Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,409 Year: 3,666/9,624 Month: 537/974 Week: 150/276 Day: 24/23 Hour: 4/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Just a few questions...
Enuf_Alredy
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 54 (244505)
09-17-2005 11:02 PM


Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the the others)? a)The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
d)DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate plants?
g) The immune system or the need for it?
Please, enlighten me...

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 09-18-2005 12:46 AM Enuf_Alredy has replied
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 09-18-2005 1:13 AM Enuf_Alredy has not replied
 Message 8 by Nuggin, posted 09-18-2005 4:23 AM Enuf_Alredy has not replied
 Message 10 by Andya Primanda, posted 09-18-2005 8:38 AM Enuf_Alredy has replied
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 09-18-2005 9:25 AM Enuf_Alredy has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 54 (244521)
09-18-2005 12:42 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 3 of 54 (244525)
09-18-2005 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Enuf_Alredy
09-17-2005 11:02 PM


Others will, I'm sure enlighten
However, I'm just going to make a suggestion:
Some of the topics here can be fairly challenging and sometimes a bit of a background in the sciences being discussed can be useful. It is also necessary to be able to reason things out a bit.
I think if you spent just a little bit of time reading up on evolutionary biology at it's most simple and then thought for a short while about the questions you have asked then you would be able to arrive at your own answers.
They only appear challenging to someone who hasn't been introduced to the topic at even the most redementary level.
If you are unable to manage this there may be some individuals patient enough to try to help you but you'll have to be receptive and demonstrate that you are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Enuf_Alredy, posted 09-17-2005 11:02 PM Enuf_Alredy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Enuf_Alredy, posted 09-18-2005 11:05 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6409
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 4 of 54 (244529)
09-18-2005 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Enuf_Alredy
09-17-2005 11:02 PM


There really aren't any difficulties in the questions you raise. Let me take just one example:
The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate plants?
The oldest plants were pollinated by wind blown pollen. There are still many wind pollinated plants around today.
What happened is called co-evolution. The plants and the insects evolved together. Some insects fed on flowers, and accidently carried pollen. The plants evolved to make use of this, both by making the flowers more attractive to insects, and by making their pollen sticky so that the would better attach to the insects. There were then further successive stages of co-evolution.
Your question seems to be based on the assumption that the different things evolved independently, one before the other. But, for most of your questions, there was a co-evolution of several things.
For your RNA/DNA question, I'm not sure if a certain answer is known. Some biologists believe that RNA based systems evolved first, and the DNA mechanism evolved later. (I'm not a biologist. Somebody will correct me if I have that wrong).
For your lung question, the first creatures with lungs were aquatic. The lungs gave them additional ways to get oxygen. I'm not sure about your idea of "perfect mixture of gases". The creatures evolved to be able to make use of the atmosphere that was available.
The answers to your other questions are similar. For the moment, I will leave them for you to think about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Enuf_Alredy, posted 09-17-2005 11:02 PM Enuf_Alredy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-18-2005 2:57 AM nwr has not replied
 Message 6 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-18-2005 3:23 AM nwr has replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 54 (244535)
09-18-2005 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by nwr
09-18-2005 1:13 AM


co-evolution? are you certain?
The oldest plants were pollinated by wind blown pollen.
Are you saying that there was a time when only wind-pollenated plants existed? Could you help us verify this?
What happened is called co-evolution. The plants and the insects evolved together. Some insects fed on flowers, and accidently carried pollen. The plants evolved to make use of this, both by making the flowers more attractive to insects, and by making their pollen sticky so that the would better attach to the insects. There were then further successive stages of co-evolution.
Are you sure this is the way it happened? Or, would it be better to say that most scientists believe it happened approximately like this? If you are sure, then could you provide us with the evidences that make you, and perhaps others, so certain?
For your lung question, the first creatures with lungs were aquatic. The lungs gave them additional ways to get oxygen.
Just out of curiousity, what were the first creatures with lungs? Could you provide a few examples?
--Jason

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 09-18-2005 1:13 AM nwr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Andya Primanda, posted 09-18-2005 8:43 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 54 (244539)
09-18-2005 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by nwr
09-18-2005 1:13 AM


co-evolution? are you sure?
The oldest plants were pollinated by wind blown pollen.
Are you saying that there was a time when only wind-pollenated plants existed? Could you help us verify this?
What happened is called co-evolution. The plants and the insects evolved together. Some insects fed on flowers, and accidently carried pollen. The plants evolved to make use of this, both by making the flowers more attractive to insects, and by making their pollen sticky so that the would better attach to the insects. There were then further successive stages of co-evolution.
Are you sure this is the way it happened? Or, would it be better to say that most scientists believe it happened approximately like this? Could you provide us with the evidences that make you certain (or to believe) that the above scenario is the reasonable one?
For your lung question, the first creatures with lungs were aquatic. The lungs gave them additional ways to get oxygen.
Just out of curiousity, what were the first creatures with lungs? Could you provide a few examples?
--Jason

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 09-18-2005 1:13 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by nwr, posted 09-18-2005 9:13 AM TheLiteralist has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 7 of 54 (244543)
09-18-2005 3:48 AM


Just a heads up
Hey Enuf, welcome to the boards.
You may be able to get your questions answered here, however, since this is an open forum, you'll likely get more questions raised.
You should be aware that no everyone here subscribes to the same views. Some believe in science and the Theory of Evolution. Others hold that Intelligent Design explains life on Earth. Still others hold to a strict (Literal) reading of the Bible.
I assume you are coming at this open mindedly, and the fact that you are asking questions is a good place to start.

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 8 of 54 (244545)
09-18-2005 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Enuf_Alredy
09-17-2005 11:02 PM


Big questions
a) digestive system - Which came first food, appetite, ability to eat, digestion, resistance to one's own stomache acid.
Well, let's look at each of these.
Food - This is kind of broad. Just about everything can be (and is) food for something else. So, food would have existed before anything was actually eating it.
Appetite - I have no idea how you would determine if, say a bacteria, has an appetite as we think of it. Seems reasonable that it would have some indicator that it needs to consume. But, seems just as reasonable that it simply consumes anything which is available as it comes across it.
Ability to eat - Yeast is a fairly simple organism. It "eats" starches, but it doesn't have a stomache as we would normally think of one.
As for digestive juices and our resistance to them, I would think that these kind of go hand in hand. The first thing to develop stomache acid that eats itself probably didn't last long enough to pass it on.
b) Drive to reproduce / ability to reproduce
Ability to reproduce is observable in even the simpliest of single cell organisms. And, like appetite, I don't know how we would determine if these things have a "drive" to reproduce.
c) Lungs / mucus / throat / mixture of gases
Well, gases of course came first, since that's the atmosphere. If our atmosphere had a different make up, then respiration would have to make use of whatever's there.
The throat predates lungs and mucus as well, as the throat is part of the digistive system and it observable in many different sea creatures who have no respiratory function whatsoever.
As for the mucus lining vs the lungs, that's a toss up. You could argue that certain fish (and other animals) have the ability to fill air bladers which don't serve as part of respiration. Are these primative lungs? You could also suggest that the mucus that lines the lungs is similar to that which lines the gills.
d) DNA or RNA
Well, RNA is ribonuclaic Acid and DNA is dioxy-ribonuclaic acid. So, I'm pretty sure that RNA is the building block on which DNA expanded.
e) Termite vs stomache flagella
I'd say the flagella existed (in one form or another outside the terminte) first. I think that the insects that we see as termites today, may have been more like ants until the flagella took up residence. Then, co-evolution kicks in.
Flagella evolves to be better at digesting cellulose, better at living in termites rather than out in the open, etc. Termites evolve to be better at obtaining cellulose to feed the flagella.
f) Bees vs Plants
I think NWR posted a great explaination of this above. Primative plants, like ferns, reproduce with spores instead of seeds and therefore don't need pollination. They predate the flowering plants.
In fact, the flowering plant "explosion" coincides nicely with the "insect explosion" as both groups rapidly diversified and conquered. (Please note that "rapidly" in geological/evolutionary terms can mean millions of years).
g) Immune system or need for it
Well, the need arose first. After all, the need for an immune system kicks off as soon as we have something alive which is threatened.
I suppose what you are asking is about viruses and such. Our immune system reacts to non-living intruders (ie splinters). But, I couldn't tell you the first thing about the first immune systems to evolve.
Do bacteria have immune systems? Does mold?
These are great questions. Hopefully someone can answer them for both of us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Enuf_Alredy, posted 09-17-2005 11:02 PM Enuf_Alredy has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 54 (244558)
09-18-2005 8:24 AM


Thread moved here from the Biological Evolution forum.

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 54 (244562)
09-18-2005 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Enuf_Alredy
09-17-2005 11:02 PM


My my, it's been a while since my last post here...
I think the others are competent to answer your questions, but I want to answer this one:
quote:
e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
From recent work I've read, microbes (not only flagellates but also bacteria) that digest cellulose are also present at Cryptocercus, an extant cockroach with a feeding habit similar to primitive termites (wood-feeding), and a subsocial lifestyle. Molecular phylogenetic studies suggest that termites evolved from cockroaches, and Cryptocercus is their closest relative. So to answer your question, the flagellates came first, in the guts of ancient wood-feeding cockroaches, then the termites, evolving from those cockroaches.
Btw, welcome, and interesting questions you got there. I hope my explanation makes sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Enuf_Alredy, posted 09-17-2005 11:02 PM Enuf_Alredy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Enuf_Alredy, posted 09-18-2005 10:52 PM Andya Primanda has replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 54 (244564)
09-18-2005 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by TheLiteralist
09-18-2005 2:57 AM


Re: co-evolution? are you certain?
quote:
Are you saying that there was a time when only wind-pollenated plants existed? Could you help us verify this?
'A time when only wind-pollinated plants exist'? You could get better answers by asking (in accordance to the original question) whether there was a time when no insect-pollinated plants exist.
I assume the great fern & cycad forests of the Carboniferous were not insect-pollinated. Then again, they don't have real flowers either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-18-2005 2:57 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 09-18-2005 9:40 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 54 (244568)
09-18-2005 8:51 AM


Thread moved here from the Biological Evolution II forum.

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6409
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 13 of 54 (244570)
09-18-2005 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by TheLiteralist
09-18-2005 3:23 AM


Re: co-evolution? are you sure?
Are you saying that there was a time when only wind-pollenated plants existed?
Hmm, I probably misspoke on that. There are underwater plants, and unless we consider the water currents to be wind, those were not wind pollenated.
I should have said that wind pollenated plants preceded insect pollinated plants.
Responding to my comment on co-evolution, TheLiteralist wrote:
Are you sure this is the way it happened? Or, would it be better to say that most scientists believe it happened approximately like this? Could you provide us with the evidences that make you certain (or to believe) that the above scenario is the reasonable one?
Here is a link about this.
Just out of curiousity, what were the first creatures with lungs?
As far as I know, those would be lungfish. I'm a computer scientist, not a paleontologist, so I could easily be mistaken there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-18-2005 3:23 AM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-18-2005 10:34 PM nwr has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 14 of 54 (244571)
09-18-2005 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Enuf_Alredy
09-17-2005 11:02 PM


reproduction question
Enuf_Alredy, msg 1 writes:
Which evolved first ... b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? ... d)DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
Nuggin, msg 8 writes:
Ability to reproduce is observable in even the simpliest of single cell organisms. And, like appetite, I don't know how we would determine if these things have a "drive" to reproduce. ... Well, RNA is ribonuclaic Acid and DNA is dioxy-ribonuclaic acid. So, I'm pretty sure that RNA is the building block on which DNA expanded.
If we are talking the very first time, this is the first replicator, a specific chemical compound in a soup mixture probably contained and concentrated in spontaneously formed membranes, and this is likely a precursor to RNA (and then DNA). Such a mixture could not be described as having "desire" or "drive" and the chemical reaction would be automatic once the replicating molecule developed and the supply chemicals were available. This is abiogenesis and there is some interesting work being done on just what was available, how it likely came together and what possible first replicators were like.
If we are talking about a {bacterial\yeast\fungii\single} cell {deciding} to reproduce or having {ability} to reproduce, then we are talking about a cell having all the necessary means to reproduce (all the components, energy, favorable environment) and then looking to see if it keeps getting bigger or divides, OR looking to see if cells attempt to divide before having sufficient resources (and die or get stuck half developed): it seems to me that all the bacterial behavior observed is that of cell division whenever opportune (populations doubling in an expotential manner as long as there are sufficient nutrients and favorable environment). This tells me that {ability to reproduce} turns on reproduction. Again, I don't think this could be described as having "desire" or "drive" to reproduce.
Single cell life forms a logical continuum from the membrane enclosed chemical soup first replicators, but the real hurdle in evolution is the development of sex.
When it comes to sexual reproduction, I would say that the "desire" or "drive" is to have sex -- look at the bonobos apes and their sex at the drop of a hat 24/7 behavior -- as most animals engage in more sex than is necessary for reproduction alone (including humans). Usually by the time the organism is mature enough to engage in sex it has the resources for reproduction (exceptions would be during periods of {starvation\malnutrition\desease} that would drain the organism of resources).
Welcome to the fray,
Enjoy.
(We'll see if Enuf_Alredy comes back to take the next steps.)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Enuf_Alredy, posted 09-17-2005 11:02 PM Enuf_Alredy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Enuf_Alredy, posted 09-18-2005 10:38 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1426 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 15 of 54 (244574)
09-18-2005 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Andya Primanda
09-18-2005 8:43 AM


(OT)
{{Andya - do you have any profile pictures of australian aborigine skulls that could be used at
http://EvC Forum: Bones of Contentions. -->EvC Forum: Bones of Contentions.?
please reply on that thread ...
thanks}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Andya Primanda, posted 09-18-2005 8:43 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024