Learned and Adapted Behaviors

[sayak83]

I follow the terminology used by John Maynard Smith in his book "The theory of evolution 1993.

It basically covers the same things you mention here, but gives the later conditions names to more easily differentiate and identify them.

Genetically adapted refers to the what you are describing as adaptation with the heritable genetic basis. Physiologically versatile is applied to changes like color changes in flat fish or octopi and shivering in response to cold by people. While developmental flexibility would include callousing of the hands and feet from manual labor.

Changes from the latter two would not be heritable and would take place within the life of the individual. I find the terminology useful for understanding changes in living things that are being discussed.

However it is described, to get lions that eat fruit would require genetic adaptations that take hundreds of thousands and millions of years and not some within lifetime versatility or flexibility. And they wouldn't be the species we know once all the required adaptations fix in the population.

Ok. I was not aware that Maynard Smith used a slightly different set of terminology. The terms I am using here are more commonly found in research and in textbooks of the topic. So it is more widely understood that way I believe.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok. I was not aware that Maynard Smith used a slightly different set of terminology. The terms I am using here are more commonly found in research and in textbooks of the topic. So it is more widely understood that way I believe.

Thanks. That is good to know. I read his book a good while back and the terminology stuck with me and serves its purpose well enough for the most part.

 

[David Davidovich]

Yeah, I'm the guy you tattled on because I wasn't doing my quotations correctly and the M's pounced all over me about it. Same with the @ symbol before using someone's name... And oops! You didn't use the @ symbol before using my name. Hmmm. I'm wondering if I should tattle on you.

Yeah, I'm the guy you tattled on because I wasn't doing my quotations correctly and the M's pounced all over me about it. Same with the @ symbol before using someone's name... And oops! You didn't use the @ symbol before using my name. Hmmm. I'm wondering if I should tattle on you.

Hey, @nPeace, I was being facetious. I've actually forgiven you after a half of a year. (I mean, come on now. Who would exact revenge after a half of a year? ) But with all kidding aside, I would like to know what your viewpoint is on birds evolving into dinosaurs and what angler fish possibly may have originally been. Also, do you have a speculation which aligns with your faith as to the reason why all sea creatures living deep in the dark depths of the ocean did not develop bioluminescent light appendages from the top of their heads for hunting prey?

 

[David Davidovich]

Oh, come back to the thread, @nPeace. We were all just messin' with you. You know we all love you.

 

[nPeace]

Did you learn much about the classification of living organisms back when you were in school? As a refresher, remember that there are different levels of organization for classifying living things, which each subsequent level of organization getting more specific. Please review that here: Taxonomic rank - Wikipedia

As you can see, your comment here doesn't make sense because with respect to taxonomy, lions are to bacteria as spoons are to tools. You're not comparing things on the same level of organization. Lion is a very specific category. Bacteria is a very broad category.

...and where do snakes fit... chairs?
By the way, spoons are tools. Ask your 'cave men' if you don't believe me. Oh, they don't know that far back. Sorry.
Utensils, tools... "Oh. They are different". Welcome to our modern era. Sigh

 

[nPeace]

Why then does he continually ask people to explain things to him?

Huh? Someone is reading wrong... again.

 

[nPeace]

I hope someone tells that David guy I don't live on RF.

 

[David Davidovich]

I hope someone tells that David guy I don't live on RF.

Okay, pal. So, let's hear it about the dinosaurs.

 

[nPeace]

(Genesis 1:20-25) 20 Then God said: “Let the waters swarm with living creatures, and let flying creatures fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 And God created the great sea creatures and all living creatures that move and swarm in the waters according to their kinds and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 With that God blessed them, saying: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the waters of the sea, and let the flying creatures become many in the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. 24 Then God said: “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds, domestic animals and creeping animals and wild animals of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God went on to make the wild animals of the earth according to their kinds and the domestic animals according to their kinds and all the creeping animals of the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Birds
A thoughtful study of birds gives convincing proof of the Biblical teaching that they are of divine creation. While birds and reptiles are both oviparous, reptiles are cold-blooded, often sluggish, whereas birds are warm-blooded and among the most active of all earth’s creatures; they also have an unusually rapid heartbeat. The evolutionary view that reptilian scales and front limbs eventually developed into feathered wings is both fanciful and baseless. The fossils of birds called by scientists Archaeopteryx (or, ancient wing) and Archaeornis (or, ancient bird), though showing teeth and a long vertebrated tail, also show that they were completely feathered, had feet equipped for perching, and had fully developed wings. No intermediate specimens, exhibiting scales developing into feathers or front legs into wings, exist to give any semblance of support to the evolution theory. As expressed by the apostle Paul, birds are of a distinct “flesh” from others of earth’s creatures. 1 Corinthians 15:39.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Birds are one of the most recognizable and diverse groups of modern vertebrates. Over the past two decades, a wealth of new fossil discoveries and phylogenetic and macroevolutionary studies has transformed our understanding of how birds originated and became so successful. Birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs during the Jurassic (around 165–150 million years ago) and their classic small, lightweight, feathered, and winged body plan was pieced together gradually over tens of millions of years of evolution rather than in one burst of innovation. Early birds diversified throughout the Jurassic and Cretaceous, becoming capable fliers with supercharged growth rates, but were decimated at the end-Cretaceous extinction alongside their close dinosaurian relatives. After the mass extinction, modern birds (members of the avian crown group) explosively diversified, culminating in more than 10,000 species distributed worldwide today.

Brusatte, S. L., O’Connor, J. K., & Jarvis, E. D. (2015). The origin and diversification of birds. Current Biology, 25(19), R888-R898.

Contrary to popular denial, looks like the evidence says that birds evolved from dinosaurs

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are you certain you are not just being biased? I'm not convinced you aren't, and here is why.
You say all sorts of things are possible.

You believe this happened. No problem.
From this...

to this...

You believe this. No problem.
Bugs across globe are evolving to eat plastic, study finds

You use this as a "Hurray! Evolution!".
Scientists Have Discovered a Bacteria That's Evolved to Eat Plastic

Then you argue against lions evolving to eat vegetation... arguing that they would not be lions if that happened... or it just can't happen.

Those are serious false analogies.
Whale evolution took MILLIONS of years.
And you are trying to compare that to a single species of lion to go from carnivore to herbivore, without undergoing any other changes. As if it could just "choose" to stop eating meat overnight.

This false analogy is either extremely ignorant or it is extremely intellectually dishonest.

Not sure which one it is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Who is talking about one lion? Certainly not me.
So the change can happen then. Thank you.
That's all I am saying

They would require a serious overhaul of their digestive system in order to be able to survive as a herbivore. They would also require an overhaul of their teeth to "grind" vegetables. Now, they have teeth to tear meat.

If it could even happen (perhaps it can), it would take many many generations.
Millions of years.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Suddenly transforming? What do you mean? How sudden is sudden?
Do you mean like this?

Or is that not sudden enough?
I'm not sure of how sudden you think nPeace had in mind. So you'll need to clarify.

FYI: the time-span from the evolution depicted in the picture, is about 55 million years.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So when and where do these little changes start, and how?

Every newborn comes with changes.
Natural selection then determines which of those newborns will pass on their changes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Birds
A thoughtful study of birds gives convincing proof of the Biblical teaching that they are of divine creation. While birds and reptiles are both oviparous, reptiles are cold-blooded, often sluggish, whereas birds are warm-blooded and among the most active of all earth’s creatures; they also have an unusually rapid heartbeat. The evolutionary view that reptilian scales and front limbs eventually developed into feathered wings is both fanciful and baseless. The fossils of birds called by scientists Archaeopteryx (or, ancient wing) and Archaeornis (or, ancient bird), though showing teeth and a long vertebrated tail, also show that they were completely feathered, had feet equipped for perching, and had fully developed wings. No intermediate specimens, exhibiting scales developing into feathers or front legs into wings, exist to give any semblance of support to the evolution theory. As expressed by the apostle Paul, birds are of a distinct “flesh” from others of earth’s creatures. 1 Corinthians 15:39.

A Jehova Witness website trying to sound smart, but really saying nothing but "nuh-uh!!!" to a well established scientific theory.


So "convincing".

 

[YoursTrue]

Every newborn comes with changes.
Natural selection then determines which of those newborns will pass on their changes.

Some dogs are nicer than others, even from the same litter. They so far have remained dogs though.

 

[YoursTrue]

Every newborn comes with changes.
Natural selection then determines which of those newborns will pass on their changes.

So far no one, and I mean no one has seen fish transforming by "natural selection" into landlubbers. In fact, the entire idea of fish "naturally evolving by natural selection" to air-breathing landlubbers is ridiculous.

 

[David Davidovich]

Some dogs are nicer than others, even from the same litter. They so far have remained dogs though.

But dogs evolved from wolves.

 

[nPeace]

A Jehova Witness website trying to sound smart, but really saying nothing but "nuh-uh!!!" to a well established scientific theory.


So "convincing".

Sounds more like someone is here trying to convince others to just believe whatever... because most scientists believe.
Not very convincing.

It would be more convincing if you had shown why the "Jehova Witness website" is trying to sound smart.... but we all know you can't.

 

[nPeace]

So far no one, and I mean no one has seen fish transforming by "natural selection" into landlubbers. In fact, the entire idea of fish "naturally evolving by natural selection" to air-breathing landlubbers is ridiculous.

You are forgetting something, YoursTrue. To the ToE believers, natural selection is the fairy godmother, and magic accomplishes anything.