Can I get an evolutionary answear, please?

Question

Just to state, I am not a creationist. I am a former creationist that has since come to their sense, and am now very curious about evolution. Evolution only barely makes sense to me, but I'm ready to learn. Please refer to this video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7066578568747223192&q=cute&hl=en
(It's about the Pika, the incentive to watch is that it's cute)

What I don't understand is how the Pika knows what is poisoness, and what is not. Also, how does Pika know that the poison will preserve the plants into the winter? I don't understand how the plant and animal correspond to each other perfectly (natural selection of course, but I want something more specific). In the past, I would only have said 'they were designed for each other', but I am now seeking a better answear.

Answer 1

Be a little careful listening to the affectionate description by the narrator. The pikas don't necessarily "know" that the poisonous plants will last longer. All they need to know is that (a) winter is coming; (b) it feels like a good idea to collect a variety of plants regardless of taste (remember, they are not just packing food, but have an eye towards building a good nest); and (c) early in winter some plants smell/taste bad enough not to eat, but later in winter they are much less distasteful, and in fact, may be the only thing edible in the nest.

In other words, while it seems like forethought and planning on the pika's part ... it is just as simple as ... pikas whose instincts are to choose a wide variety of nesting plants, survive more winters than those who choose only a narrow range of edible plants. The survivors get to reproduce more. Natural selection.

{edit}

... kruegerphoto ... I won't say much about the old micro- vs. macro-evolution canard ... except that this misunderstands the distinction in science. There is no natural barrier between the two ... macro-evolution is just micro-evolution on a longer timescale.

But it is awfully arrogant of you to accuse Martin of "renouncing his faith altogether." He said he renounced creationism, not (as far as I can tell) his faith.

I am not an atheist, but I am a die-hard supporter of evolution. 40% of scientists (who incidentally overwhelmingly support evolution) are not atheists. I'm quite sure that the last two Popes are not atheists, and have both issued statements stating that there is no conflict between evolution and faith. The Catholic chuch alone is home to over half the world's Christians. And over 10,800 clergy members have signed the Clergy Letter Project (see source) rejecting creationism and supporting evolution.

This is the fundamental error of fundamentalists ... equating evolution with atheism ... which comes from equating literalism with faith (i.e. that one cannot be a true Christian, or a theist, unless one subscribes to an absolutely literal interpretation of the Bible).

Evolution is NOT equivalent to atheism.

Answer 2

Many animals (not including humans) can smell or taste poison. So this is probably why the Pika knows not to eat it while its still poisonous, but the flowers are edible so it will collect them anyway.

In terms of natural selection, it probably worked out that those Pika who had the instinct to collect many different kinds of flowers were the ones who survived, because they had stores of food that would last until the spring. Those who only would collect fresh food would have died out in the middle of winter when they ran out, or all their food went bad. In this way, the "smartest" Pika survived and passed on these genes and instincts to the rest of the breed, because baby Pika generally learn most things from their parents. They would have learned to collect many different flowers, even the ones that wouldn't help them immediately.

The flower, on the other hand, survives when animals "learn" that it is poisonous, and avoid it. Eat something that keeps making you sick, and you'll eventually stop eating it too. It's the flower's defense mechanism, as it keeps animals from eating them, so they have a chance to propagate. The Pika's learned how to use this to their advantage.

[Edit]

I agree with SecretSauce's edit. I am also not atheist but absolutely and completely believe in all forms of evolution, and believe that science can pretty much explain everything.

If you have ever read Angels and Demons (same author as DaVinci Code) they bring up an interesting concept. Basically it brings up the idea that science and evolution are all completely true, but this does not mean a higher being isn't allowing it to be true. The two don't necessarily have to exist separately, but instead could be a sort of religious evolution.

Answer 3

Much of what we know is found by trial and error and passed down to our descendants in some way. Many animals that raise their young will spend time teaching them what's good and what's bad for various purposes. It's been shown repeatedly that some of this information is actually programmed in somehow, so that even relatively simple animals, or animals that have been raised in isolation can recognize and respond appropriately to certain things (dangerous shapes or colors or patterns of colors, for instance). The basic idea behind the process of evolution is that members of a population that have some quality that helps them produce more offspring will eventually have their genotype make up a larger proportion of the population than others, eventually making the population different from how it was before that quality came along. Knowledge works like that, too, but is generally passed on in extra-genetic ways, like reading/writing. or oral tradition.
As for how plants and animals become so well-suited to each other, the field of co-evolution is particularly interesting. You might want to look up butterfly/passionflower vine relationships, but there are lots of nifty relationships out there.

Answer 4

First of all, I believe in creation. But I don't think your question has much to do with evolution anyway.
All animals understand how to survive in their natural habitat. they are taught by their mothers how to gather and what to gather and how much. They probably learned this originally through some kind of try and try again kind of procedure.
Natrual selection would come in when the animals who couldn't figure out how to gather enough food would die off and only the animals who got it right would live to have offspring and pass down the knowledge of how to gather the right foods.
Now for your question on evolution.
There are two types of evolution.
Microevolution- which is when a species will adapt in color, height, or some other trait in order to better inhabit it's environment. This has been observed and is believed to be fact in scientific views.
Macroevolution- is the theory that a species can completely change into a new species by growing new organs, wings, fins etc... This kind of evolution is what is under political fire.
If it were true it would be such a slow process that it would be difficult to observe it and therfore prove it. There are very few skeletal "examples" of macroevolution and the few that do exist are questionable.
I personally agree that microevolution exists but I do not believe in macroevolution.
I would suggest you do more research before renouning your faith all together.