Natural variation and selection. (Biological) Evolution changes populations, not individuals.
Suppose there's one snake that is genetically disposed not to eat toad-shaped things, frogs, cane toads, anything like that, the same way I don't like nuts. They're not toxic to me, I could eat them, but I don't. Previously toads weren't toxic to snakes, but that snake didn't eat them.
Normally that snake has a small disadvantage, other snakes eat toads and it goes without. Too bad. But now it won't get poisoned. This means it's slightly more likely to survive to adulthood, breed and produce more snakes.
Further genetic changes to avoid toads will also be selected for in the same fashion.
This process is very slow in multi-cellular creatures, but it does exist. It may not be fast enough to adapt to the cane toad of course.
Appreciate your comment. It always impresses me how many people misunderstand the (what I feel to be) basic concepts of evolution. I'm not educated on the matter either, mind you - I'm sure I'm very ignorant on many aspects of it.
Regardless, it always makes me wonder how much the anti-evolution "movement" would be affected if people simply had a better grasp of it.
Quite a bit of the provided possible outcome rests on likelihood of certain genetic factors and, relative size of snake population, and how quickly cane toads spread.
The actual values of these variables (and a few more I'm sure) can change whether one population dies out or not and how quickly. Just because evolution provides a solution to the general problem, doesn't mean there's a solution that saves the population when the specific problem is looked at in detail. Invasive species cause local extinctions all the time.
We're not talking about natural selection, we're talking about actual learning(crow article), and discussing if other animals have that ability. I understand how evolution works.
I don't think so, the commenter was saying that a snake that avoided toads by way of its genetics, would be more fit, and thus reproduce more snakes that avoid toads. Genetics can affect instincts so this is not far fetched. But yes, learning genes would be much more apt and effective over a larger obstacle course. It is tough to see how a snake is going to develop a neocortex though.
Suppose there's one snake that is genetically disposed not to eat toad-shaped things, frogs, cane toads, anything like that, the same way I don't like nuts. They're not toxic to me, I could eat them, but I don't. Previously toads weren't toxic to snakes, but that snake didn't eat them.
Normally that snake has a small disadvantage, other snakes eat toads and it goes without. Too bad. But now it won't get poisoned. This means it's slightly more likely to survive to adulthood, breed and produce more snakes.
Further genetic changes to avoid toads will also be selected for in the same fashion.
This process is very slow in multi-cellular creatures, but it does exist. It may not be fast enough to adapt to the cane toad of course.