In the event of Humans becoming extinct, (or, for that matter, deserting Earth) what would be the likely consequences? Do we end up with the same sort of biological succession of land-life reoccurring (amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals) or--because they already exist and don't need to re-evolve) do we end up with all of them competing with each other on a reasonably equal footing, and each of the groups getting a dominant foothold depending on local conditions favouring one family or another?
After Humanity
- Thread starter Xylene
- Start date
Aren't insects the ones which have the highest numbers on this earth? They're also the toughest out of the groups, surely they'd stand a good chance at taking over the world. They say that in the case of a nuclear war they would, who's to say they wouldn't in that situation?
I suspect the rodents would rule the roost if primates were wiped out. Rodents are a relatively late arrival and primates were already too far along at the time for the early rodents to really compete for the same niches. But, with the primate niches open... who knows how far the rodents might go?
Doubtful.
Insects (arthropods) were some of the first (if not the first) land animals. They've had all that time to take over the world. They haven't. There are too many limitations imposed by their biology.
Doubtful.
Insects (arthropods) were some of the first (if not the first) land animals. They've had all that time to take over the world. They haven't. There are too many limitations imposed by their biology.
However, in the case of humans being wiped out or leaving the Earth, the probability is that the environment would be much harsher than it is now. To cause us to leave the habitat, which would give the arthropods (as you kindly informed me of the correct term) a better advantage over the others, that is my understanding anyway. If they can survive a nuclear war, i summised they would be better equiped to cope in a harsher environment.
Well. I used the term arthropods simply because the weakness of the insects is the same for all arthropods. Mainly the exoskeleton and weight considerations. (Arthropods include insects, spiders, and crustaceans.)
The thing is that arthropods were some of the earliest life forms on the planet. The trilobite, for example. And they were the earliest land animals as well. They've had all that time. All that head start. With which to make something of themselves.
They haven't.
This can't be ignored.
Their biological limitations are key.
In evolutionary competition, having a head start adapting to a niche is a huge advantage in the struggle. Look at the inability of mammals to really diversify during the age of reptiles. The mammals had a large number of adaptations that have since proved far superior to the reptiles, but while the reptiles filled the niches, the mammals didn't stand a chance. (There has been recent research done to show that there were more mammals present during the time than was once thought however. But this is besides the point.)
Yet, the insects (and arthropods in general) had the largest head start of them all and were unable to hold off the advance of less advanced life forms when they made their appearance eventually.
Why?
There is a chance that something occurred which wiped out the arthropod population at a key time allowing the reptiles to take over (and let's not forget the fish in the ocean at an earlier date), but I have doubts about this.
I think that the most likely scenario is that the arthropods were simply unable to diversify enough, due to biological limitations, to fill all available niches.
A thing to consider is that the term 'niche' is a bit of a misnomer. The niche doesn't exist per se. It is an abstract thing made possible by living beings. Therefore, we can't really say the early arthropods failed to fill the niches, the niches didn't exist. But the new lifeforms (fish, reptiles, etc..) were able to adapt to the environment in ways that arthropods weren't and they thus created the niches.
The creation of these new niches in an already settled world of arthropods no doubt wreaked havoc on the ecosystem, and it is a credit to the arthropods that they have the stamina to have survived as they have. And, perhaps, they even managed to maintain their places in many of the niches they'd filled at the time despite the new system of niches by the newer life forms. (This would be an interesting line of research. The study of just how the advancement of new life forms displaced the arthropods. I wonder if it's been done? And to what extent?)
And it's also a credit to the phylum that they maintain such strong numbers in today's world. They far outnumber all other life forms (except bacteria) but even so, their biological limitations keep them in a limited niche.
Unless some great adaptation occurs which would open their horizons, the insects would have no more than a brief flowering while the other survivors gathered their resources.
The arthropod rennaissance. Followed by their suppression once more.
Tis the life of an insect.
The thing is that arthropods were some of the earliest life forms on the planet. The trilobite, for example. And they were the earliest land animals as well. They've had all that time. All that head start. With which to make something of themselves.
They haven't.
This can't be ignored.
Their biological limitations are key.
In evolutionary competition, having a head start adapting to a niche is a huge advantage in the struggle. Look at the inability of mammals to really diversify during the age of reptiles. The mammals had a large number of adaptations that have since proved far superior to the reptiles, but while the reptiles filled the niches, the mammals didn't stand a chance. (There has been recent research done to show that there were more mammals present during the time than was once thought however. But this is besides the point.)
Yet, the insects (and arthropods in general) had the largest head start of them all and were unable to hold off the advance of less advanced life forms when they made their appearance eventually.
Why?
There is a chance that something occurred which wiped out the arthropod population at a key time allowing the reptiles to take over (and let's not forget the fish in the ocean at an earlier date), but I have doubts about this.
I think that the most likely scenario is that the arthropods were simply unable to diversify enough, due to biological limitations, to fill all available niches.
A thing to consider is that the term 'niche' is a bit of a misnomer. The niche doesn't exist per se. It is an abstract thing made possible by living beings. Therefore, we can't really say the early arthropods failed to fill the niches, the niches didn't exist. But the new lifeforms (fish, reptiles, etc..) were able to adapt to the environment in ways that arthropods weren't and they thus created the niches.
The creation of these new niches in an already settled world of arthropods no doubt wreaked havoc on the ecosystem, and it is a credit to the arthropods that they have the stamina to have survived as they have. And, perhaps, they even managed to maintain their places in many of the niches they'd filled at the time despite the new system of niches by the newer life forms. (This would be an interesting line of research. The study of just how the advancement of new life forms displaced the arthropods. I wonder if it's been done? And to what extent?)
And it's also a credit to the phylum that they maintain such strong numbers in today's world. They far outnumber all other life forms (except bacteria) but even so, their biological limitations keep them in a limited niche.
Unless some great adaptation occurs which would open their horizons, the insects would have no more than a brief flowering while the other survivors gathered their resources.
The arthropod rennaissance. Followed by their suppression once more.
Tis the life of an insect.
Ahh, I can see exactly what you're saying now. I'm no archeologist, so I didn't know that arthropods had already had such a head start.
In that case, would primates perhaps take our place? Chimps are already showing signs of tool use aren't they? Although rodents obviously have the ability to reproduce very rapidly, could they really stand a chance of taking over? Would the resources available allow them too?
In that case, would primates perhaps take our place? Chimps are already showing signs of tool use aren't they? Although rodents obviously have the ability to reproduce very rapidly, could they really stand a chance of taking over? Would the resources available allow them too?
Eflex tha Vybe Scientist
Registered Senior Member
my gut feeling is that man will create a working quantum computer that will, in time, evolve.
Then humanity will become extinct and the next generation of quantum computers will take our place.
Then humanity will become extinct and the next generation of quantum computers will take our place.
There is one series by BBC (I think) or Discovery which playes the scenario of "if humans suddenly disappear from Earth" and what likely evolutionary paths the animals would take,
through the expected ice age, to increase in co2 and green house effect, etc.
Quite interesting, unfortunately forgot the name.
through the expected ice age, to increase in co2 and green house effect, etc.
Quite interesting, unfortunately forgot the name.
I think we are talking about the same thing, seeing as Animal Planet, which TFIW premeired on, is owned by Discovery channel, and was shown as a miniseries. The whole ice age thing, green house effect thing, was part of TFIW. In the end of it, it had cephalopods crawling onto land and becoming the next big thing. Tree-squids, etc. Very cool.
yea, that's it! 
you can download it here: http://www.mvgroup.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=1512
(registration required)
you can download it here: http://www.mvgroup.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=1512
(registration required)