Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Mnemonix

How do you explain this?

34 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

I've heard that when you look at the fossil record, the earliest life forms appear fully formed, apparently out of nowhere.

How do you explain this?

Also, how did creatures like ants or bees evolve?

The ant colony needs a queen to reproduce, and the queen needs the workers to gather food. One cannot survive without the other. So how did the queen evolve without the workers, or the workers without the queen?

Thank you.

P.S. I think I double posted by mistake, sorry about that.

Edited by Lrak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading about Ants on wiki the other day, Ants evolved from the family of wasps which the bees also come from. There are different ways in a colony works, some have more than one and some don't have queens.The Queen is just a female ant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know about ants, then. Just a question I heard somewhere and wanted to know the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same way everything else evolved. Through trial and error (natural selection) over a long time. Ants are really no different on the Darwinism scale, their mountain was just as steep as ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the first question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The earliest life forms were bacteria.

http://www.lifescientist.com.au/article/398092/world_oldest_fossils_reveal_earliest_life_earth/

Not sure what you mean by fully formed, how would something survive otherwise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The earliest life forms were bacteria.

http://www.lifescien...est_life_earth/

Not sure what you mean by fully formed, how would something survive otherwise?

More like vertebrates, and fishes that showed up on the fossil record. Or so they say.

I'm sure I heard and read of something like that.

Edited by Lrak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I've heard that when you look at the fossil record, the earliest life forms appear fully formed, apparently out of nowhere.

iirc - this is the cambrian explosion?

some of us think the pre-cambrian era equates to terraforming..

How do you explain this?

none of us really can.. when we look back on this, sure, it can be equated to terraforming.. so the reasons for that?

hmm.. depending on your cosmology - it was either an accident, you know, life is random and has no purpose and all that ****..

..or

it was planned this way.

Also, how did creatures like ants or bees evolve?

again.. not 100% sold on anything.. burroughs [and others] talks about water creatures that came up on the dry earth (evolution, i guess?) ..i don't really know what to make of that whole debate, personally i see both evolution and creation side by side.. but that's just me.. anyway it seems the earth was very different in those times, the short of it is noah's deluge, the great flood, the water canopy dropping (whatever.. someone will come by and expand on that for us) - so what we have, is the earth becoming different (more land, less water kinda thing) ..this gives rise to land creatures (and here come the ants and bees) ...or so the theory goes

The ant colony needs a queen to reproduce, and the queen needs the workers to gather food. One cannot survive without the other. So how did the queen evolve without the workers, or the workers without the queen?

here is where it gets interesting..

New Nixon outlined it - the theory says ants evolved from wasps (and you've got your roaches and termites supposedly having a similar setup)

it's hard to explain, but you have these forerunner types, still highly individualised (your proto wasp, your proto roach) ..they both differentiated into ants and termites (respectively) so what you see here is an insects attempt at society and group living.

at this quasi-point, here is where we have our former individualised critters, starting to split up and delegate tasks (worker, soldier, queen) and you can still see some of this today in [so called] primitive ant species like the australian bulldog ant caste (which even retains a rudimentary eyesight of sorts) , uhh, i guess i should just leave that by saying, that particular ant species is still somewhat autonomous and individualised [hence why they call them primitive], there is a queen. and most of the ants that are flexible in this way will still duke it out chemically to see who's going to take the position of queen.

some ants are polyganeous, they'll have multiple queens, these ants make super colonies that literally extend for miles.

there is so much diversification in the ant world, if you do a little snooping at species like atta sexdens, teleuteromyrmex schneideri, ponerine... you'll start to see there is WAY more to this than meets the eye..

it's not often i take time to explain things in a post.. but i like ants..(so thanks) ..there's going to be a few grey areas in everything i just said, that's cool, someone will expand on it for us, but the gist here is solid, and i'm as eager as you are to learn even more :tu:

[edit]

something i'm still trying to wrap my head around.. apparently ants require their larvae to process the foodstuffs they collect (shared stomach, nature's so gross :P ) ...but if you're a starter kit, and have no larvae yet....? perhaps this is similar to the leafcutter queen, when she leaves the next takes a small sample of the former colonies fungus to start the growing cycle all over again.. (the ones who aren't growing mulch for food might take a stomach full of the processed food when they leave?) ....fascinating stuff

Edited by unit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

iirc - this is the cambrian explosion?

Yeah, that's what it was.

Edited by Lrak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

ok good.. well that'll be $29.95 on your credit card for the extra rant :)

[edit]

shrugs/

something about babysteps for life to express itself

Edited by unit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

paleoweb-evolution-poster.jpg

Nibs

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard that when you look at the fossil record, the earliest life forms appear fully formed, apparently out of nowhere.

How do you explain this?

An incomplete fossil record.

Also, how did creatures like ants or bees evolve?

The ant colony needs a queen to reproduce, and the queen needs the workers to gather food. One cannot survive without the other. So how did the queen evolve without the workers, or the workers without the queen?

There are many solitary bee species. The social ones evolved from solitary ones.

Note that workers only develop when fed a diet containing suppressors. Without those, they grow up to become queens. So reproduction is not an issue. It is the default condition.

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An incomplete fossil record.

So does that mean that there is a fossil for every single stage of evolution for any given species?

From the first vertebrate to a dinosaur, or humans?

I hope my understanding of evolution is correct.

It's that an organism changes to suit the environment it's in to become another organism better suited to that environment, or something like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fossilization requires special conditions;

http://www.fossilmus...ssilization.htm

I'll keep that in mind.

So I suppose that if fossilization did occur for every species of living organism, you'd get a "complete fossil record" of every living organism in their transition from species to species?

And that the Cambrian Explosion is the result of an incomplete fossil record, due to fossilization not occurring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does that mean that there is a fossil for every single stage of evolution for any given species?

No. For some lines, like horses, elephants, bears and deer, we have a pretty good record with several fossils from each of the intermediate species. For others, especially older ones like dinosaurs, we are doing good just to have one fossil from each species. Undoubtedly, there are many species for which we have no fossils at all. In time, more fossils will be discovered and the gaps filled in.

For soft-bodied species, fossils are rare because the soft body parts don't fossilize very well.

Any biological family is a branching family tree. We often have one or two fossils on one branch and another from a different branch and some more from still another branch. We then have to figure out what is ancestral to what and what is just a biological dead end.

From the first vertebrate to a dinosaur, or humans?

I don't have first-hand knowledge of this, but my guess is that there are still some gaps. The large characteristics allow most of the family tree to be discerned, but the small ones provide the details on xactly who is related to who and how.

It helps to think of species like individuals on a family tree. A grandchild species has a parent species between itself and its grandparent. Two cousins are on different branches and are not direct descendents of each other, etc.

I hope my understanding of evolution is correct.

It's that an organism changes to suit the environment it's in to become another organism better suited to that environment, or something like that?

So far, so good. Evolution is about what works or doesn't in a given environment. As long as something can stay alive long enough to have grandchildren, it is a success, no matter how good or poorly its system functions.

In practice, only a slight edge is needed. If a characteristic allows its owners to have 1% more descendents than those that lack the characteristic, it will eventually spread through the entire population. Evoltuion is more about populations that individuals. It's survival of the fittest population, not the fittest indiviual.

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. For some lines, like horses, elephants, bears and deer, we have a pretty good record with several fossils from each of the intermediate species. For others, especially older ones like dinosaurs, we are doing good just to have one fossil from each species. Undoubtedly, there are many species for which we have no fossils at all. In time, more fossils will be discovered and the gaps filled in.

For soft-bodied species, fossils are rare because the soft body parts don't fossilize very well.

Any biological family is a branching family tree. We often have one or two fossils on one branch and another from a different branch and some more from still another branch. We then have to figure out what is ancestral to what and what is just a biological dead end.

I don't have first-hand knowledge of this, but my guess is that there are still some gaps. The large characteristics allow most of the family tree to be discerned, but the small ones provide the details on xactly who is related to who and how.

It helps to think of species like individuals on a family tree. A grandchild species has a parent species between itself and its grandparent. Two cousins are on different branches and are not direct descendents of each other, etc.

So far, so good. Evolution is about what works or doesn't in a given environment. As long as something can stay alive long enough to have grandchildren, it is a success, no matter how good or poorly its system functions.

In practice, only a slight edge is needed. If a characteristic allows its owners to have 1% more descendents than those that lack the characteristic, it will eventually spread through the entire population. Evoltuion is more about populations that individuals. It's survival of the fittest population, not the fittest indiviual.

Doug

It's not even about survival it's about passing on genes. The peacock is a good example. There are many many strange looking things in nature that have nothing to do with fitness only attracting more mates. These things even attract more predictors it's just that the mateing benefits outweighs the survival benefits.

You will never find a transitionary fossil. Because populations change like colores in the rainbow. There is no definite change just extremely slow gradual change over many generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cambrian explosion was just that because before that time, there were barely any species that would fossilize. It was during the Cambrian explosion (which is a record of million of years, mind you) that most chitinous animals appeared, which were more prone to fossilization than most of what was alive before that. Bacteria, amoebae, worms and such.

The exact cause will probably never be know and is probably a combination of factors involving ecological, environmental, and developmental changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will never find a transitionary fossil. Because populations change like colores in the rainbow. There is no definite change just extremely slow gradual change over many generations.

This is an evolutionary concept that I wish more people would understand. Flora and Fauna do not ever stop evolving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are several misconceptions about the Cambrian explosion. One is that it all happened in an instant. Geologically speaking, maybe. But in reality it happened over a period up to 10million years. Fast but not instantaneous. Another is that these are the first animals and plants found in the record. Strictly speaking this is true, because during this period was first seen life that had 'hard' body parts that could fossilise. Prior to this only traces of life are left behind. Chemical markers and burrows for example.

If you're genuinely interested, "Darwin's Lost World" by Martin Brasier is a decent read.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does that mean that there is a fossil for every single stage of evolution for any given species?

From the first vertebrate to a dinosaur, or humans?

I hope my understanding of evolution is correct.

It's that an organism changes to suit the environment it's in to become another organism better suited to that environment, or something like that?

There is no such thing as the "first" of a species. And no, your understanding of evolution is pretty woeful.

These sorts of posts always infuriate me. As if the poster thinks they've thought of something thats never occurred to scientists and in one fell swoop disproven all of evolutionary theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not even about survival it's about passing on genes. The peacock is a good example. There are many many strange looking things in nature that have nothing to do with fitness only attracting more mates. These things even attract more predictors it's just that the mateing benefits outweighs the survival benefits.

You will never find a transitionary fossil. Because populations change like colores in the rainbow. There is no definite change just extremely slow gradual change over many generations.

Thats one way of looking at it. Another is that *every* fossil is transitional (unless its the last of a species before extinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thats one way of looking at it. Another is that *every* fossil is transitional (unless its the last of a species before extinction.

That's much simpilar actually I prefer that one.

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There is no such thing as the "first" of a species. And no, your understanding of evolution is pretty woeful.

These sorts of posts always infuriate me. As if the poster thinks they've thought of something thats never occurred to scientists and in one fell swoop disproven all of evolutionary theory.

I'm not trying to disprove anything =)

So please don't get infuriated over something I'm not doing :D

I'm not saying I've thought of something that's never occurred to scientists or disprove evolution.

I'm just looking for answers =)

Edited by Lrak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

paleoweb-evolution-poster.jpg

Nibs

Does this poster come in english? I know a kid who would love this, poster.

People don't seem to understand a fossil is a rear event. Most things don't turn into fossils, they are eaten, scattered and decay. Once in a great while something gets covered or leaves a print which makes a fossil. I have collected fossils all my life. (I lost most of my collection in a move.) I wish I could go out and find a fossil in every hole I dig, but that doesn't happen, so the evidence has some gaps in it and it is not a seamless line. IMO there is enough evidence to show living things evolve and change through generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.