Why would a flower evolve to be so pleasing to us? When i think of it alot of plants use them,but i dont think ferns do.Or trees. I flower is actually more of a vulnrability than an advantage in the whole ‘might makes evolution right’ analogy.
Even so,it could be said:the flower evolved it’s colors and fragrances to attract pollonating insects. OR did the insects evolve to need the flowers???
It is complex inter-relationships like this that makes evolution harder for me to belive. But still this had crossed my mind yesturday,so here it is.
It also encompasses plant evolution as well.People dont seem to focus on how plants evolved… or why.
Scientists of modern biology would probably be able to answer your questions far more easily then people at ILP, thus you can have a nice chat at PhsyOrg, if you want to.
~
Somewhere in the middle, a person could also forward the idea that “god” causes the gradual morphologies from species to species, and random mutations between generations produce little more then things such as down’s syndrome.
I did not read the guy’s website,just skimmed the titles of his arguments.i dont know what religion he was ether.
#2 that link did not address my question.
I dont know if god would directly cause adaptive/evolve changes.I distinctly note specie’s adaptations even now.(mexicans like hot weather and need sunlight,i’m told.)
But that degresses from the question of my thread.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. Evolution does not CAUSE things to evolve for a REASON. It just happens.
Insects and flowers co-evolved. Just as larger brain, ability to speak a language co-evolved for humans.
This is the rule, not the exception. All things are part of and relate to their environment.
That’s a problem that YOU happen to have accepting reality, and not a problem that evolution has. Evolution is a fact, whether you, or anyone else, likes it or not.
You’ve witnessed the effect that spirit forces can have upon physical health. Wouldn’t the living, invisible forces [which are not all-powerful] at times guide a physical being towards a better condition then before?
Spiritualist-evolution. Nobody believes in it. Creationists think god was all-mighty and all-knowing, thus they think god went “poof” and everything was made right away. Fossil evidence shows gradual changes of life on earth, as many millions of years passed.
If creationists got off of their high-horse, maybe they could admit that their god isn’t all-powerful, and whichever metaphysical beings helped life to form on earth – were not powerful enough to make it happen very quickly.
If I were to conjecture, I would say that the insect-plant mutualism was already in play, perhaps using pheromones (there are many plants that do this). Plants that were more easily visible to the insects were more likely to be pollenated, so a brightly coloured ring around the site of pollenation would be very selective.
Why? There is no why. Who would ask such a question for nature? Who would be there to make a practical, but considerably less than perfect choice? If peacocks have large flashy feathers to attract peahens, then why don’t pigeons? Or rats?
this theory assumes the bible is a lie.IE"god has existed forever;god cannot lie"
i did read 1 reply to that thread.it was NOT focused on plant evolution.i only reside at ILP for the moment. i’m not too interested in science forums because of the unemotional pursuit of knowledge makes it impersonal.
true it is better to persue knowledge unbiasedly thus unemotionally.
The instinct of curiosity causes the human to get pleasure from learning, and also to crave learning. This leads to a better understanding of the outside world, which increases chances of survival.
The co-dependence of flowers and insects does seem mysterious, but what is seen is the results of probably hundreds of thousands of failed experiments over a few million years. We have to remember that we only get to see evolutionary success. The failures, well, they failed.
