Learned and Adapted Behaviors

[VoidCat]

Millions of years is an assumption.
The fact is, the lions first have to start changing, before they can pass on anything to their offspring.
The fact is, the lions would remain lions, even when those changes are inherited.
Am I wrong so far?

Yes. The change is the genes that are inherited. Thats what is passed down. Acquired traits that is traits that change due to enviroment aren't passed down.

 

[VoidCat]

No. That is not evolution. It is adaptation....which is not the same.
Change is NOT adaptation or evolution.
Adaptation is NOT evolution or change.
Evolution is NOT change or adaptation.
Those three terms are absolutely NOT interchangeable.
Keep reading below for more on this....



It is not word play.
In terms of describing animals (or even plants, bacteria, fungi, etc...).....

Change is just change, and covers a massive slew or various topics, and is pretty much pointless to discuss here.

Adaptation is what one animal does, within the space of its own one lifetime, to alter it's own behavior for improved life and/or life expectancy. NOTE: Adaptation may also include variation of gene expression within one organism, within it's own one lifetime, but not a genetic change.

Evolution occurs over more than one generation and results in a change in the genome. This requires two components in this order (First - A genetic mutation, and Second - a biological stressor). A genetic variation occurs in one or more offspring of an organism simply by chance (or even by some mutagen effecting the gametes of the parent(s)), and then the offspring are subjected to a biological stressor.
Those offspring (the 2nd generation) who are capable of reproduction get a chance to pass along the new genetic variation, thus making the "mutation" more and more the standard for the survivors of the biological stressor, and are thus "evolved" to their environment better than offspring who don't get the genetic variation.
Continued below......

So, no. For such bacterial feats of evolution, you have to consider VERY LARGE NUMBERS. E. coli bacterial colonies reproduce by mitosis, once every 20 minutes in optimal conditions. So. 1 bacterium becomes 2 in 20 minutes. In one hour there are 8 bacteria (2 ^3 because you had 3 reproduction cycles which double the population each cycle). Therefore, in one day (24 hours = 72 twenty minute reproduction cycles) a single bacterium has turned into 2 ^72 bacteria. That's 47,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bacteria from one momma . a.k.a. 47 sextillion bacteria.

DNA is copied pretty accurately, but on a rare occasion, an error is made in the copying process. Such an error is called a mutation. Most bacterial mutations are lethal, so all of that "daughter's" lineage never even happen. Thus at the end of 24 hours, we have less than 47 sextillion.
Supposing (purely hypothetically) that many lethal mutations occurred, along with several non-lethal ones. One of these non-lethal mutations makes the offspring glow purple, one that makes offspring glow green, one that lets the offspring eat plastic, and one that provides the offspring with immunity to penicillin) and at the end of the day, we have a total of 47 Quintillion bacteria. To simplify things, we'll also suppose that any one of these mutations cancels the bacteria from having offspring with any of the other mutations (yes sometimes that happens). But mutations are rare, so most of the bugs (bacteria) are just like great-great-great grandma the original.
Now we need that biological stressor.

So we take the small teaspoonful of bacteria and drop them into a soup of water with very little food, but lots of plastic. The stressor is that those who cannot digest plastic for energy.....DIE.
One day later, we have a population of E. coli bacteria for whom 99.999% are able to eat plastic (thank you very much random chance mutation + stressor = evolution). No green glowers, no purple glowers, no penicillin resistant daughters, and no daughters who are just like great-great-great grandma.

Note that the ones who could resist penicillin are now all dead. The stressor they faced had nothing to do with antibiotics. It was about getting nutrients from plastic vs starvation.
If the stressor was that they were trying to make an abscess and septic infection inside a human who was taking penicillin, then that's a different biological stressor, and only the penicillin resistant daughters would have survived to the end of the day. No plastic eaters.
If there had been daughters who were resistant to vancomycin (a different group of antibiotics) they would have died out too. Since in the environment I listed above, the stressor was Penicillin, not vancomycin.

So evolution occurs from generation to generation, with genetic mutations (most of which are lethal), combined with biological stressors in the environment that kill off those who were not simply lucky enough to have been born with the right genome.
Also, bacteria have VERY simplistic genomes and biological systems compare to multicellular animals, wherein a mutation in one system often has to be accompanied by mutations in other systems or else the offspring dies. For example, being able to functionally chew and degrade grass cellulose in grass cells with grinding teeth and longer/slower gullet, as well as biochemically converting cellulose to glucose inside the intestinal epithelial cells. One without the other won't convert a carnivore to an herbivore. And of course (thankfully) lions don't reproduce themselves by mitosis every 20 minutes. So if we were to actually see inter-generation changes (evolution) in lions, we couldn't do it with a couple of weeks work in a lab, but it would take hundreds of thousands or millions of years in the wild.

Lastly, with enough mutations to a genome of any organism, it will eventually be no longer capable of reproducing with its EXTREMELY distant cousins of the same generation. And THAT is when we would consider them to be of two different species. They started with the same great-great ancestor, but enough change in the genome makes the gametes (egg and sperm) from connecting to one another to make a living offspring.
In this way, we are VERY DISTANT cousins of the other great apes. There was one great-great-great-.....grandma great "ape"; and over the many millennia, there were many mutations and stressors our ancestors (and off-branched relatives) were pitted against; leading to differentiation based upon survival for those environments.....so that gorillas, and baboons, and humans, and chimpanzees, and etc....etc...etc....other 'great apes' are what remain.

This is informative (I learned a bit) and has some of what i was trying to get at

 

[Quintessence]

Who is talking about one lion? Certainly not me.

Pardon, I assumed you were.

In the OP you asked "Can rapid changes take place in the body" which implies single organism processes and adaptations, not long-term and collective processes like biological evolution.

In any case, if we're adding evolution into the picture, by the time lions evolved into something able to sustain on plants the species wouldn't be a lions any more, it would be a different species entirely.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

How does changes begin to occur? Where does it start... in the ancestor, or the offspring?

In the gametes of the ancestor(s). As I said above; mutation first, followed by stressor.

So which came first, the chicken or the egg?
The egg.
A primitive bird (probably one that looked a lot like a chicken) laid an egg (within which some mutation from the normal primitive bird's normal DNA was present). That egg hatched, and out stepped a chicken ...uh...chick.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Hormones and enzymes are not the same thing.

Agreed. There IS a difference:

Spoiler: slightly bawdy

Are you saying that to believe in procreation, is to believe in the theory of evolution? Or is procreation not a process that is part of the theory?

Yes, procreation is part of the theory. You can read about this on the Internet for free and get all of these kinds of questions answered, which is helpful if one wants to give opinions on the theory.

I don't believe in the theory of evolution.

Why would you? You'd have to learn it first, including the stuff about procreation (see below), which plays a central part in the theory and the definition of fittest in this context.

Saying you don't think something, is irrelevant.

Exactly.

Let's just say I don't believe mere assumptions.

Unless they're in a Bible, right? You're good with the whole god and afterlife thing I presume.

I've been going to the bathroom everyday, and I never seen a fork in my toilet. So no. That's wishful thinking.

I hope were not still talking about evolving diets.

I think your ego just gets the best of you, as you stroke it into becoming too big for you to control it.

He was trying to help you understand, and he was polite. Your posting is imprecise, emotional, and erratic. I still don't know what you are asking or why you're asking it. You use words like sudden and adapt in ambiguous ways, but that's what we are accustomed to in these discussions of science with creationists. I still don't know what they mean specifically by kinds and micro/macroevolution.

Besides, ego is a good thing. Autonomy, ambition, self-confidence, courage, action, and leadership are all humanist values. Carpe diem!. The extremes, which are character flaws, are meekness, or poverty of ego (not a blessing), and arrogance, which is an unjustified excess of ego (think narcissistic entitlement and need for praise, and the Dunning-Kruger syndrome). But a healthy sense of self is an asset we should all try to endow our children with and to achieve ourselves. Or maybe you see this reply as yet another example of excessive ego out of control.

So, as long as the Bible does not say what you don't believe, you are good with those parts.

Are you sure that you aren't projecting your own criteria for what science you accept or reject? But to answer your question, yes, I'm fine with the believable parts of the Bible.

 

[David Davidovich]

I wonder what @Alien826 and @Nimos think about this, in relation to other animals, including lions.
Could it be, we don't know as much as we think we do, and might it be that animals learn behaviors, and can adapt to fit those behaviors?
Can rapid changes take place in the body, to allow for adjustments taking place in the brain as well?

It's not only possible to me, but logical, and I think this example proves that.

I'm not sure if I'm welcome to participate in your thread, @nPeace, but what about underwater creatures?

Psalm 146:5-6

Happy is the one who has the God of Jacob as his helper,
Whose hope is in Jehovah his God,
The Maker of heaven and earth,
Of the sea, and of all that is in them. . .

Underwater creatures such as this one which some may have thought was just an imaginary monster from a cartoonist's imagination from the movie "Finding Nemo."

However, the Angler Fish is a real creature:

Life in the deep sea is difficult, so many fishes there have special adaptations to improve their ability to feed and to mate. Deep sea anglerfish may not regularly encounter suitable prey, so they have very large mouths and stomachs and long, pointy teeth in order to facilitate capturing and swallowing anything that they find. They also have a lure, like all anglerfishes, that they use to attract prey. The deep sea anglerfish’s lure is filled with bacteria that make their own light. Using a muscular skin flap, a deep sea anglerfish can either hide or reveal its lighted lure. By pulsing the light and moving the lure back and forth, they successfully attract pelagic crustaceans, fishes, and other prey.

click here: Deep Sea Anglerfish

 

[David Davidovich]

I'm not sure if I'm welcome to participate in your thread, @nPeace, but what about underwater creatures?

Psalm 146:5-6



Underwater creatures such as this one which some may have thought was just an imaginary monster from a cartoonist's imagination from the movie "Finding Nemo."

View attachment 71246

However, the Angler Fish is a real creature:



click here: Deep Sea Anglerfish

Or perhaps apologists believe that during the flood, it affected the bottom of the sea and caused plant food to become scarce, and animals had to adapt and become carnivores and grow sharp monstrous teeth and bioluminescent appendages from their heads to attract prey animals? I don't know. I'm just asking.

And here's a 3 minute video that might be able to shine a bit more 'light' on this strange creature.

 

[JDMS]

I lost a few hundred brain cells trying to read through this post. nPeace's blatant misunderstandings of biology and their unwillingness to correct their thinking when educated is mind-numbing.

 

[David Davidovich]

I lost a few hundred brain cells trying to read through this post. nPeace's blatant misunderstandings of biology and their unwillingness to correct their thinking when educated is mind-numbing.

Be careful. He might tattle on you for not putting the @ symbol in front of his name like he did to me one time. LOL

 

[JDMS]

Be careful. He might tattle on you for not putting the @ symbol in front of his name like he did to me one time. LOL

Uh oh...

 

[Alien826]

Or perhaps apologists believe that during the flood, it affected the bottom of the sea and caused plant food to become scarce, and animals had to adapt and become carnivores and grow sharp monstrous teeth and bioluminescent appendages from their heads to attract prey animals? I don't know. I'm just asking.

And here's a 3 minute video that might be able to shine a bit more 'light' on this strange creature.

Is this, from Monty Python, of course, what you were getting at?

All Things Dull and Ugly Lyrics

All things dull and ugly
All creatures short and squat
All things rude and nasty
The Lord God made the lot

Each little snake that poisons
Each little wasp that stings
He made their brutish venom
He made their horrid wings

All things sick and cancerous
All evil great and small
All things foul and dangerous
The Lord God made them all

Each nasty little hornet
Each beastly little squid
Who made the spiky urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!

All things scabbed and ulcerous
All pox both great and small
Putrid, foul and gangrenous
The Lord God made them all

Amen

 

[David Davidovich]

I lost a few hundred brain cells trying to read through this post. nPeace's blatant misunderstandings of biology and their unwillingness to correct their thinking when educated is mind-numbing.

Also, after I showed up in this thread and used the word Jehovah, I'm sure that he is now long gone from ever coming back to this thread. LOL

 

[syo]

the ability of animals to adapt from being carnivorous to herbivorous

My dream is to see wolves eat bananas.

 

[David Davidovich]

Uh oh...

LOL

 

[David Davidovich]

My dream is to see wolves eat bananas.

LOL Awoooooo! Now you got me howling. LOL

 

[David Davidovich]

Thanks, guys, I needed that laugh.

 

[David Davidovich]

Is this, from Monty Python, of course, what you were getting at?

All Things Dull and Ugly Lyrics

All things dull and ugly
All creatures short and squat
All things rude and nasty
The Lord God made the lot

Each little snake that poisons
Each little wasp that stings
He made their brutish venom
He made their horrid wings

All things sick and cancerous
All evil great and small
All things foul and dangerous
The Lord God made them all

Each nasty little hornet
Each beastly little squid
Who made the spiky urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!

All things scabbed and ulcerous
All pox both great and small
Putrid, foul and gangrenous
The Lord God made them all

Amen

I don't know, @Alien826, because according to apologists, God is only supposed to have created majestic lions and tigers and elephants... and soft and cuddly rabbits and kitty cats, and beautiful birds and butterflies, etc. Therefore, all that other stuff must have come from Satan.

 

[David Davidovich]

Or perhaps apologists believe that during the flood, it affected the bottom of the sea and caused plant food to become scarce, and animals had to adapt and become carnivores and grow sharp monstrous teeth and bioluminescent appendages from their heads to attract prey animals? I don't know. I'm just asking.

And here's a 3 minute video that might be able to shine a bit more 'light' on this strange creature.

But on a serious note, I don't t think that @nPeace is coming back to this thread because of being in culture shock because I don't believe the Watchtower magazines have ever had any articles about Angler Fish.

 

[Alien826]

I don't know, @Alien826, because according to apologists, God is only supposed to have created majestic lions and tigers and elephants... and soft and cuddly rabbits and kitty cats, and beautiful birds and butterflies, etc. Therefore, all that other stuff must have come from Satan.

Curses, foiled again!

More seriously, I see all these things as pretty amazing, even the angler fish!

 

[Alien826]

And the thread ends with humor. Maybe it should have started that way?