Without prey there is no predator....that was easy....




fltsfshr

 

But did the prey insects take flight because of pressure from flying predators or did the predators fly first to more successfully compete for earthbound prey?

 

neither....I don't think either one influenced flight, if I'm reading what Dean said correctly.

fltsfshr

 

Either scenario is quite possible. Then again, it might have been something entirely different that acted as a selective pressure. No one can say for sure and I'm certain that a reasonable argument could be made for any one of them.

 

It's possible that one of them did influence the ability to fly. The relationship between predator and prey, in terms of evolution, is an arms race. Not unlike the arms race we witnessed between the US and the USSR in the 50s and 60s. Instead of amassing stockpiles of nuclear weapons, natural selection "drives" predators to become more efficient at capturing prey, and prey to become more efficient at avoiding predators.
It's an never ending cycle with each participant in the relationship acting as selective force on the other. Although it occurs over far too long of a time span for humans to observe, that is in part what maintains the balance of the predator-prey relationship (under normal circumstances and with the exception of human predators). It is extremely rare that a predator species ever becomes so successful that its prey becomes extinct.

 

Let me see if I have this straight. You want me to debate myself? I would oblige, but the risk of being banned for flaming and name-calling is too great.

 

Now wait a minute a couple entrees above you're saying this.

"Mutations are random events, so the term degeneration doesn't apply, as mutations don't move in any particular direction. Most mutations are either directly or indirectly fatal, but in relatively rare instances a mutation will provide an organism with an advantage to survive within its environment."

Maybe I"m reading it wrong but if that's the case, how can one cause the other.

You can't have a predator unless there's something for it to prey upon. Prey came first.

Wind is probably what influenced the evolution of wings.

fltsfshr

 

I don't understand your question. Can you clarify?

Yes, but that does not mean that the ability to fly was first achieved by predators. It's just as possible that prey developed the ability first.

Not very likely. The evolution of wings was driven by some advantage in responding to the environment. Whether it was improved hunting or grazing ability I cannot say. The response to wind by itself offers no such advantages. Evolution may not be directional, but it's not capricious either.

 

Imagine a world with lots of wind blowing bugs around, the bug who gets blown to the food first wins. The bug who can control where the wind blows him eats first. I'll bet gliding or wind tumbling came first.

Wind works for me. It's entirely possible to have for a species to develop wings on it's own.

If mutation is a random occurence then how could the predator/prey relationship be the root cause of flight?

I sail but I see lots of bugs and birds that sail far better than I do.

I like wind.
But I'm kind of fuzzy on this evolutionary stuff.

fltsfshr

 

The thing that drives evolution is a difference in reproduction rates of the genes involved. Most of the time the gene pool stays pretty stable. But when something happens that perturbs it, it finds a new balance.

The something that happens can be internal to the gene pool (an advantageous mutation) or external (some change to the environment, like climate or a new predator or a new source of food). These two things can also interact.

Since most mutations are disadvantageous, and since a disadvantageous mutuation tends to just sink in the gene pool, most evolution is driven by external environmental factors.

If there were no wind, and then one day wind suddenly came into existance, then the change would probably be a big evolutionary driver. But if there has always been wind, and it has always had very similar patterns, then it is not an evolutionary driver, because it has not changed.

So even though a tumbleweed or a dandelion uses wind to help spread its genes around, the wind itself did not drive the evolution of those species. Some need to spread themselves in a wider pattern is what drove the evolution. At least, I think that is what Dean is talking about.

To a certain degree, this is just sementics. But it has a lot to do with the difference between the results of evolution (species well-adapted to their environments) and the process of evolution (which usually happens when species are NOT well-adapted to their environment).