NeutralDrow said:
cuddly_tomato said:
NeutralDrow said:
Evolution is directly caused by random genetic mutations that spread through a population. Environment only indirectly affects evolution, through natural selection narrowing down the viable paths a population can take.
I have to confess to having doubts about some of these mechanisms of evolution. Some of what nature has created seems to defy conventional theories of natural selection (the apocrita suborder of life specifically, but there are one or two others, including humans). I don't quite think that humanities understanding of evolution is quite as comprehensive as we believe.
Social insects? What's so surprising about them?
The conversations since that post will clarify. Basically, social insects evolved against the grain of what their physiology and life cycles would normally allow for. If you are as much of an insect fan as I am you might find some interesting articles scattered throughout those posts.
NeutralDrow said:
Humans are only mildly beholden to natural selection by this point, anyway. Evolution and natural selection are two different things.
This is kind of my point. I think we tend to think of evolution as a process which is a by-product of natural selection. I personally think this is a bit like the tail wagging the dog, and that evolution is what forces natural selection. There are just too many big coincidences in evolution, and some odd anomalies, which make me think that there is far more too it than accidental mutation and simple survival of the fittest.
Maze1125 said:
But that's not really a new idea. Symbiotic relationships are well documented and are quite easily explained by standard evolutionary principles.
Insects that worked with plants were more likely to survive and so passed on their genes more.
And visa versa.
How they work is well documented and well understood.
How they came about, in evolutionary terms, is a completely different question.
I have gone to great lengths in this thread to explain this position - the insects worked magnificently in symbiosis with the plants. Getting that process to a level it does work in a world where only the absolute pinnacle of evolutionary models survive is an insurmountable problem. Yeah sure those little buggers worked well with plants - what stopped them from simply being eaten to death by the other insects of the day who were bigger and stronger? It certainly wasn't (as it is in non-social insects such as aphids) that they produced masses of offspring, as the vast majority of those offspring don't reproduce. It wasn't that they were capable of defending themselves, because those kinds of defensive measures take division of labor which takes time to evolve.
You have to consider all the factors acting upon an organism during its evolution. Take humans. Forests disappearing, thus we need longer legs to become ground apes as opposed to tree apes. The need to run, to chase prey and flee from predators, thus we need to lose body heat, so we lose our fur and develop advanced sweat glands. This lack of fur leaves bare skin, which is vunerable to the sun, thus we grow extremely long hair on our heads which can help cover us from the suns rays. Each step can be explained, each step brings an advantage.
We can't do this with insectoidal life forms. Take the highly social insects, take the lonesome little solitary insects, and there is no middle ground (which is why there are no examples of "mildly" social insects in nature). If an insect species decides to be social it needs to be extremely social to stand even a possibility of survival. It's all or nothing. Look at what just a few hornets did to thousands of bees. But evolution doesn't "jump" like that.
