Interestingly, the still exhibit learned avoidance behaviors after complete this near complete disassembly and reassembly.
Here's a paper tracking the metamorphosis of painted lady butterflies in considerable detail:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2013.030...
Don't. An expert is the person most likely to be able to provide good support for their claims.
While credentials perform a necessary function, they are a placeholder, an IOU, and not themselves final grounds to accept a claim. They ought not to be treated as a primary source, and a claim based on a bare assertion of expertise should be accepted provisionally and only on the understanding that support can, in fact, be provided if the matter is pressed.
In short, your definition is a pretty good one.
For all that people like to point out the conservativeness of past experts rejecting ideas ultimately proven correct, few like to engage with the fact that almost all of those ideas were ultimately championed from within the establishment, not by radical outsiders.
Arguments should be able to stand on their own merit irrespective of whether their origin is 'outsiders', or the credentials of the originator. Again, it is very damaging to the institution of knowledge to say: "I accept your thesis on the basis of your credentials alone, and will investigate no further, either to increase my understanding, or to test its veracity."
Here you have someone presenting evidence! But saying "if you're an expert, I defer". You can expect an expert to make their case and allow it to stand on its own. Beware experts who invoke their own authority as an argument.
[0] https://datadryad.org/stash/dataset/doi:10.5061/dryad.b451g