Insects and evolution
Originally Posted by fltsfshr,Dec 2 2005, 05:26 PM
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
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
Simply being blown about by the wind is too random for a motile organism to gain a consistent advantage in finding food.
Wings, nor any other structures develop on their own. Those changes are selected for by the environment, so there has to be a survival advantage in possessing such structures.
The predator - prey relationship is not the cause of flight. The series of chance mutations led to the development of wings are the root cause. The evolution of wings occurred in incremental changes over a long period of time, and each one of those changes provided a survival advantage greater than the change that preceded it. Those individuals who can fly farther and/or faster tend to survive, reproduce, and pass that trait on to their offspring, whether those individuals are predators or prey. So, natural selection favored the incremental development of wings, and continued to select for improved abilities of flight. For example, as the prey get better at it, natural selection dictates that the predators also get better at it. Otherwise, the loser of the race goes extinct.
I think it was Dawkins who said, "Evolution is a non random process driven by random events". If you can wrap your mind around that, you'll be far less fuzzy on this evolution stuff.
I follow you Mike, but the Earths environment has changed dramatically on a geological scale many times. That includes wind and it's constant influence. Next to water wind is the most expressive force on Earth when it comes to changing topography. 10,000 years of 20knots would change a lot of things and allow a random mutation in the right niche to prevail.
Dean intrigued me awhile ago by dispelling cultural evolution. Then he really stuck it to me when he said evolution wasn't linear. I'm just trying to understand. He keeps bringing me back to random mutation. Kind of like Shroedinger's cat or the Yale experiments that seemed to prove the universe is subjective or did they?
I'm getting there
fltsfshr
Dean intrigued me awhile ago by dispelling cultural evolution. Then he really stuck it to me when he said evolution wasn't linear. I'm just trying to understand. He keeps bringing me back to random mutation. Kind of like Shroedinger's cat or the Yale experiments that seemed to prove the universe is subjective or did they?
I'm getting there
fltsfshr
Originally Posted by mikegarrison,Dec 2 2005, 06:01 PM
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).
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).

Very true. Sharks are an excellent example. They've been around for approximately three hundred million years, yet they've undergone very few changes since they first appeared. That's a very good indicator that sharks are very well suited to their environment and under very little selective pressure to change.
Dean intrigued me awhile ago by dispelling cultural evolution. Then he really stuck it to me when he said evolution wasn't linear. I'm just trying to understand. He keeps bringing me back to random mutation.
Here's a very poor analogy: Evolution isn't a sniper firing a single bullet from Point A to Point B, it's more like a mad bomber detonating a shrapnel filled bomb. Some of that shrapnel finds a target, but much of it doesn't.
So what your saying is that if a mad bomber caused a mutation that created the first blonde and that blonde passed on her blondeness and everybody liked it, then it's true blondes have more fun.
On that note.....it's 5pm somewhere or it was at least an hour ago...
fltsfshr
Have a good weekend
On that note.....it's 5pm somewhere or it was at least an hour ago...
fltsfshr
Have a good weekend
Originally Posted by fltsfshr,Dec 2 2005, 06:59 PM
So what your saying is that if a mad bomber caused a mutation that created the first blonde and that blonde passed on her blondeness and everybody liked it, then it's true blondes have more fun.
On that note.....it's 5pm somewhere or it was at least an hour ago...
fltsfshr
Have a good weekend
On that note.....it's 5pm somewhere or it was at least an hour ago...
fltsfshr
Have a good weekend
Something like that.Just to confuse you further, the selection for wings could've begun in a similar fashion. For sake of argument, let's say that the precursor to wings first appeared as a pair of dorsal nubs that had no impact on an individual's ability to obtain food or escape predators. But, the nubs were thought to be extremely sexy in a proto bug sort of way by other members of the population. The nubs give the lucky guys and gals who have them an edge in obtaining mates and they will tend to reproduce more frequently. So, the trait for nubs gets passed along to offspring more frequently than the no-nub trait. Eventually, the entire population would possess the nub trait and the no-nub lineage would come to an end. The nubless go extinct while sitting home alone and sexually frustrated while downloading proto bug p-rn.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
chairmnofthboard
California - Southern California S2000 Owners
13
Feb 7, 2010 07:01 PM
RBC3
Alabama S2000 Owners Club
33
Apr 5, 2007 12:43 PM








