Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology => Topic started by: alancalverd on 20/02/2023 11:07:22
-
Not a completely stupid question. Last night's BBC2 program about Jurassic dinosaurs threw up an unexpected aside: there were no flowering plants in the Jurassic period.
Flying demands a high energy density fuel, which many insects get from nectar or pollen. Nectar-bearing plants certainly benefit from flying insects but that poses a chicken-and-egg question. In the absence of flowering plants, there seems to be little if any advantage in flying - flightless insects are very successful without leaving the ground and even beetles, fully capable of flight, rarely take to the skies.
So: chicken (bees, butterflies, etc) or egg (flowering plants)? which evolved first, and why?
-
chicken (bees, butterflies, etc) or egg (flowering plants)? which evolved first, and why?
Shouldn't that read "chicken (bees, butterflies, etc) or egg (pollen)? which evolved first, and why?"?
In which case, I'd say pollen, because it can spread on the wind. I recall watching clouds of pollen dispersing from the fir trees in my garden on a windy day.
-
But by definition, wind-pollinated plants don't need insects so don't waste energy making flowers and nectar. Crawling insects may be able to eat immature pollen, so no need to fly, and once it is mature and dispersed in the wind, it is too dilute to be a useful food for flying.
Another interesting question, then! Which is overall more efficient, windblown pollen, windblown spores, or flowering plants? Evolution tends to favor efficiency.
And even if the latter turns out to be efficient, what prompted the evolutionary leap of faith to produce flowers in the hope that insects will evolve to do the job?
There's a strange parallel with new technology here: I'm looking at investing in hydrogen-powered cars - the sensible future product - but they won't be economically practicable until there is a refuelling infrastructure, and that won't develop until there is a demand.... Quite different from gasoline and diesel which were already available and easily distributed (by horse and cart!) before the internal combustion engine.
-
Because, if insects couldn't fly the housefly would be called a house. That would be silly.
Ditto dragon, may, horse etc.
-
The fly-half would be a half, my trousers would gape, and the flying Dutchman would be called Henk. But seriously, folks.....
-
Apparently, flowering plants evolved about 130 million years ago.
But flying insects reached their maximum size about 300 million years ago, supported by higher oxygen levels than today.
Some had wingspan of up to 70cm. Some were insectivores (like dragonflies today), but there was obviously something nutritious at the base of the food pyramid...
https://news.ucsc.edu/2012/06/giant-insects.html
Maybe your hydrogen car economy could be supported by solar-powered home electrolysis, storing hydrogen and driving fuel cells in the evening?
-
So: chicken (bees, butterflies, etc) or egg (flowering plants)? which evolved first, and why?
Why do bat's or birds like Chickens fly anyway, to escape danger, find food, mate find new territories. It allows the traversing of terrain in a more economically sound way than walking.
Planes are remarkably effi ient, a plane trip from New York to Los Angeles is more efficient if you fly than by car. It is more efficient than a bus if you consider a bus will have to make several stops, the people will have to be fed and watered etc. It is also more efficient than a train once you add in the infrastructure and lack of flexibility.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/question192.htm
-
solar-powered home electrolysis
In Britain?
But thank you for resolving half of the question: the chicken seems to have evolved first.So whilst a stroke of intellectual genius may have persuaded plants to attract insects by developing flowers, the amount of fundamental re-engineering required to do so, based purely on the presumption that this would prove advantageous, is staggering. All human exploration and entrepreneurship looks puny in comparison.
-
It is also more efficient than a train once you add in the infrastructure and lack of flexibility.
Indeed, and as HS2 sinks slowly under the combined weight of accrued debt and pointlessness, it is always worth remembering that "a mile of road will take you nowhere: a mile of runway can take you anywhere".
-
So whilst a stroke of intellectual genius may have persuaded plants to attract insects by developing flowers, the amount of fundamental re-engineering required to do so, based purely on the presumption that this would prove advantageous, is staggering. All human exploration and entrepreneurship looks puny in comparison.
That was Sarcasm, Right?
The " stroke of intellectual genius " thing?
Natural Evolution is based on Random Mutations, Correct?
-
Question: Why does a fly, fly?
Answer: If not, it would be a 'walk'...
-
Hi.
The information given in post #5 by @evan_au seems to check out.
So that's the first part of your question sorted: Flying insects did seem to evolve before flowering plants.
The question about what the advantage of flying would have been, must then relate to something other than eating nectar. For example, when you fly you aren't so easily eaten by other animals that don't fly etc.
Yes, there is typically a high energy requirement for flying but you can get it in ways that doesn't involve nectar eating. For example, just eat more of the other stuff and metabolise the stuff inside the insect body into something that can be used up quickly to enable flying. The lack of nectar is not a bar to flying (and it apparently wasn't).
The entire "why did that evolve?" question seems to come down to the usual thing: There was a niche available and random mutations seem to be sufficient explanation for why life generally evolves to fill all available niches given time.
Best Wishes.
-
"a mile of road will take you nowhere: a mile of runway can take you anywhere".
As long as you don't mind crashing when you get there.
Imagine that there were flowers in the Jurassic. (Presumably wind pollenated like grasses today).
They wouldn't produce nectar so they would be irrelevant to insects seeking high octane sugar-water.
But they would be high up and they would produce seeds. Seeds are always nutritious, and it's usually sensible for plants to raise their seeds high in the air.
(Yes, I know, peanuts take a different view.)
Without flowers, you have spores (in ferns + mosses etc) and the same argument applies.
Sure, you can get there by walking, but if you can take a direct path, why wouldn't you?
And the ability to confound predators probably tips the scales in favour of flight.
It may help that most insects are small. Their terminal velocity won't be "terminal" so jumping out of a tree and hiding in the leaf-litter is a viable escape strategy.
Any insect that happened to be good at jumping...
-
[Quote from: alancalverd on 21/02/2023 15:10:13]
"a mile of road will take you nowhere: a mile of runway can take you anywhere".
As long as you don't mind crashing when you get there.[/quote]
Depends on the aircraft and the destination. We generally like to depart from a hard runway but on arrival the aircraft will be considerably lighter and able to fly slower. A helicopter with skids can land pretty much anywhere without too many trees (or you could persuade your passengers to absail, in extremis), with just a few more yards of farm field you can land a glider or most light planes, and you can put an amphibian down on a lake or river. Paratroops are "happy" (note the satirical inverted commas) to be delivered without the plane touching the ground at their destination, and sky divers will even pay for the privilege.
Or you could split the 1.6 km runway into two 800 m lengths, at each end of the journey. Plenty of room for most light aircraft.
-
I rather think you have missed the point about flowers and insects, and even made another point for discussion.
If the terminal speed of a falling insect allows it to escape predators without killing itself, there is no point in evolving gliding wings, let alone powered flight.
And if plants can multiply and colonise by windblown spores, pollen, animal poo, or whatever, why did they bother to evolve nectar and complicated flowers in the hope that the insects, which currently don't need the nectar, will eventually learn to fly and require high-altitude, high-eneregy-density refuelling?
This is tending towards a definition of evolution as "finding complicated solutions to nonexistent problems". Embarrassing, but it might help to explain the current fashion for electric cars.
-
If the terminal speed of a falling insect allows it to escape predators without killing itself, there is no point in evolving gliding wings, let alone powered flight.
That's an odd assertion from a pilot who regularly points out the efficiency of flight as a means of transport.
-
"a mile of road will take you nowhere: a mile of runway can take you anywhere".
As long as you don't mind crashing when you get there.
Depends on the aircraft and the destination. We generally like to depart from a hard runway but on arrival the aircraft will be considerably lighter and able to fly slower. A helicopter with skids can land pretty much anywhere without too many trees (or you could persuade your passengers to absail, in extremis), with just a few more yards of farm field you can land a glider or most light planes, and you can put an amphibian down on a lake or river. Paratroops are "happy" (note the satirical inverted commas) to be delivered without the plane touching the ground at their destination, and sky divers will even pay for the privilege.
Or you could split the 1.6 km runway into two 800 m lengths, at each end of the journey. Plenty of room for most light aircraft.
The flying doctor never needed a runway, he could land on Uluru in a sandstorm. Slats, big tyres etc.
Rotorcraft are not as efficient by a considerable way and no where near as safe. A humming bird must drink its own weight in nectar per day because of this inefficiency.
Perhaps the insect flower relationship is a darwinian relationship that edged out all there competitors. Evolution doesn't mean clever after all, if being highly immobile stops you dying young the future is sedentry.
-
A helicopter
Doesn't need a mile or runway at either end.
We generally like to depart from a hard runway but on arrival the aircraft will be considerably lighter and able to fly slower.
OK, so
"a mile of road will take you nowhere: a mile of runway can take you anywhere".
As long as you don't want to fly out again.
Rotorcraft are not as efficient by a considerable way
Especially biological ones.
It's difficult to connect the plumbing.
-
This is tending towards a definition of evolution as "finding complicated solutions to nonexistent problems". Embarrassing, but it might help to explain the current fashion for electric cars.
Or perhaps not being aware of current problems, but still trying out all sorts of possible variations, with a probability that one option might be a valid answer.
(brute force)
Couldn't electric cars be charged on electric stations that utilize wind, solar or hydro power in real time?
-
If the terminal speed of a falling insect allows it to escape predators without killing itself, there is no point in evolving gliding wings, let alone powered flight.
That's an odd assertion from a pilot who regularly points out the efficiency of flight as a means of transport.
But an entirely logical one from a physicist whose impact at terminal speed is not survivable.
-
Couldn't electric cars be charged on electric stations that utilize wind, solar or hydro power in real time?
i.e. not on windless days, at night, or in a flat country like most of Britain. But then I'm biased, because it's a cold night in East Anglia and I need to go to London tomorrow. Please tell my clients that I'll calibrate their x-ray machine one day when the sun shines or the wind blows, because saving lives isn't all that important and some idiot has got rid of all the steam and diesel trains.
-
"a mile of road will take you nowhere: a mile of runway can take you anywhere".
As long as you don't want to fly out again.
A lot of trade and travel is predicated on the desire to move people or goods in both directions. The least sophisticated societies see the sense in making runways
In attempts to get cargo to fall by parachute or land in planes or ships again, [Melanesian] islanders imitated the same practices they had seen the military personnel use. Cult behaviors usually involved mimicking the day-to-day activities and dress styles of US soldiers, such as performing parade ground drills with wooden or salvaged rifles.[8] The islanders carved headphones from wood and wore them while sitting in fabricated control towers. They waved the landing signals while standing on the runways. They lit signal fires and torches to light up runways and lighthouses.
Also worth reading up on the Mission Aviation Fellowship who, despite being deeply superstitious but excellent aviators, persuade remote groups to build runways to facilitate humanitarian transport in places that cannot be reached by road.
-
Quote from: Petrochemicals on Today at 16:51:34
A helicopter
Doesn't need a mile or runway at either end.
But it helps on departure, even if it isn't essential on arrival. Vertical departure may not be possible at MTOW or desirable at any weight.
-
And an early morning thought (shaving really stimulates the mind): cargo cults are the only evidence-based religion.
-
The least sophisticated societies see the sense in making runways
Many of them also have roads.
But it's good to know that they have grasped the value of being able to fly.
If the terminal speed of a falling insect allows it to escape predators without killing itself, there is no point in evolving gliding wings, let alone powered flight.
But in spite of there being (according to Alan) no point, the insects did, in fact, evolve wings and flight.
-
from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 23:19:44
The least sophisticated societies see the sense in making runways
Many of them also have roads.
From the MAF website:
Mission Aviation Fellowship (MAF) is the world’s largest humanitarian air operator. For over 75 years we have been flying light aircraft over jungles, mountains, swamps and deserts. We enable more than 2,000 aid, development and mission organisations to bring medical care, emergency relief and long-term development. Our pilots and personnel deliver relief workers, doctors, pastors, school books, food, medicines - everything that can only be safely and speedily delivered by air. Our faithful supporters give and pray to make this all possible.
Never mind the superstition, they are sensible enough not to use expensive aircraft where roads are safe and available.
-
Flying insects evolved, for whatever reason, before flowering plants. But that still doesn't explain why plants, having successfully colonised the entire planet without them, evolved flowers. Did some horsetail, fern or conifer look up, spot a proto-bee, and think "If I developed colored petals, stamens, anthers (but not in the same place), the means to transfer pollen into a seed pod, and some nectar, I could just possibly indulge in vicarious sexual intercourse with my sibling next door, once I'd persuaded a suitable insect to refuel exclusively at my station." ???
-
Did some horsetail, fern or conifer look up, spot a proto-bee, and think "If I developed colored petals, stamens, anthers (but not in the same place), the means to transfer pollen into a seed pod, and some nectar, I could just possibly indulge in vicarious sexual intercourse with my sibling next door, once I'd persuaded a suitable insect to refuel exclusively at my station."
No.
Did you imagine anyone had suggested they might have thought that (or anything else)?
-
So the chicken-and-egg question remains: why and how did flowering plants evolve?
-
The entire "why did that evolve?" question seems to come down to the usual thing: There was a niche available and random mutations seem to be sufficient explanation for why life generally evolves to fill all available niches given time.
-
So the chicken-and-egg question remains: why and how did flowering plants evolve?
Because of a symbiotic relationship forced through survival of the fittest. There is the pitcher plant which exists without soil, flowers attract rodents to its nectar goodness, but to reach it the animal has to squat over the plants cup, defecating into it brings the plant the necessary nutrition.
Why do insects fly, probably for the advantage that mixing of genes brings to evolution. It is not a particularly clever plan, giving away your sugary delights to passing strangers, but if it beats the wind evolution in its retardation says "yes".
-
I can imagine a random mutation producing something like petals from a leaf, but I can't see why that alone could confer any advantage without the accompanying sex organs and nectar, particularly as it would have appeared on a plant that already has a perfectly good reproductive system, so the new species wouldn't necessarily thrive. I think this is one for my botanical relative.
-
I can't see why
Fair enough.
But it did.
-
And as I was composing a note for my botanist relative, I worked out a plausible mechanism. The great thing about evolution is that if it is plausible, however unlikely, it has probably been tested, and if it worked, it may have survived and developed.
So I'm convinced that flowering plants indeed evolved to take advantage of pollination by flying insects, but that still doesn't answer the original question of why insects evolved flight before there were flowering plants to support that activity?
-
Couldn't electric cars be charged on electric stations that utilize wind, solar or hydro power in real time?
i.e. not on windless days, at night, or in a flat country like most of Britain. Please tell my clients that I'll calibrate their x-ray machine one day when the sun shines or the wind blows, because saving lives isn't all that important and some idiot has got rid of all the steam and diesel trains.
Great Britain is Not the Whole World.
Some place on the Planet...
The Sun is Shining, the Wind is Blowing & terrain altitudes differ.
We could simply learn to sell/share/donate Electricity!
Obviously Trains won't be Banned, but they can go even faster being Electric.
Pollution can be a Silent n Smokey Killer, We should think about This, Especially if We want to Save Lives.
-
If a really windy country like the UK can't generate enough electricity for itself, there's little hope that the rest of the world can. And it's not easy stuff to export, even if you have a surplus and are not at war with anyone en route. Orkney generates a surplus over its immediate electrical requirements but it turns out to make more economic sense to use the excess to generate hydrogen.
Not sure what you will use to power your electric trains if the wind doesn't blow at night.
-
If a really windy country like the UK can't generate enough electricity for itself, there's little hope that the rest of the world can. And it's not easy stuff to export, even if you have a surplus and are not at war with anyone en route. Orkney generates a surplus over its immediate electrical requirements but it turns out to make more economic sense to use the excess to generate hydrogen.
Not sure what you will use to power your electric trains if the wind doesn't blow at night.
We have a conveniently placed mountainous region across the water, Scandinavia has enough electricity to process steel with because of hydro electric power, it could very very easily absorb the extra juice at efficiencies of 90 percent (one way).
-
Not sure what you will use to power your electric trains if the wind doesn't blow at night.
Tidal Energy?
UK has an Impressive coastline.
Thou, i get your point.
Storing Renewable Energy seems Costly.
(for now atleast)
This Article is sort of a long read, but it's Very Interesting.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140516-i-operate-on-people-400km-away
In your line of work/duty...
Isn't there a way in which You could just wear a 3d virtual headset, then connect to a online medical framework, & take over full access of a humanoid robot?
(that could help bypassing cars n trains, no worries of weather or accidents, saving lives in a professional environment without stepping outside your bedroom while wearing a cool hippie t-shirt n shorts/bermudas)
Might become the fastest way to Commute for Everyone on this Planet, unless They are not tech savvy or bad at memorising online passwords.
(if plants & insects can Evolve, then Why can't WE!)
-
Tidal Energy?
UK has an Impressive coastline.
And the world has an utterly unimpressive record on tidal power generation! The marine environment is aggressive to metals and very accommodating to barnacles. AFAIK no tidal electrical generator has proved economic to date with the possible exception of the Rance estuary. Damming the Severn would flood a huge area of productive farmland, and all the other major UK rivers are essential commercial highways.
-
Scandinavia has enough electricity to process steel with because of hydro electric power,
and to support a tiny population who also use wind, wood- and waste-burning power stations to make up the difference. How would you persuade our Nordic friends to stop making steel (which they use to make electric vehicles) and cook your lunch instead?
-
Isn't there a way in which You could just wear a 3d virtual headset, then connect to a online medical framework, & take over full access of a humanoid robot?
Excellent idea, especially if said robot can fly and drive to the location and make soothing noises over the phone.
This afternoon I will attend a worldwide Zoom medical ethics conference wearing my best dinner jacket, bow tie, and underpants. Way ahead of you, my friend.
-
How would you persuade our Nordic friends to stop making steel (which they use to make electric vehicles) and cook your lunch instead?
Money.
-
Scandinavia has enough electricity to process steel with because of hydro electric power,
and to support a tiny population who also use wind, wood- and waste-burning power stations to make up the difference. How would you persuade our Nordic friends to stop making steel (which they use to make electric vehicles) and cook your lunch instead?
They don't need to. If they are making steel when they receive our electric they turn off the hydro electric, if we want to cook dinner they turn up the hydro electric. If there is too much electricity power they pump water back up.
-
I presume you do not have shares in steelmaking, or indeed any other heat-intensive industry.
-
I presume you do not have shares in steelmaking, or indeed any other heat-intensive industry.
Not in this country, but I think a few bob in Scandinavia steel is worth a chance, steel has got to come from somewhere and if carbon credits etc are to become law on steel I should make a fortune.
As I have said, money is all energy essentially, most things have embodied energy there in that dictates the price, so everything is heat intensive at some level, silicone chips come from wafers that require massive energy input.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/18/semiconductor-silicon-chips-carbon-footprint-climate
-
Your scandi-steel shares won't be worth much if they have to shut down the furnaces every time it snows in Britain.
-
Your scandi-steel shares won't be worth much if they have to shut down the furnaces every time it snows in Britain.
No they will already have power saved in the water they have pumped up to the top of the hydro plant . They will have a supply capacity greater than the need.
-
No they will already have power saved in the water they have pumped up to the top of the hydro plant .
thanks to the abundance of hydroelectricity? Sounds awfully like perpetual motion to me.
-
No they will already have power saved in the water they have pumped up to the top of the hydro plant .
thanks to the abundance of hydroelectricity? Sounds awfully like perpetual motion to me.
It is almost, the water cycle perpetually moves water around the environment.
-
Isn't there a way in which You could just wear a 3d virtual headset, then connect to a online medical framework, & take over full access of a humanoid robot?
Excellent idea, especially if said robot can fly and drive to the location and make soothing noises over the phone.
Not sure where you were going with this one...lol
Anyways, the Robot need not be present at your home.
The Idea is to take ' Remote Access ' over a physical object from afar.
The OPerator stays in bed, logs in, & connects to a MedRobo physically present in the Hospital.
This afternoon I will attend a worldwide Zoom medical ethics conference wearing my best dinner jacket, bow tie, and underpants. Way ahead of you, my friend.
Surely there weren't Any mirrors or reflective surfaces behind or around you & you did End the call before rising up...or else you'd have been all over the News.
(d cessna pilot who owns a saturnV)
-
1. I'd need 1500 robots to service all my client clinics, and they'd be idle most of the time.
2.After many years of careful study and practice, I've learned to keep my nether regions under the desk and point the camera at my face. However the internet is not short of amateurs who seem to lose all their clothes when delivering pizza or repairing a washing machine.
-
1. I'd need 1500 robots to service all my client clinics, and they'd be idle most of the time.
Or one, if you taught it to drive.
Or two robots, if one was a self driving car
-
So by learning to drive, I've saved myself the cost of two robots. Seems like a good business decision.
-
Incidentally, i seem to have managed to Sabotage this Thread too!
(It was supposed to be about Plants & Insects & Wings...Not Renewable Energy & Robots)
1500 sites could have just One spare Robot.
Access to it could be shared between Multiple Users.
Who gets to control it when n at what time n for how long could be based on Emergencies & Prioritizations.
It Might have been a Smart Business Strategy for Entrepreneurs to avoid paying travel/commute allowances to employees, not to mention avoiding workplace accidents/injuries and hefty fines or regular medical compensation payouts.
BUT, i cannot Help think of the larger consequences...
e.g. if a fictional start-up company iR0B0 manufacturers 10 robots per day, each robot catering to 10 user access would end up with 10robo x 10user = 100 access points created per day.
That might mean 100 people would have the Opportunity to Work from Home.
Suppose, iR0B0s puts in place a assembly n production line n makes 100 robots per day, 100robots x 10users = 1000 folks stay at home per day.
Say iR0B0 working days are around 300days on a yearly basis...
300days of production x 100robots per day = 30,000robots a year.
30,000robots x 10users = 300,000 people off roads per year.
Now Imagine iR0B0 uses robots to manufacture robots on a start of the art assembly & production line...
1000units per day...300,000units per year...3 Million people do not step out of the house.
In Ten years time, 30 Million folks would transition to Online Remote Access.
Resulting in, a collapse of the public transportation system, automobile demands halved, cabs/taxies ceasing to operate, petrol pumps/gas stations rusting.
It would provoke & conjure a Neo-Luddite Uprising, the likes of which this World has Never seen.
UK will BURN!
Ashes to Ashes...Dust to Dust.
Moving on...
I'm mostly Ignorant, but still Understand certain aspects.
It must be quite Irritating when folks Repeatedly keep suggesting Renewables, while Ignoring dark n cold windless nights of snow.
If only UK could Invest in Moroccan Solar Plants, but before that figure out a complex engineering problem of avoiding or curtailing Loss of Power in Transmission.
Maybe that could be a Way Out!
Still, sounds pretty condescending doesn't it, when U & i, We both know UK is Not the Real Problem, it's ASIA!
(coal & oil)
Relatable to what i said before,
" Great Britain is Not the Whole World ".
Anyways, if Insects developed Wings...Why don't Plants grow Feet?
P.S. - placing a pizza delivery order during rush hours, hoping they won't be able to make it before 30mins & free pizza would be obtained is a bit similar to wishing death on someone.
🍕
-
One of the jobs I do involves spending about one hour on a client's site every 3 years. So to service 1500 clients either I drive or fly around the country and enjoy the scenery, hospitality and friendly conversation appurtenant thereto (including the amazing variety of local beer, black pudding and tripe these islands have to offer) or I get a robot to have all the fun, or I buy 1500 robots who only work for 1 hour in every 26,000 that I pay them for, and sit in the office trying to interpret the photographs and numbers they send me. Believe me, doing office work in your underpants loses its charm after a while.
Incidentally whilst taking a break from driving last week I was enjoying the London and North Eastern Railway's excellent curry (other dishes are available) when I saw a huge and ecofriendly solar farm, covered with snow. Just as well the train was powered by Venezuelan or Norwegian fossil gas, as the wind wasn't blowing either.
-
So by learning to drive, I've saved myself the cost of two robots. Seems like a good business decision.
Depends on the price of the robots.
I don't drive.
I suspect my taxi fares over the year add up to less than your road tax, fuel bills, insurance , repayments etc.
-
So the Journey is the Destination...
Coz Happiness is a Journey, Not a Destination.
Anyways, i think Insects evolved Wings bcoz they got tired & wary of Crawling.
Maybe someday Plants would grow Feet, to run as far away as possible from Us!