[alancalverd (OP)]

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? 

[vhfpmr]

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.

[alancalverd (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

Because, if insects couldn't fly the housefly would be called a house. That would be silly.
Ditto dragon, may, horse etc.

[alancalverd (OP)]

The fly-half would be a half, my trousers would gape, and the flying Dutchman would be called Henk. But seriously, folks.....

[evan_au]

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?

[Petrochemicals]

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

[alancalverd (OP)]

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.

[alancalverd (OP)]

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".

[Zer0]

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?

[evan_au]

Question: Why does a fly, fly?
Answer: If not, it would be a 'walk'...

[Eternal Student]

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.

[Bored chemist]

"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...

[alancalverd (OP)]

[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.

[alancalverd (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Petrochemicals]

"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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Zer0]

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?

[alancalverd (OP)]

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.