johnsuth{at}nospam.com.au wrote in
news:20031015075916.EC83DDEF9D{at}mail1.acenet.com.au: 

>   
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:16:47 +0000 (UTC), johnsuth{at}nospam.com.au  
> wrote:  
>   
> From New Scientist (Antipodean edition) 11th October 2003, p. 57, 
> The last word.  R.P. Dales, Professor Emeritus of Zoology, University 
> of London, UK writes "Flamingos feed on small crustaceans, which they 
> sieve through their specially adapted bills."   

(snip other reply explaining why flamingos bills are adapted)


> Here is the long explanation of how I came to be confused about  
> adaptation. 
>  
> Whilst some behaviour is probably in the genes (chicks breaking out of
>  the egg, mating, nest building) much behaviour is probably learned
> from  parents. 

Most "advanced" behaviours are an intricate combination of genetics and 
environment, with learning playing an important role. 

  
> Consider the recent newspaper photo of a nest building city magpie
> which  supplemented the sparse supply of twigs with discarded plastic
> drinking  straws and cable ties.  It seems unlikely that this
> behaviour will be  passed on in the genes, but I suggest that the
> great majority of text  book writers would use the words "adapt" and
> "environment" in a report  of this anthropomorphic behaviour by the
> magpie, even though it has nothing to do with evolutionary biology. 

Why do you say the behaviour has nothing to do with evolutionary biology? 
The magpie has evolved to build a nest out of twigs.The drinking straws 
and cable ties are functional equivalents of twigs. The magpie has  
evolved the ability to flexibly respond to its environment, so that it 
can recognize functional equivalents. We also refer to this flexibility 
as "adaptability", which may be confusing but is not unusual in English 
or any other language.
  
> Because of the frequent use of the word, I had the impression that  
> adaptation was a process as significant as mutation and natural  
> selection.  You are telling me that it is just the end result of the  
> process of natural selection.  This means that every species  
> is adapted. 

Yes every species is adapted, but not every part of every species is 
adapted. The appendix in humans is AFAIK just along for the ride

  
> I suggest that we could remove the words "specially adapted" from the 
> professor's sentence without detracting from his meaning. 

Not so. Most bird bills fall into a relatively few types, e.g. short 
heavy bills for eating nuts, longer thinner ones for catching insects or 
other small prey, hooked bills for catching larger prey. There are 
obviously a large number of more unique bills, e.g. pelicans, falmingos, 
woodpeckers - but these deserve to be called "specially adapted". 
  
Yours,

Bill Morse
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/18/03 7:49:26 AM