• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Learned and Adapted Behaviors

nPeace

Veteran Member
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....
So there are persons on here who try to mislead us? Or is everyone confused about what is what?

It is not word play.
In terms of describing animals (or even plants, bacteria, fungi, etc...).....
:confused: So it applies only to particular organisms?

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......
Adaptation, in evolutionary terms, is the process that species go through in order to become accustomed to an environment. Over many generations, through the process of natural selection, organisms’ physical and behavioral features adapt to function better in the face of environmental challenges. Adaptations are slow and incremental, and the result of successful adaptation is always beneficial to an organism.

Wrong... according to Daemon Sophic.

Adaptation
An adaptation is a feature that arose and was favored by natural selection for its current function. Adaptations help an organism survive and/or reproduce in its current environment.

Adaptations can take many forms: a behavior that allows better evasion of predators, a protein that functions better at body temperature, or an anatomical feature that allows the organism to access a valuable new resource — all of these might be adaptations. Many of the things that impress us most in nature are thought to be adaptations.

Mimicry of leaves by insects is an adaptation


Wrong... according to Daemon Sophic.
...and all the other information out there. All wrong... according to Daemon Sophic.

Bye peppered moths evolution.
At least they agree with me, provided they aren't assuming millions of years. :)

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 :eek:. 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. :confused:
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. :p 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.
I'm really sorry you thought you had to go through all of that.
I hope you enjoyed doing it, because it's nothing informative or new to me.
Thanks for trying anyway. :)
 
Last edited:

VoidCat

Pronouns: he/him/they/them
What? Let me peruse this page and get back to you. I have something to do.
Ok. Im not every knowledgeable on the topic im just telling you the dumbed down version of evolution i learned back in 8th grade. So what im telling you may just be an over simplified understanding.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
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.
Nope. Bacteria is still bacteria. Whether they eat plastic, glass, steel, or kryptonite.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Ah. David. I was trying to remember where I ran into David. Now I remember. :)

Ok. Im not every knowledgeable on the topic im just telling you the dumbed down version of evolution i learned back in 8th grade. So what im telling you may just be an over simplified understanding.
Good. You saved me a few mouse clicks.
Not that I minded very much. ;)
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
It is widely believed that a carnivore, such as a lion, cannot become a herbivore. I argue strongly against that belief.
Are you saying that a carnivore such as a lion can learn to be vegetarian? Biology disagrees strongly with this notion of animal cruelty.

 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Snake fangs. Angler fish razors; ...
Funny, "evolutionists" here seem to only believe in things their opponents don't believe in. Lol.

How Snakes Got Their Fangs
Biologists have sunk their teeth into the question of snake fang development, revealing how these poison prickers have evolved from regular teeth and allowed snakes to become such champion biters.

The research suggests that both rear and front fangs in venomous snakes developed from separate teeth-forming tissue at the rear of the mouth — unlike the situation for non-venomous snake dentition and human teeth.


If we said, we believe bats have wings, they probably will say, "they don't"... and argue strong. shaking my head
 

David Davidovich

Well-Known Member
Ah. David. I was trying to remember where I ran into David. Now I remember. :)

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. ;)
 

David Davidovich

Well-Known Member
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.

Nope. Bacteria is still bacteria. Whether they eat plastic, glass, steel, or kryptonite.

So, what about dinosaurs evolving into birds? Or is that preposterous to your belief system?
 

David Davidovich

Well-Known Member
Snake fangs. Angler fish razors; ...
Funny, "evolutionists" here seem to only believe in things their opponents don't believe in. Lol.

How Snakes Got Their Fangs
Biologists have sunk their teeth into the question of snake fang development, revealing how these poison prickers have evolved from regular teeth and allowed snakes to become such champion biters.

The research suggests that both rear and front fangs in venomous snakes developed from separate teeth-forming tissue at the rear of the mouth — unlike the situation for non-venomous snake dentition and human teeth.


If we said, we believe bats have wings, they probably will say, "they don't"... and argue strong. shaking my head

So, @nPeace, (the M's trained me real well ;)) since none of us were there, could you attempt to speculate/extrapolate/theorize what an angler fish may have started out as?
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
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 :eek:. 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. :confused:
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. :p 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.
Your post is accurate apart from your definition of adaptation. Adaptation is a multi-generational evolutionary change that occurs in a species or a lineage such that its fitness to the environment increases. Your example of plastic eating bacteria is a perfect example of evolutionary adaptation through natural selection.
Adaptation - Wikipedia
Quoted:-
In biology, adaptation has three related meanings. Firstly, it is the dynamic evolutionary process of natural selection that fits organisms to their environment, enhancing their evolutionary fitness. Secondly, it is a state reached by the population during that process. Thirdly, it is a phenotypic trait or adaptive trait, with a functional role in each individual organism, that is maintained and has evolved through natural selection.

Adaptation differs from flexibility, acclimatization, and learning, all of which are changes during life which are not inherited. Flexibility deals with the relative capacity of an organism to maintain itself in different habitats: its degree of specialization. Acclimatization describes automatic physiological adjustments during life;[30] learning means improvement in behavioural performance during life.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Nope. Bacteria is still bacteria. Whether they eat plastic, glass, steel, or kryptonite.

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.
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
Your post is accurate apart from your definition of adaptation. Adaptation is a multi-generational evolutionary change that occurs in a species or a lineage such that its fitness to the environment increases. Your example of plastic eating bacteria is a perfect example of evolutionary adaptation through natural selection.
Adaptation - Wikipedia
Quoted:-
In biology, adaptation has three related meanings. Firstly, it is the dynamic evolutionary process of natural selection that fits organisms to their environment, enhancing their evolutionary fitness. Secondly, it is a state reached by the population during that process. Thirdly, it is a phenotypic trait or adaptive trait, with a functional role in each individual organism, that is maintained and has evolved through natural selection.

Adaptation differs from flexibility, acclimatization, and learning, all of which are changes during life which are not inherited. Flexibility deals with the relative capacity of an organism to maintain itself in different habitats: its degree of specialization. Acclimatization describes automatic physiological adjustments during life;[30] learning means improvement in behavioural performance during life.

Notice how quickly @nPeace jumped on this error? It would seem that he knows the Theory of Evolution very well, not surprising in a "know thine enemy" way. Why then does he continually ask people to explain things to him?
 

Dan From Smithville

Recently discovered my planet of origin.
Staff member
Premium Member
Snake fangs. Angler fish razors; ...
Funny, "evolutionists" here seem to only believe in things their opponents don't believe in. Lol.

How Snakes Got Their Fangs
Biologists have sunk their teeth into the question of snake fang development, revealing how these poison prickers have evolved from regular teeth and allowed snakes to become such champion biters.

The research suggests that both rear and front fangs in venomous snakes developed from separate teeth-forming tissue at the rear of the mouth — unlike the situation for non-venomous snake dentition and human teeth.


If we said, we believe bats have wings, they probably will say, "they don't"... and argue strong. shaking my head
What is the point of this post?

Fangs are teeth. They evolved from teeth. Apparently, scientists do know things. They certainly know that you can't get snakes to start eating fruit.

That bat statement doesn't make any sense and I'm shaking my head.
 

Dan From Smithville

Recently discovered my planet of origin.
Staff member
Premium Member
Your post is accurate apart from your definition of adaptation. Adaptation is a multi-generational evolutionary change that occurs in a species or a lineage such that its fitness to the environment increases. Your example of plastic eating bacteria is a perfect example of evolutionary adaptation through natural selection.
Adaptation - Wikipedia
Quoted:-
In biology, adaptation has three related meanings. Firstly, it is the dynamic evolutionary process of natural selection that fits organisms to their environment, enhancing their evolutionary fitness. Secondly, it is a state reached by the population during that process. Thirdly, it is a phenotypic trait or adaptive trait, with a functional role in each individual organism, that is maintained and has evolved through natural selection.

Adaptation differs from flexibility, acclimatization, and learning, all of which are changes during life which are not inherited. Flexibility deals with the relative capacity of an organism to maintain itself in different habitats: its degree of specialization. Acclimatization describes automatic physiological adjustments during life;[30] learning means improvement in behavioural performance during life.
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.
 

Dan From Smithville

Recently discovered my planet of origin.
Staff member
Premium Member
Nope. Bacteria is still bacteria. Whether they eat plastic, glass, steel, or kryptonite.
You do know that kryptonite isn't real. Right?

The theory of evolution doesn't claim that an organism will suddenly reproduce a completely different organism. If it did, then the theory wouldn't explain that.

We see evolutionary changes in bacteria more readily, because they have such short generation times down to the 10's of minutes in some species. E. coli can have a new generation every 20 minutes, so in a week, that is about 500 generations. Mutations that have a benefit would fix fairly quickly in comparison to large eukaryotic species.
 
Top