Funny..no really..
POSTED BY: Connorflynn
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 19:25
VIEWED: 15726
PAGE 3 of 7
Quote:
Originally posted by CALLMEATH:
I know this post was just a joke, but since some of you seem to know so much about evolution theory, perhaps someone can answer a questionof mine. How did symbiotic relationships evolve? I mean really, how did the whole bees pollinating floweres thing come to pass?
Yes, it was a funny post. I didn't mean to cause the topic to shift, and I'll avoid taking the thread in the direction of evolution/special creation debate. But I will respond to CALLMEATH's question because it's a perfectly reasonable request.
Symbioses between different species? The pathway probably varies with each situation. I speak with little knowledge on this area of evolutionary biology, but I think our best evidence pertaining to insect pollination of flowers comes from looking at living species which seem to be similar to the earliest fossils (i.e. magnolids). It seems likely that there were several stages and host shifts early on. I'll look and see if I can find anything in the literature for you, and maybe we could talk off-list if you'd like.
I know much more about phylogenetics (the reconstruction of "family trees" of life), and it is through phylogenies that we have a lot more power to look at the evolution of symbioses. Often you you can look at a symbiont (whether a parasite, commensalist, or mutualist) as lving "on" the host/other symbiote. In this way, if they tend to be tightly tied together you can see if the branching patterns are congruent between the different family trees. Often there is a clean pattern of identical speciation in symbionts. Exceptions often lead to inferences of host-shifts and the evolution of new symbioses. It's really very cool. Leaf-cutter ants and their domesticated fungus are one of my favorite examples. But there are many, many more.
It also sounds like you'd really be interested in the research on yucca moths. This is where a very tight mutualism evolved. The yucca provides a home for the moth larvae, and the moths pollinate the yucca. But a few species of yucca moth have evolved "cheating" where they take resources from the yucca without giving anything in return.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by CALLMEATH:
how did the whole bees pollinating floweres thing come to pass?
well, one possibility is that plants which could not find a way to get pollen from the stamen to the pistill died out pretty quickly.
But those plants that attracted bees, and exploited their activity for effective pollentation, thrived.
Hense the symbiotic relationship.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Why do you find it naïve? Good science is impartial to the existence of god, not hostile to it.
Originally posted by Thrawn:
Now, just to be clear, I'm not denying that there could be a God, and if nothing else you can always just say that God invented the processes of evolution, or induced the mutations that turned out to be beneficial, etc. I just don't see anything in this process that presupposes a God must exist, and I find that whole line of reasoning a bit...naive.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:Why do you find it naïve? Good science is impartial to the existence of god, not hostile to it.
Originally posted by Thrawn:
Now, just to be clear, I'm not denying that there could be a God, and if nothing else you can always just say that God invented the processes of evolution, or induced the mutations that turned out to be beneficial, etc. I just don't see anything in this process that presupposes a God must exist, and I find that whole line of reasoning a bit...naive.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
You misunderstood me...we actually agree. My point was that good science is impartial to the existance of God; I said I find the argument by personal incredulity naive.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay. Just curious.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So I only have two friends? CallMeAth and MG. Don't we need at last one more to make this true?
I have it on good authority, the fridge faerie told me, that food does spontaneously appear in the fridge if I check it frequently.
www.thatweirdgirl.com
---
Can we not revel in our cyber-love?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Rat wrote:
Wednesday, April 06, 2005 08:06
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by embers:
...didn't anyone hear their teachers when they said 'humans & apes evolved from a common ancestor'...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find it odd that your teacher would present a theory as being fact.
-Ratboy
Well, gravity is just a theory, but it's presented as fact all the time and nobody thinks it odd.
Most paleontolgists will tell you that evolution is fact, Natural Selection is the theory.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:
So I only have two friends? CallMeAth and MG. Don't we need at last one more to make this true?
Fine, I'll join the group...Kwin-gwe-je deh, now we need four more!
-Ratboy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Static:
Here's an interesting point to ponder. . .
Did you know that 75.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot?
==================================================
http://burstsofstatic.blogspot.com/
Evil, Lecherous Hump
Or as Mark Twain said, there's lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I feel bad for CONNORFLYNN. He just wanted to amuse us.
I often wonder if people 1000 years from now will still be clinging to "modern science" the way people seem to feel the devout cling to religion. Not that I think science will die out, it's just that it's always changing. We always like to think that the current belief of "truth" is, in fact, just that. Who knows what tomorrow will bring? Don't forget, it was mathematically proven that the sun revolved around the earth. Also, it was proven that a man could not possibly run a mile in less than 4 minutes. And how many different ages have you heard for the universe, all of which were based on solid, scientific facts?
Just don't be suprised when something you believed as God-writ (
) turns out to be bunk, and everyone is calling YOU naive. 
That being said, I believe that the evolution theory is probably correct. I would , however, like to see a proven case of macroevolution before I join the club completely.
And I'm curious why so many who are into science seem to hate religion and look down on those who practice it. If science is impartial to God, as Finn Mac Cumhaul says, then it shouldn't bother them at all. If not, then can't you just shake your head and ignore it? I certainly don't hate science.
"Invader's blood marches through my veins like giant radioactive rubber pants. The pants command me! Do not ignore my veins!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME