[lomnakkus]

Yeah, I guess I was just a bit surprised by "learning" because it does sort of imply "learning by experience" which isn't really a thing when it comes to evolution.

I do agree, it's probably just a bit "too semantics", though I do feel it pretty important in science reporting to be as accurate as possible and to try to avoid fostering misconceptions as far as possible. (Let's face it, popular science reporting doesn't have a great record on this. Hell, even university PR departments[1] are culpable.)

[1] It's amazing that there even is such a thing, but I guess we just have to deal.

[yonoataraxia]

Maybe this is more than semantic discrepancies here. There is evidence for "learning by experience" that can be inherited. I suggest reading about epigenetics and how the experiences of your ancestors might be encoded using switches on your DNA (which turn areas on or off and gives the organism a way to pass on knowledge - hence "learning by experience" supported by epigenetics).

See e.g. [1] or [2] - even simpler organisms like worms have this ability, it is very likely that we also have those capabilities (because we are descended from simpler organisms).

I hope that you find something interesting in the current research of biology and psychology, some things are not like what we used to think.

[1] http://discovermagazine.com/2013/may/13-grandmas-experiences... [2] https://futurism.com/memories-can-inherited-scientists-may-j...

[erikpukinskis]

I’m not sure I really understand the difference between learning, adaptation, intelligence, and evolution.

I feel like people choose which one to use based on which timescales and action substrates they want to privilege, but I don’t know... is there a technical distinction?