What causes evolution?
Shawshank
Posts: 1,018
I'm in the process of doing some research so I can write an article on the decline of the honey bee population in our world. Anyway, I was just looking into some information about their anatomy and something struck me about the stinger on a honey bee. I'm sure most of you know that the barb detaches, along with the venom sac, and it continues to pump venom even after the bee has flown off and died. A few references I researched stated that it is widely believed the stinger apparatus evolved specifically as a response to predation by vertebrates, since the stinger seems designed to embed in fleshy tissue, but not exoskeletal joints.
I don't want this to be a debate on creationism vs. darwinism, that's not what I created this topic about at all. I just want to know what some of your thoughts are on evolution. What do you believe causes it? What was it that all of a sudden made these honey bees decide to have a stinger? What sparked the change in their DNA to come up with such a complex appendage in response to a predator? So vertebrates started to grow in population, they are eating the bees, and the bee's body decided it needed some sort of defense mechanism? I've just been sitting here thinking about this for 20 minutes, and not getting any work done just because I'm fascinated by this puzzle.
I don't want this to be a debate on creationism vs. darwinism, that's not what I created this topic about at all. I just want to know what some of your thoughts are on evolution. What do you believe causes it? What was it that all of a sudden made these honey bees decide to have a stinger? What sparked the change in their DNA to come up with such a complex appendage in response to a predator? So vertebrates started to grow in population, they are eating the bees, and the bee's body decided it needed some sort of defense mechanism? I've just been sitting here thinking about this for 20 minutes, and not getting any work done just because I'm fascinated by this puzzle.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Its survival of the fittest...
natural selection.
The giraffes with longer necks could reach the food, the ones with shorter necks couldn't fend. As time goes on those who can survive in the environment prosper, those who can't die out. Eventually the gene pool becomes specifically the species with certain traits that allow them to survive in their habitat.
Not sure on the specifics of the honey bee, but that's evolution 101, them's the basics.
Oh, and what thoughts_arrive said.
There are blind fish and shellfish that live in cave that never see sunlight. They were trapped there as the Earth changed due to plate tectonics. There is no need for them to see, so over the millions of years they have adapted to their fate by developing their other senses in order to keep the life chain going. The same reason why we see algae clinging to life in the harshes of environments.
Remember, as beautiful as the planet is, it is a violent, harsh, life threatening place. As long as the basic elements of life exist... life will find a way to survive.
Hail, Hail!!!
Godfather.
Maybe we should draw a distinction between evolution and adaption. Your giraffe example is very much one of adaption through natural selection and doesn't really explain the kind of mutation necessary for a bee to begin evolving its stinger.
The wider theory of evolution requires random mutations. Unfortunately determining the causes of these mutations is, for the forseeable future at least going to be hindered somewhat by the evidential void of beneficial mutations. Those mutations in nature that don't directly kill the organism, will almost invariably hinder its ability to survive its environment much less offer it benefit, well before it tackles the statistical improbability of passing the defunked gene on to manifest itself in identical ways in new generations.
"what causes evolution" might suggest that we fully understand the process beyond the intitial cause. We don't. It's almost entirely speculative,...which is maybe what makes it so fascinating.
It is interesting, it seems that every species has its own defense mechanism. I saw a program that defined the ability to outrun other species an early human defense mechanism, and that's how they would hunt for food; antagonize a large (and rather slow) predator and keep them running until they dropped.
Lets say a horse like creature has a survival rate of 50%. A genetic mutation causes one to have a slightly longer neck, but because he can now reach better food, his survial rate is much higher and chances are he will live long enough for his children will pick up this helpful trait.. Millions of years go by favoring longer necks and you eventually get a giraffe. There are no inbetween species because nature can only support one, the fitter group.
And you can;t have evolution without adaptation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw12EAPrZAM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucCYAFXjduM
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Survival of the fittest is not a philosophy that the fossil record supports, survival of the adequate is far more appropriate,...it's simply untrue to say that nature can only support the "fitter", more evolved species.
If your horse like creature was subject to genetic mutation, it is overwhelmingly unlikely that the mutation would be beneficial to its survival, in fact the evidence suggests it would be detrimental. And the "chances" are that such mutations, if it doesn't kill the horse like creature will not be passed to subsequent generations.
Adaption through natural selection within species is observable. The original mutations are not. The original question: "what causes evolution?" is a good'un, because mutation as we know it to behave, is not the answer.
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Why not (V) (°,,,,°) (V) ?
Even humans have "evolved" over the last 100+ years. Think about how tall we are these days. On average we are about 3 inches taller than we were 100 years ago. Abraham Lincoln was 6'4 and it was well reported at how unusual this was. He was pretty much a freak for his day. Growing taller, increased weight, longer necks, etc. are genetic anomalies that can be passed from generation to generation until they affect a large percentage of a species population, but even these changes are like a subset of the evolutionary model, because you aren't really altering (i.e. adding or subtracting) much from our species. In other words, we aren't really upgrading our programming with new features. A bee not having a stinger, and then having one, is a definite upgrade. It is more than a mutation, because that appendage has a specific purpose with a unique design that is geared to protect the bee from a specific predator. It's a crazy world we live in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCkVzzHS4ZI
and an article
Life Origin Experiment Gets Better with Age
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podca ... r-08-10-17
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Why not (V) (°,,,,°) (V) ?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Did bees ever exist without stingers? Or is that just an assumption?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
and it's not an all of a sudden kind of thing
it took multiple generations of bees to adapt the stinger
i know i promised i'd stay off the train but
it's evolution baby
"what a long, strange trip it's been"
word.
Godfather.