orchids vs. evolution

[WildBlueYonder]

I’m saying is that evolution is an illusion, it looks like evolution is in action, but there are several unexplained phenomena (or as Catholics say, ‘mysteries’)

anyone that denys evolution knows absolutely nothing about organic chemistry.

tell me, does organic chemistry explain how an orchid can entice a distinct insect, via pheromone-specific to that insect, or via mimicry. And how does an orchid evolve wheels, hinges, spring-loaded hammers, “hair”, time-release (for pheromones, scents to attract day- or night-flying critters), shapes, just check out David Attenborough’s little clip on YouTube, provided here:
Each orchid needs a specific pollinator:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h8I3cqpgnA&mode=related&search=


Does organic chemistry explain orchids, which are dual-symbiotes; with fungi & a pollinator?
They need fungi to germinate

The seeds are generally almost microscopic and very numerous, in most species over a million per capsule. After ripening they blow off like dust particles or spores. They lack endosperm and must enter symbiotic relationship with various mycorrhizal basidiomyceteous fungi that provide them the necessary nutrients to germinate, so that all orchid species are mycoheterotrophic during germination and reliant upon fungi to complete their lifecycle.

As the chance for a seed to meet a fitting fungus is very small, only a minute fraction of all the seeds released grow into an adult plant. Germination can take up to fifteen years.
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchid

More research on mycorrhizas
http://www.anos.org.au/groups/newzealand/biology/fungi.htm
http://botit.botany.wisc.edu/courses/mpp/MycoEcol113.htm


For orchids to exist as they do, there would have had to have been 3 separate species that co-evolve at the same time; fungi, orchid & pollinator, a very delicate balance

Some research done in Alaska:
http://mercury.bio.uaf.edu/~lee_taylor/fungi&orchid_dist.html

Btw, orchids grow everywhere but Antarctica & some deserts
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/07/17/orchid_pla.html?category=earth
http://pubs.caes.uga.edu/caespubs/horticulture/orchids.html
http://www.napavalleyorchidsociety.org/culture.asp
http://www.orchidsasia.com/species/image1.htm

Orchids are not weeds (not an invasive plant)

An exception to this rule is most orchids, which have small wind-dispersed seeds but have not usually been invasive because they generally require specialized pollinators, which are absent from Hawaii, to fertilize their seeds. Of course, if orchid pollinators were introduced to Hawaii this situation could change.
From: http://www.state.hi.us/dlnr/dofaw/hortweeds/

 

[SkinWalker]

There really is no place for anti-science rants on a science board.

 

[iceaura]

For orchids to exist as they do, there would have had to have been 3 separate species that co-evolve at the same time; fungi, orchid & pollinator, a very delicate balance

Charles Darwin did a lot of work with orchids from an evolutionary perspective - he wrote a book on the topic. The development and morphology of orchids provided Darwin with powerful evidence supporting his new theory.

 

[James R]

For orchids to exist as they do, there would have had to have been 3 separate species that co-evolve at the same time; fungi, orchid & pollinator, a very delicate balance

That kind of thing is not unusual. There are many examples of coevolution.

 

[spidergoat]

WildBlueYonder's argument is called the argument from irreducable complexity. Evolution works to create better mimics because even half a mimic is better than none. A slight resemblance to an insect will catch another insect's eye given low light conditions or a glancing view. Better mimics will do better under more varied circumstances, leading to greater survivability, leading to greater resemblance to a theoretical goal of perfect mimicry.

Evolution works whenever there can be a gradation of characteristics that lead to greater survivability (of the genes that code for that characteristic).

 

[GeoffP]

Simultaneous codependence isn't even necessary - the fungi already exist. Non-damaging exploitation of the fungi's life history by the orchid would actually be a one-step process, with the fungi gaining their own benefits, if any, in a succeeding step. Coadaptation is a more probable process than is often realized.

 

[WildBlueYonder]

Charles Darwin did a lot of work with orchids from an evolutionary perspective - he wrote a book on the topic. The development and morphology of orchids provided Darwin with powerful evidence supporting his new theory.

I know, an on-line version is available

btw, I grow orchids & belong to an OS last 7 years

Home & Garden HGTV had a better video, showed the wheel & hammer

check out the aerodynamic effects around the lip of Paphiopedilum orchids (paphs), the insect loses lift & plops down into the liquid (orchids evolved aerodynamic physics?), only exit via a tube where a pollen sac is stuck to our hapless friend, pollinating the next orchid
http://www.bsu.edu/web/fseec/environment/OGH_Brochure7_2007.pdf
http://www.biosci.ohio-state.edu/pcmb/greenhouse/ghconserv_tour_orchids.html

 

[WildBlueYonder]

There really is no place for anti-science rants on a science board.

I would believe you if that were true, that you (mods) held every thread/post to very high standards of ruthless logic in the "science" forum, but alas, past topics/posts do not warrant such treatment on your part

more like censorship, rigid thoughtcontrol

I'd rather you left this thread in Science & ripped it there, is science not about free inquiry, discovery, or is it your job to protect the 'faithful' against us evil 'creationist'?

 

[GeoffP]

Let's not have this one in Pseudosci. I can step up and represent. It's all good.

 

[WildBlueYonder]

the fungi already exist. Non-damaging exploitation of the fungi's life history by the orchid would actually be a one-step process, with the fungi gaining their own benefits, if any, in a succeeding step. Coadaptation is a more probable process than is often realized.

read more, the fungi does what a fungi is supposed to do, eat organic material, the orchid seed has a very small food store, it relays on the fungi for germination, wrong fungi, orchid is a goner, the fungi tries to eat the orchid, which lets it infect one layer, short battle reaches equilibrium, then uses fungi as mycorrhizae (like most trees & bushes), in mature orchids can live a hundred years, the fungi gives it immunity from others, the ones grown in sterile mediums, via hormones, lack that, so they are more easily killed, hence thriving orchid industry, exotic mystique & all that

 

[WildBlueYonder]

Evolution works to create better mimics because even half a mimic is better than none. A slight resemblance to an insect will catch another insect's eye given low light conditions or a glancing view. Better mimics will do better under more varied circumstances, leading to greater survivability, leading to greater resemblance to a theoretical goal of perfect mimicry. .

If you want to attract flies, smell bad
Smelly feet orchid
http://www.nps.gov/yose/parknews/yborchid.htm

If you want to attract moths, smell sweetly @ night
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/feature/orchid.html
http://mdc.mo.gov/nathis/endangered/endanger/orchid/

part 1

 

[spidergoat]

Do you have a point?

 

[GeoffP]

read more, the fungi does what a fungi is supposed to do, eat organic material, the orchid seed has a very small food store, it relays on the fungi for germination, wrong fungi, orchid is a goner, the fungi tries to eat the orchid, which lets it infect one layer, short battle reaches equilibrium, then uses fungi as mycorrhizae (like most trees & bushes), in mature orchids can live a hundred years, the fungi gives it immunity from others, the ones grown in sterile mediums, via hormones, lack that, so they are more easily killed, hence thriving orchid industry, exotic mystique & all that

That was exactly my point: there's no risk to the fungi. They just do what fungi do. The risk is to the orchid alone; ergo, the coadaptive process really only requires initial mutation on the part of one member of the diad. Subsequently, the fungi may undergo their own mutations to make them more efficient partners, of course; but it's not necessarily a joint process with mutation in both partners happening simultaneously.

 

[iceaura]

read more, the fungi does what a fungi is supposed to do, eat organic material, the orchid seed has a very small food store, it relays on the fungi for germination, wrong fungi, orchid is a goner, the fungi tries to eat the orchid, which lets it infect one layer, short battle reaches equilibrium, then uses fungi as mycorrhizae (like most trees & bushes), in mature orchids can live a hundred years, the fungi gives it immunity from others, the ones grown in sterile mediums, via hormones, lack that, so they are more easily killed, hence thriving orchid industry, exotic mystique & all that

What is it about creationism that interferes with punctuation?

There's supposed to be an argument in there, I think. I suppose I could guess at it - --

 

[GeoffP]

Sorry, should have explained myself better also: the development of dependence on the fungi (so that those orchids from a sterile medium don't survive) is also a step subsequent to the development of the association with the fungi in the first place. Or, more simply, the orchid's dependence on the fungus occurs later on in evolution. Probably the evolution of the orchids went in such a way that they upgraded their physiology based on the "assumption" that the fungi would always be there; like working on a ceiling while sitting on a scaffold. It's all well when the scaffold is there, but pull it out and you have a bit of a fall. Sort of a "construct". Would this be a spandrel (Gould)? I don't think this would be a spandrel.

Personally, I think "coadaptation" is a bit of a misnomer.

 

[iceaura]

Would this be a spandrel (Gould)? I don't think this would be a spandrel.

Not a spandrel. But then spandrels aren't "spandrels" (Gould) either: Dennet I think went back into the architecture and showed that - - -

 

[GeoffP]

Yeah, not a spandrel. A component of the architecture, nonetheless.

 

[Hipparchia]

There really is no place for anti-science rants on a science board.

I was puzzled by this. I thought science worked by questioning - after all if we accept everything that is current 'truth' we would never have got Darwin's dangerous idea in the first place.
I thought Wild Blue Yonder's questions were good ones, since he identified aspects of evolution that are more difficult to explain. I kind of thought that a Devil's advocate role was an honrouable one within science, even if that role is accidental.
I know this is not a democracy, but if it was I would vote for returning this thread to a proper forum.