I'm not really saying you can change the inherent nature of animals anyway and "teach a lion to eat tofu" a la Futurama (classic episode). I'm just theorizing that a fish's dietary preference can be influenced by environmental factors, just as many other animals' can.
The notion that an animal's behavior is determined by complete chance, though, doesn't sit with me right either. And that's the attitude you see here. There seems to be a prevailing notion here that angel fish just randomly decide one day to eat corals. Or they don't. It's all just completely random. Or is it? Is it not possible we are observing behavior changes without all the data or incomplete understanding?
And if it's all just completely random than we have to also accept it's in the fish's nature to *not* eat coral. Randomly, apparently.
I think projects like the one where we tabulate people's angel fish and their likelihood of eating coral are great. We are already noticing trends among species. Admittedly it's a small sample of data that doesn't even overcome standard deviation. But it'll only get better. And maybe over time we can start to correlate more things, which is a start.
I'm just saying I don't think it's impossible that if a fish's diet has a particular set of foodstuffs/nutrients that it may influence his preference for eating other foods -- like coral -- later. Is this really that preposterous of a notion?
Admittedly, I'm new. It's totally possible that there could be mounds of data that proves I've wrong. Controlled studies that show definitively than an angel fish's diet has no effect on its desire to eat coral. So, point me in the right direction if this is the case.