Well, basically I don't see anything in those questions that would really make an evolution unlikely or questionable. There are tons of examples of symbiotic relations between lifeforms, infact are there any that could survive without specific other species? Every animal's presence has it's effect on the foodchain. Take one or a few species out, and some others could die out pretty soon too. Those kind of relations do not need an adaptation to happen simultaneously, at least it's not a necessarily required thing. Just look at species that migrate into other areas (for example because there habitat got destroyed, or a climate change made them push on further, or something like that). Those animals will claim their territory in one way or another, or they will dissappear.
As for the tube worm, at this time it could not survive without the bacteria, but it could very well be that there wasn't always a symbiotic relation. What if at first the worm did have a mouth, anuses and means to survive on it's own? What if the bacteria came along later and the symbiotic relation grew, mutations causing the worm to loose certain features, which he didn't needed because the newly acquired benefits from the co-existing bacteria replaced them fully? We didn't know very much about that worm untill recently, but symbiotic lifeforms fit inside the evolution theory, and yes there are many more examples and all types of symbiotic relationships, some less dependant than others.
As for behavior, animals act upon their environment and off course are limited to what they can do. Simple as that. Some creatures can outswim their predators, others can hide themselves, whatever there physical features allow them to do, they will behave upon that.
Remember that the mimic octopus and octupusses in general are already very very old species, which had lots of time to develop themselves into what they are now. The mimic feature is something amazing and advanced, and I'm not sure what science thinks of it in respect to evolution, but remember eventhough we might think of it as something amazing, aren't we very subjective? Bird wings are common, why should more uncommon things disprove evolution? Besides, the feature isn't really uncommon at all. The octopus's adaptation to it's environment by mutations and natural selection over the acquired benefits could very well after a very long time cause such a species to evolve into what it's now. Also marine animals like the octopus are radically different from most land creatures, but even on land we've got species who have mimic features (more or less the same).
Quote:
Evolution must not only account for the vast variety of species on planet Earth, but must also account for the animals behaviors. For example, many animals have defensive and offensive capabilities. If evolution is true, then these abilities must also have evolved as it is certain that the original protein did not have these abilities (i.e. camoflage, mimicing other animals, etc). The basic question I have is how does evolution account for these "acquired" behaviors that many animals display.
For any behavior to occure, there's a long road of building up experience through trial and error and also mimicking others and parents. The highest chance of survival of any species, is to know how to behave best, making use off all their features to survive plays a keyrole.
Humans have eyes, when nothing went wrong in developing them during our growth and stuff, does having them make us understand how they work instantly? No definately not, it involves a learning process. Babies will learn amazingly fast, but it will take a while before they recognize and can distinguish certain things as being what they are.
Young birds will make their nest like their parents did because they see how they build them, and because lateron they will try to make them theirselves. A process of trial and error. Off course there is some gene information passed on too, but I personally think animals learn the most out of mimicking others and trial and error. There's a need for a nest? Then the creature needs to find a way to make it, wether or not it makes it in exactly the same way as their parents will have to do a lot with a.) gene info, b.) did it witness how it's parents build it and c.) his own physical abilities (clumsy? clever? strength?) and d.) the environment.
Learning to use a creature's own features to it's maximum benefit is pretty much vital for survival, natural selection would make sure that any beneficial mutation will survive and the creatures who can live with that change the best will pass on it's genes. Again, these questions are good ones, but I think it doesn't really question evolution, especially the part about behavior, there is so much that any species need to learn to be able to survive. Physical capabilities like the mimic feature will only be beneficial when creatures who have it, quickly learn how to use it.
Cheers
