Are there any problems with evolution?

[nnmartin]

Things don't just suddenly morph into a copy of something else. If you look less like a tasty bug and more like a yucky leaf... you are less likely to be eaten.
How is that beyond selection and adaptation?

wa:do

It doesn't explain how the leaf managed to develop itself to have such a specified outcome though.

I can see how it would be possible for a leaf to gradually take on some characteristics of a bug (ie: colour) but to make an almost exact copy seems to be stretching the theory of natural selection somewhat.

I've read somewhere that an insect can take in the information from the environment and use this to change its DNA traits for the next generation, is this possible and if so how could a plant possibly do this?

How about the 'emergent models theory' - isn't there something in that which explains 'modeling' to some degree?

 

[painted wolf]

It doesn't explain how the leaf managed to develop itself to have such a specified outcome though.

What? The leaf is the way it is so it can photosynthesize, transpire and shed water effectively.

I can see how it would be possible for a leaf to gradually take on some characteristics of a bug (ie: colour) but to make an almost exact copy seems to be stretching the theory of natural selection somewhat.

the leaf doesn't... it's the bug that looks like the leaf not vice versa.

I've read somewhere that an insect can take in the information from the environment and use this to change its DNA traits for the next generation, is this possible and if so how could a plant possibly do this?

It can't... I don't know where you read that but it's mistaken.
A bug that has a mutation that makes it look more like a leaf is less likely to be eaten and so it passes it's genes down to the next generation. Keep this up for a while and you get bugs that look very much like leaves.

How about the 'emergent models theory' - isn't there something in that which explains 'modeling' to some degree?

Can you elaborate? I've not come across this "emergent models theory" in any scientific publication.

wa:do

 

[shawn001]

It doesn't explain how the leaf managed to develop itself to have such a specified outcome though.

I can see how it would be possible for a leaf to gradually take on some characteristics of a bug (ie: colour) but to make an almost exact copy seems to be stretching the theory of natural selection somewhat.

I've read somewhere that an insect can take in the information from the environment and use this to change its DNA traits for the next generation, is this possible and if so how could a plant possibly do this?

How about the 'emergent models theory' - isn't there something in that which explains 'modeling' to some degree?

"It doesn't explain how the leaf managed to develop itself to have such a specified outcome though."

They can explain how the leaf came to develop photosynthesis from ancient bacteria. They have mapped a huge amount of plant geneomes now, so they can trace what plants evolved from what plants.

We have also traced the evolution of the first flowers, when plants hadn't evolved flowers yet.

And some insect have evolved their camouflage to plants.

 

[nnmartin]

good pictures , thanks

of course , what I was getting at though was how the already formed leaf develops a spot on itself that scares away leaf eating bugs. The spot is the mimic, perhaps of a poisonous plant with the same spot or another predator that eats the leaf eating bug - it's all gone back to front here...:areyoucra

I can see how the stick insect as shown above could adapt itself as it has a small level of intelligence - but a plant?

Unless there is some latent intelligence in all living cells and DNA (which I believe to be the case) which can guide the adaptations in some way.

 

[shawn001]

good pictures , thanks

of course , what I was getting at though was how the already formed leaf develops a spot on itself that scares away leaf eating bugs. The spot is the mimic, perhaps of a poisonous plant with the same spot or another predator that eats the leaf eating bug - it's all gone back to front here...:areyoucra

I can see how the stick insect as shown above could adapt itself as it has a small level of intelligence - but a plant?

Unless there is some latent intelligence in all living cells and DNA (which I believe to be the case) which can guide the adaptations in some way.

You really don't understand evolution here or how much really supports it to the point of its a done deal accept for figuring how details.

Its not how intelligent the animal or plant is for the most part although enviroment plays a role in adaption and in that case in some higher animals intelligence plays a role in survival, but this has to do more with genes and adaptions to its particula enviroments. Some plants evolved to be carnivorous even, some evolved a type of nervous system.

There was a time when plants weren't poisonous. There was a time there were no flowering plants. There was a time there were no plants. Evolution explains this in great detail and in the bigger picture of all life on earth.

Some humming birds of the same species, the male evoled a different beak then the female and gets the most necter from a specific flower and the female who's beak only works on specific different flower.

 

[shawn001]

You should read this which explains
Genetic Variation


Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

 

[nnmartin]

your last two posts have said the sum total of zero.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

your last two posts have said the sum total of zero.

What he's saying is that plants don't "decide" to evolve - they naturally possess genetic mutations which lead to change over time provided there is environmental attrition. In the case that you described, a plant didn't design "itself" to repel or attract certain forms of wildlife, they were just born with the genetic mutation which, incidentally, had that effect - and provided that effect proved an advantage to the plant's survivability and increased it's likelihood to reproduce, it leads to the mutation becoming more prevalent within populations of that plant.

 

[nnmartin]

they were just born with the genetic mutation which, incidentally, had that effect - and provided that effect proved an advantage to the plant's survivability and increased it's likelihood to reproduce, it leads to the mutation becoming more prevalent within populations of that plant.

so just by chance then , the plant just happened to incidentally have the correct mutation that gradually allowed a spot of the right size, shape and colour to appear at the right place on the right leaf somewhere in the future.

That is some seriously long odds and quite frankly I don't buy it.

Since I've posted in this section of the forum no one has yet satisfactorily answered this conundrum.

I suspect it can't be definitively answered and passing it off as TOE in general is the best way to brush it under the carpet.)(

 

[fantome profane]

so just by chance then , the plant just happened to incidentally have the correct mutation that gradually allowed a spot of the right size, shape and colour to appear at the right place on the right leaf somewhere in the future.

That is some seriously long odds and quite frankly I don't buy it.

Since I've posted in this section of the forum no one has yet satisfactorily answered this conundrum.

I suspect it can't be definitively answered and passing it off as TOE in general is the best way to brush it under the carpet.)(

Logical fallacies do not need refuting, they are fallacies. All you have given us is an “argument from incredulity”, and that is a logical fallacy.

There is no logical reason why complex and detailed mimicry cannot be the result of natural selection. If an insect even slightly resembles a leaf, from a distance, under less than optimal viewing conditions, that slight resemblance will confer a very slight survival advantage. And so that insect will be more successful in passing on its genes and soon all members of that species will share this slight resemblance to a leaf. Now among this new generation that slightly resembles leaves, there will some that more closely resemble leaves than others. And even if this difference is very slight, it will give them a very slight advantage over those who less resemble leaves, thereby producing a new generation that only slightly more resembles a leaf. As this continues very gradually through natural selection we will get insects that resemble leaves in great detail. When you have variation within a population, random mutation, and natural selection it is not only possible that you will get insects displaying a high degree of mimicry, it is inevitable.

 

[idav]

That is some seriously long odds and quite frankly I don't buy it.

If you want to talk about odds, keep in mind there are millions of species many of which we haven't even discovered yet. The diversity on this planet is one of the most interesting things. The odds are there for this to happen and isn't like it happens often. Besides that life uses some of the same basic components so similarities are inevitable. The DNA in plants and animals use the same four chemical building blocks.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

so just by chance then , the plant just happened to incidentally have the correct mutation that gradually allowed a spot of the right size, shape and colour to appear at the right place on the right leaf somewhere in the future.

Nope. By chance it happened upon a mutation which very, very slightly gave one (or some) of those qualities, and natural selection took it's course. Do you understand how natural selection works?

That is some seriously long odds and quite frankly I don't buy it.

Since I've posted in this section of the forum no one has yet satisfactorily answered this conundrum.

I suspect it can't be definitively answered and passing it off as TOE in general is the best way to brush it under the carpet.)(

All you really need to do is understand what natural selection is, and stop jumping to erroneous conclusions like "it happened by chance". Take time to read and learn.

 

[painted wolf]

Once again... natural selection is not "just by chance".

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the basic concepts of Genetics and how DNA actually works. Here is a reasonable start: Genetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

wa:do

 

[johnhanks]

so just by chance then , the plant just happened to incidentally have the correct mutation that gradually allowed a spot of the right size, shape and colour to appear at the right place on the right leaf somewhere in the future.

'The [singular] plant' and 'the [singular] correct mutation' are unwittingly revealing choices of words. Like so many people confused about evolution, you seem unaware that evolution is something that happens to populations, not to individual organisms. In a genetically varied population, an inherited phenotype that increases survivorship by even one-tenth of one percent will, given enough generations, become the modal condition.

Since I've posted in this section of the forum no one has yet satisfactorily answered this conundrum.

The conundrum is yours alone, arising solely from your poor understanding of the process. Do yourself a favour: learn some biology.