It depends how you are defining domestication? but OK it could be said that the flower demesticated the bee in some way.Theoryofrelativity said:
Why does the evolutionary process exist?
- Thread starter Theoryofrelativity
- Start date
imaplanck. said:
But do you understand the problem that people have with this?
It is easy enough to imagine the flower without bee but what about a partially evolved flower with a partially evolved bee, half way up the slopes of mount improbable?
What does that look like? An obvious example to help to tell me does not spring to mind.
--- Ron.
Are you assuming that the unevolved bee had no other food sources before the flower?perplexity said:
No not at all. It would have indeed been the case that at one point the bee and flower were both only partially evolved (in the sense of their partnership)but they still had a mutual benifit to one another albeit in a smaller way than todays relationship.
imaplanck. said:
http://www.science.siu.edu/plant-biology/Faculty/sipes/earlyangiosperms.html
"Early evolution of bee/angiosperm relationships
Bees and angiosperms have had an intimate and ancient relationship at least since the Cretaceous. Bees are currently the most important pollinators of many angiosperms, and bees rely exclusively on angiosperms for adult and larval nutrition. Animal pollination in general has been hypothesized to be a significant factor promoting angiosperm diversification. In spite of the obvious relationship between bees and flowering plants, and the potential significance of bee pollination on flowering plant diversity, the historical interactions between bees and angiosperms in the earliest stages of bee evolution have not been investigated in detail. This is primarily because the bee fossil record is fragmentary (making accurate dating of bee origins difficult), and the higher level phylogenetic relationships within bees have not been well established. "
Interesting, little did I know when I asked this question it is indeed one of those that are so hard if not impossible to answer, although the article leads one to believe that they try to do so. Fascinating...too marvelous.
Prince_James said:
I found this re stick insect evolution:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3269
"
Stick insect forces evolutionary rethink
19:00 15 January 2003
NewScientist.com news service
Nicola Jones
The lowly stick insect has forced a rethink of one of the key rules of evolution - that complex anatomical features do not disappear and reappear over the course of time.
Researchers have discovered that on a number of occasions in the past 300 million years, stick insects have lost their wings, then re-evolved them. Entomologists have described the revelation as "revolutionary".
Michael Whiting, an evolutionary biologist from Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, and his team stumbled upon the finding while examining the DNA of 37 different phasmids, the stick and leaf insects famous for camouflaging themselves against plants, in a bid to work out their family tree.
Entomologists have assumed that wings only evolved once in insects. The received wisdom is that a winged ancestor produced the winged phasmids we see today. The 60 per cent of stick insects that do not sport wings will, this thinking goes, have jettisoned them along their evolutionary journey so they could expend more energy on reproduction and less on flying.
But Whiting's analysis shows that the very first stick insect, which appeared 300 million years ago, had already lost its wings and that stick insects re-evolved the structures at least four times (see graphic). The study covers only 14 of the 19 known sub-families of phasmids, so it is possible that wings reappeared even more often.
Beyond repair
Researchers assumed wings could not come back once lost as the genes needed to create them would mutate beyond repair once the wings disappeared. But Whiting says there is evidence from the fruit fly Drosophila that the same genes contain instructions for forming wings and legs.
If the same were true for stick insects, there would be an evolutionary pressure to stop wing genes from mutating, even in the insects that did not have wings. Those genes could then be turned back on in the future.
Whiting says, however, that while wing re-evolution may seem unlikely to insect researchers, the basic idea of switching regulatory genes off and on is well accepted. Even a single gene can sometimes switch on the growth of a complex structure - studies indicate that a master gene called Pax-6, for example, might control the development of eyes in all creatures that have them.
So Whiting suggests that eyes too could have disappeared and reappeared in animals over time. "I remember sitting down with entomologists and hearing them say 'impossible, impossible, impossible'," he says. But "re-evolution is probably more common than we thought".
Common because genes hold the memory of all their genetic predecessors. This is my belief. I wonder if we could re-grow tails at some point :bugeye:
Well done congrats! only I dont think you are going to overturn the entire theory of evolution through one tiny hole. good maneuvering though, are you a hustler by any chance?Theoryofrelativity said:
imaplanck. said:Well done congrats! only I dont think you are going to overturn the entire theory of evolution through one tiny hole. good maneuvering though, are you a hustler by any chance?
The 'hustler' part is that I seem to know in advance these holes exist and thus any attempt to fill said 'hole' will result in a 'google' to find 'hole' preserving article. (Not hard)
I guess my wonderment comes from naturally being aware we have 'holes'.
Its'a gift
hehe, I guess you could say I am 'holier' than thou!
hehe
Funny how people think they are on to something by quoting popular science.
Let me try that too...
Yes.
Theoryofrelativity said:
Yes.
Satyr said:
I knew you'd like it.
No.
so we are in agreement then
epigenetics demonstrates that genetic variation can and does take place in response to environemntal factors, and that we cannot create life and have never seen a single example of spontaneous life thus
We have not yet reached the level of 'conscious' intelligence as is possessed and demonstrated by our genes.
All hail the mighty 'gene'
Consider this:
we agree
We originated from a single 'gene'
we agree that life spontaneoulsy popped up in the begginning before the biological evolution and prescence of toxic O2.
we also agree life possibly originated in space
So WHAT IF
somewhere in space when that first 'spontaneous' gene popped up, LONG before it popped up on Earth, it adapted and 'evolved' into a life form far advanced to ourselves as is hundreds possibly thousands of yrs older genetically to that of humans.
As a life form originating on a different planet, it's qualities will differ to ours. It's range of adaptability is unfathomable.
Is this impossible?
epigenetics demonstrates that genetic variation can and does take place in response to environemntal factors, and that we cannot create life and have never seen a single example of spontaneous life thus
We have not yet reached the level of 'conscious' intelligence as is possessed and demonstrated by our genes.
All hail the mighty 'gene'
Consider this:
we agree
We originated from a single 'gene'
we agree that life spontaneoulsy popped up in the begginning before the biological evolution and prescence of toxic O2.
we also agree life possibly originated in space
So WHAT IF
somewhere in space when that first 'spontaneous' gene popped up, LONG before it popped up on Earth, it adapted and 'evolved' into a life form far advanced to ourselves as is hundreds possibly thousands of yrs older genetically to that of humans.
As a life form originating on a different planet, it's qualities will differ to ours. It's range of adaptability is unfathomable.
Is this impossible?
Last edited:
swivel said:
no it is not, if life is possible in space and better still possibly originated in space, then there is NO reason why it would not have similarly been able to adapt and evolve, unelss of course you consider the appearance of life on earth to be unique in occurrance?
A creature could have evolved without being attached to a planet, it's appearance to us would not be recognisable neccessarily as a 'creature' of form at all. It may have evolved beyond or not required 'form'. It could be a mass of evolving adapting particles with consciousness.
It could be visible through a telescope, but we would not know what we were looking at. We may have given it a name already.
what about the orion cloud?
http://www.seds.org/messier/more/oricloud.html
"The Orion Cloud and Association
In the direction of the constellation Orion, approximately centered on the Great Orion Nebula M42 and M43, there drifts a giant cloud of interstellar gas and dust within the Milky Way galaxy. This cloud was formed when a density wave, related to the Galaxy's spiral structure, moved through the medium of the Galactic disk. It is about 1600 light years away and several hundred light years across.
This giant cloud, or complex of clouds, of interstellar matter and young stars contains, besides M42 and M43 and the nebulosity associated with them (NGC 1973-5-7), a number of famous objects: Barnard's Loop, the Horsehead Nebula region (also containing NGC 2024 = Orion B), and the reflection nebulae around M78.
Within this cloud, stars have formed recently, and are still in process of formation. These young stars make up the so-called Orion OB1 Association; OB because the most massive, most luminous, and simultaneously hottest of these stars belong to spectral types O and B. Because they are so luminous, they use up their nuclear fuel quickly and have only a short time to live. The association can be divided in subgoups, usually called 1a, 1b, and 1c, where the subgroup 1b includes and surrounds the stars of Orion's Belt, the subgroup 1a lies north-west (preceding) of the belt stars, and the subgroup 1c contains Orion's Sword. The stars of the Orion Nebula, M42 and M43, form a subset of this group, and are sometimes separately counted as subgroup 1d, the very youngest stars of the Orion OB1 association."
Last edited:
Yes, who said otherwise?Theoryofrelativity said:
I would debate that, we are basically at the level of intelligence that our genes dictates at this moment in time.
You mean that another planet was seeded by panspermia and is now in further advanced intelligence than our own?
imaplanck. said:
not planet no, a life form existing in 'other' form can 'feed' from it's environment without need for planet base.
imaplanck. said:
How can we be as intelligent as our genes when we cannot do what they do.
You say ''we are as intelligent as they dictate''
if they dictate to 'us' they are in charge' and they are in charge, that is without doubt.
We are enslaved by our genes, we are not free.
genes are our master
but you will say, you are your genes, I am not, else I would not make this enquiry.
If my genes (epigenetics) can be altered by changes in the environment then surely 'I' can dictate a change.
I can dictate or 'fool' them into a change can I not?
Why not? why the environment and not I?
Last edited: