Talk:Exaptation

message: Starting with the intent to edit this article (per early spring 07), I ended up completely revising it.  The original article lacked references and headings.  Besides including those, I inserted two examples that would be understandable to a lay audience (e.g., high school students).  The process of exaptation helps to explain why living organisms sometimes appear jury-rigged, as is now explained.  (Related articles—preadaptation, co-option, and evolutionary psychology—will point to this article.)
Hopefully, the new structure of this article will facilitate other scholars correcting my errors & improving upon my content.  (I see that TimVickers w/ a biochem background has recently improved this article.  I look forward to his improvements on my changes.)
W Pete Welch 01:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision

message: "Bird feathers are a classic example: initially these evolved for temperature regulation, but later were adapted for flight."  We know this for a fact, do we?  I'd suggest either adding something like "It is believed..." in there, or giving some reference to verify this.  It just seems hard to say factually that we know why a creature originally developed some feature.   192.91.171.36 (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making assumptions? 

message: Restarting the previous discussion.  The article currently says that Exaptation is the currently preferred term for what used to be known as Preadaptation because that name could give a false impression of teleology.  Otherwise, despite such a distinction, they seem close enough to meaning the same thing that the Preadaptation article should just become a redirect to this article.  WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Another phrase I'm seeing is 'cryptic (genetic) variation', which as far as I understand is an example of exaptation? I've requested a 'cryptic variation' article, but I agree it'd be helpful to bring these terms together (w/REDIRECTs) (and possibly a tie-in with Cryptic species complex) to help readers better understand this frontier of EvBio. Twang (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Support per OP reasoning.  That's what I see in the literature. – Maky « talk » 07:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mergefrom [[Preadaptation]] 

message: I made a one-word change to this example (added "putatively") to clarify that the status of rationality as an exaptation is an assumption of the theory, not necessarily accepted as a behavioral adaptation "to seek truth" by a majority of workers; the evolution of the ability to reason is probably up for considerable debate. My original edit was a deletion of this entire paragraph, as I have major reservations about this example, both because it is a questionable example of an exaptation, and because the cited article gives me the impression that it is either not a useful summary of the theory and debate on it, or that the scholarship of the cited researchers on evolution and adaptation is lacking. I am inclined to give the researchers the benefit of the doubt, but additional, primary sources would be an improvement. Another concern is that, though the current writing does acknowledge that this is a controversial example, I think that including relatively unverified and controversial examples when there are only two other clear examples may cause confusion. -colbyg
---  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.129.141.175 (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Theory of Reasoning Example

message: Spandrel (biology) implies that "spandrel" in the sense of evolutionary biology can be used synonymously with "exaptation", but "spandrel" is not even mentioned in this article ... what gives? Another related article, or possibly even merge candidate? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: While a spandrel *could* be later exapted, the two are not necessarily the same.  Plenty of spandrels remain non-adaptive, and plenty of exaptations have non-spandrel origins. HCA (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spandrel 

message: Would not tool use be a form of exaptation? Originally to improve the range of sizes and locations of branches reachable, then co-opted to manipulate objects. Not necessarily human-exclusive either, can be seen with Chimpanzees, Orang-utans, and various primates. 218.212.228.206 (talk) 06:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hands 

message: I tend to disagree with the emphasized portion of this sentence:  "For many years the phenomenon was labeled "preadaptation," but since this term suggests teleology, which is contrary to a basic principle of natural selection, it has been replaced by other terms in the years after Darwin."
Teleology does not contradict natural selection.  For example: If we were able to teleologically modify an organism so that it's life span increased, or some other highly selective phenotype change, natural selection could still then act to fixate that modification in the rest of the population.  Instead of "natural selection", better phrases might be:
* standard evolutionary theory
* natural evolution
* neo-Darwinian evoluion
* the modern evolutionary synthesis
:But your example isn't teleology in natural selection, as the teleology is introduced by *artificial* means, and natural selection subsequently acts on the variability introduced by artificial means.  The statement as it current stands is 100% accurate - natural selection only acts on *existing* variability in response to *existing* selective pressure.  There is no mechanism allowing "anticipation or planning for the future", including deliberate preservation of a currently deleterious or useless trait for future use - that requires human intervention, in the form of artificial selection (or genetic modification). HCA (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teleology contrary to basic principle of natural selection? 

message: In the lead we say that their origins may be in thermal regulation. But in the "examples" section, we say that they [definitely] are. I don't know whether that question is settled or not, but this article ought to take a single consistent stance (I suppose one of is, may be, and jury's-still-out).—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency about feathers 

message: I have found a couple primary sources pointing to evidence of exaptations that haven't been listed in the article yet. These include the human hand/fist as it came about as a "tag-along" trait that wasn't a target of natural selection. Metabolic systems may be another example of an exaptation because of the many possibilities for innovation based off of their ability to use many carbon products as viable carbon derivatives sufficient for metabolism. I will add these examples and in-depth information in due time.
:Go for it, but we should be careful the article doesn't devolve (hehehe) into a "listicle". HCA (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding other examples 

message: I would like to add a few sentences to the "Preadaptation" section that will help better define exaptation and make it slightly more understandable.  I feel it is a complex topic in evolutionary biology that isn't the easiest to understand for most people.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikhaylyuk.1 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional information to "Preadaptation" section 

message: I feel as though some more evidence is required concerning the wolf behavior example - also, can behaviors be considered as exaptations? I somewhat understand the idea behind this example; however, I'm not totally convinced about it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikhaylyuk.1 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a trait's a trait, so I'm not sure why behavior should be excluded.  That said, I'm also skeptical of this particular example, especially since wild wolf packs are basically family units, with the so-called "alpha pair" simply being the mother and father of the rest of the pack (who stay until they're old enough to leave and try to start breeding themselves).  It could be considered an exaptation, but its the same behavior being used by the same individuals across time, though admittedly for a different purpose.  If we can find a stronger example, that might be better. Perhaps Wing-assisted_incline_running?  There's a mechanical component, sure, but there's also the idea of coopting the flapping behavior.  Or something else? HCA (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I understand the reasoning behind "a trait's a trait" and that behavior could surely be considered as such; however, I agree with your reasoning and conclusion that there could be a better example for a behavioral exaptation. I personally haven't come across any behavioral examples but would be interested in seeing one if someone does manage to find it. To me, exaptation revolves more around certain behavior (physically) that as compared to behavioral because of the complexity of behaviors in comparison to action/function (with reason). I am wondering about your reasoning behind having Wing-assisted incline running as an exaptation... Could you elaborate? Do you mean using wings for something that they weren't originally meant for or..?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikhaylyuk.1 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolf "behavioral" example 

message: Co-option and cooptation are both used in this article, in the section History and definitions, and it is not clear whether they refer to the same or not. Can anyone make clear what they mean and what the differences are, if any? --Alectorolophus (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: They mean the same thing. For the sake of uniformity, feel free to change the spelling so that only one form appears. Thanks..--Quisqualis (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Co-option and cooptation 

message: I am going to remove the statement 
from the Examples section of the article. The reference only mentions muzzle licking in passing and doesn't at all discuss evolutionary exaptation. It's a compelling theory but seems like WP:OR. Noting it here in case someone has some refs or knowledge on the statement. - Procyonidae (talk) 05:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing a statement  

message: There's an extreme error in this section: 
'This may have occurred with mammalian ancestors when confronted with a large mass extinction about 250 million years ago and substantial increase in the level of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere.'
There was a mass extinction 250 million years ago [End Permian] but it was not associated with the Great Oxygenation Event, which was roughly 2.4 billion years ago. I would change the dates but I'm not sure of the relation to the mammalian genome. RobotBoy66 (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples