Coast]

He gave his reason, pretty explicitly....

"So, is it the case we know all we need to know, or are we willing to admit that maybe we don't know all we think we know, and there may be mechanisms, we don't really know about, nor understand.

That's what I am getting at really."

It's nothing more than another "See? Those smarty-pants scientists don't know everything!" thread.

I figured there was some weird underlying motive, but I couldn't tell what.

 

[Jose Fly]

I figured there was some weird underlying motive, but I couldn't tell what.

It's a fairly regular thing from creationists. Scientists are generally against them, so they feel compelled to try and knock scientists down.

Seems rather insecure to me.

 

[Nimos]

So, is it the case we know all we need to know, or are we willing to admit that maybe we don't know all we think we know, and there may be mechanisms, we don't really know about, nor understand.

That's what I am getting at really.
What position do you hold, in this case?

I don't know what we think we know?

But in general, this is like anything else in regard to our knowledge and how we figure out new things, until we make a discovery, whether that is through observation or whatever, we only know what we know. It's part of the process. And as this expands then we update our knowledge and make it more accurate.

Do you know what hormones triggered by the brain, may play in rapid changes?

No, and I don't understand the purpose of the question either?

 

[JDMS]

Thanks. So with your little knowledge, a body that lacks the enzymes or intestinal bacteria necessary needs to remain that way, or can certain released hormones, triggers... whatever we want to call them, play a role in producing change... even if that change is gradual... unlike switching genes?

Tell me you don't know what an enzyme is without telling me you don't know what an enzyme is...

 

[nPeace]

Tell me you don't know what an enzyme is without telling me you don't know what an enzyme is...

I think the definition here is simple enough.

1. a substance produced by a living organism which acts as a catalyst to bring about a specific biochemical reaction.

So that's a yes... certain released hormones, triggers... whatever we want to call them, play a role in producing change... even if that change is gradual?

 

[Left Coast]

I'm sorry, but you don't seem serious to me. Just go back and read your first post, and go from there. Correct your mistake, and we can talk.
Otherwise, I am not about this. This thread is not for those not interested, or who simply want to derail it.

The video was simply a lighthearted example of something obvious: lions are carnivores. They need meat to survive.

My "mistake" was believing that your reply about a dude in a desert was somehow relevant to the topic of lions becoming vegetarian. I see now that it wasn't.

 

[nPeace]

I don't know what we think we know?

But in general, this is like anything else in regard to our knowledge and how we figure out new things, until we make a discovery, whether that is through observation or whatever, we only know what we know. It's part of the process. And as this expands then we update our knowledge and make it more accurate.

If you need to update it, it's what you think you know. Not what you know.

No, and I don't understand the purpose of the question either?

Thank you. That was the purpose of the question. You don't know. Therefore, you don't know what you don't know.
Saying you don't think something, is irrelevant.
Hope you understand.

 

[nPeace]

The video was simply a lighthearted example of something obvious: lions are carnivores. They need meat to survive.

My "mistake" was believing that your reply about a dude in a desert was somehow relevant to the topic of lions becoming vegetarian. I see now that it wasn't.

I made the mistake of thinking this was a sincere reply, but the fact that you knew it was an analogy, makes me think it's not sincere.

 

[nPeace]

@Left Coast
I'll be the one to start over.
There is a write up here, which shows why that cute video is not a very good experiment.

 

[Left Coast]

I made the mistake of thinking this was a sincere reply, but the fact that you knew it was an analogy, makes me think it's not sincere.

My reply was sincere, though.

If your reply was an analogy it was a poor one.

"Starving human" is to "eating food he'd naturally eat already"

As

"Starving lion" is to "eating food it would never eat."

It would have been a better analogy if you had said that a starving man in a desert would eat rocks if he was hungry enough. But we all know what would happen to that guy. Much like a lion trying to survive on apples and broccoli.

@Left Coast
I'll be the one to start over.
There is a write up here, which shows why that cute video is not a very good experiment.

Sorry, I genuinely don't see the relevance. Can you elaborate?

Also...you believe in evolution now?

 

[nPeace]

My reply was sincere, though.

If your reply was an analogy it was a poor one.

"Starving human" is to "eating food he'd naturally eat already"

As

"Starving lion" is to "eating food it would never eat."

It would have been a better analogy if you had said that a starving man in a desert would eat rocks if he was hungry enough. But we all know what would happen to that guy. Much like a lion trying to survive on apples and broccoli.

So you are saying that a lion would rather starve to death, than eat anything other than vegetation.
If that's what you believe...

Sorry, I genuinely don't see the relevance. Can you elaborate?

A true experiment would be to have lions starving, with nothing but that fruit or whatever else around... Just make sure the man isn't around... no vegetation either.
Then see what happens.

Also...you believe in evolution now?

I always believed in evolution / adaptation.
Word games are what evolutionist play.
All Christians, Muslims, etc. believe in change - another word for evolution. We evolve every day.
I don't believe in the theory of evolution.
There is a difference, I hope you know.

 

[Nimos]

If you need to update it, it's what you think you know. Not what you know.

Yes, I don't know where you are going with this?

This is standard knowledge in regards to how we learn. You didn't know a hippo ate meat, so you thought they didn't, then you found a video clip showing you this and now you have updated your knowledge about hippos.

If you take something like dark matter and dark energy, the scientist thinks that this could be an explanation, but they don't go out claiming it to be true.

In the case of the hippo, this new knowledge doesn't change the fact that hippos still prefer eating plants or whatever, so our former knowledge wasn't wrong, it simply wasn't a full explanation.

Thank you. That was the purpose of the question. You don't know. Therefore, you don't know what you don't know.
Saying you don't think something, is irrelevant.
Hope you understand.

Well because I don't think what you wrote is relevant in regards to evolution and what food animals eat. There is a whole digestion system and animal anatomy involved, a food chain etc. It's like asking whether a cow could suddenly start hunting other animals and eat them because it suddenly "preferred" to be a carnivore. It is irrelevant when it depends on so much more, and I don't see how that would be possible, given how evolution works.