What prompts a plant to evolve?

[Crossboard]

In an earlier post, a particular topic of discussion sort of got lost in the various comments, so I wanted to start it fresh.

Someone described evolution thusly:
“Evolution happens in an environment and is directed towards survival in that environment (adaptation is the first step).”

I followed with this question:
“Does an ear of corn fall under this ‘survival’ statement?”

A response:
“Yes, of course. The evolution of corn happened in an environment where humans were selecting those ears that provided more kernels and made sure they were the ones that produced the next generation.”

My follow up:
“Let me clarify my ‘ear of corn’ statement... I was not talking about human beings developing a variety of corn. I’m talking about long before that. I’m referring to that point in time before corn even existed. Evolution tells us that a previous “simpler” plant must have given rise to corn, right? My question remains, ‘Did this simpler plant exhibit a survival instinct, so that another plant (corn) became the solution?’ “

Thoughts appreciated!

 

[David T]

In an earlier post, a particular topic of discussion sort of got lost in the various comments, so I wanted to start it fresh.

Someone described evolution thusly:
“Evolution happens in an environment and is directed towards survival in that environment (adaptation is the first step).”

I followed with this question:
“Does an ear of corn fall under this ‘survival’ statement?”

A response:
“Yes, of course. The evolution of corn happened in an environment where humans were selecting those ears that provided more kernels and made sure they were the ones that produced the next generation.”

My follow up:
“Let me clarify my ‘ear of corn’ statement... I was not talking about human beings developing a variety of corn. I’m talking about long before that. I’m referring to that point in time before corn even existed. Evolution tells us that a previous “simpler” plant must have given rise to corn, right? My question remains, ‘Did this simpler plant exhibit a survival instinct, so that another plant (corn) became the solution?’ “

Thoughts appreciated!

A volcano forms as it forms out due to survivability!!! Oh wait that doesn't sound right. My guitar is the way it is due to survivability its as old as the first stick by us hitting a log. Oh wait certain primates slap in rhythm as well!! It exists Due to survivability.. Ok that can't be right.

The comical application of the market place onto nature is just too much time watching TV reading, education, and too little time in nature. I would explain it but ya know sometimes you have got to get out and engage instead of writing about it. Plants are way to complex for folks to even begin to talk about them. I suggest tv shows much easier.

 

[HonestJoe]

There's nothing special about corn before any form of human cultivation. All sorts of different plants evolve different forms of seeds which are spread by different means in different environments. Early corn will have been a form that happened to be successful in that environment. Maybe other plants evolve from the same predecessors and were successful in other environments or were able to cohabit, maybe other forms ended up being less successful and eventually died out.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In an earlier post, a particular topic of discussion sort of got lost in the various comments, so I wanted to start it fresh.

Someone described evolution thusly:
“Evolution happens in an environment and is directed towards survival in that environment (adaptation is the first step).”

I followed with this question:
“Does an ear of corn fall under this ‘survival’ statement?”

A response:
“Yes, of course. The evolution of corn happened in an environment where humans were selecting those ears that provided more kernels and made sure they were the ones that produced the next generation.”

My follow up:
“Let me clarify my ‘ear of corn’ statement... I was not talking about human beings developing a variety of corn. I’m talking about long before that. I’m referring to that point in time before corn even existed. Evolution tells us that a previous “simpler” plant must have given rise to corn, right? My question remains, ‘Did this simpler plant exhibit a survival instinct, so that another plant (corn) became the solution?’ “

Thoughts appreciated!

Bit of a late comer to this, but I tend to think about this slightly differently. In each generation, some corn lives, some dies, for a variety of reasons. And not all ears are EXACTLY the same (or all plants).

Making up an example, perhaps tall plants struggle in a windy environment...over time, the corn plants in that region might exhibit a reduction in average height since the taller plants die before propagation.

That doesn't really require a survival instinct in the way I think you meant.

Similarly, differences in feeding (eg. Soil acidity) would impact over time.

Mutation would be another possibility within a population not requiring a survival instinct. Just 'survival'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's nothing special about corn before any form of human cultivation. All sorts of different plants evolve different forms of seeds which are spread by different means in different environments. Early corn will have been a form that happened to be successful in that environment. Maybe other plants evolve from the same predecessors and were successful in other environments or were able to cohabit, maybe other forms ended up being less successful and eventually died out.

Except that early corn looked practically nothing like modern day corn:

 

[Brickjectivity]

There is a way in which corn evolves, and there is a way in which it does not. All wild corn changes, usually slowly; and survival is what keeps that change slow. Small changes are the ones most likely not to kill a plant. That is not true with bred corn, and changes can be induced relatively quickly by people.

In an earlier post, a particular topic of discussion sort of got lost in the various comments, so I wanted to start it fresh.

Someone described evolution thusly:
“Evolution happens in an environment and is directed towards survival in that environment (adaptation is the first step).”

I followed with this question:
“Does an ear of corn fall under this ‘survival’ statement?”

A response:
“Yes, of course. The evolution of corn happened in an environment where humans were selecting those ears that provided more kernels and made sure they were the ones that produced the next generation.”

My follow up:
“Let me clarify my ‘ear of corn’ statement... I was not talking about human beings developing a variety of corn. I’m talking about long before that. I’m referring to that point in time before corn even existed. Evolution tells us that a previous “simpler” plant must have given rise to corn, right? My question remains, ‘Did this simpler plant exhibit a survival instinct, so that another plant (corn) became the solution?’ “

Thoughts appreciated!

Survival is the governor of evolution, and it actually slows down change and prevents rapid change. Offspring can be simpler, seem weaker, less beautiful, less efficient. If they survive better, then the species will move towards being simpler, weaker, less beautiful or less efficient.

DNA editing by people is not evolution except in an abstract sense. Breeding is not evolution either, unless you consider breeding to be natural selection which it is not. Breeding involves gradual change, and it involves mutations but is not the same as evolution in the wild. For one thing, breeding is about getting results. For another it is probably faster than evolutionary processes -- at least I think it is.

 

[Polymath257]

Evolution happens in plants and animals for essentially the same reasons: differential survival. An animal with a mutation that increases the ability to survive and breed will be more likely to be in the next generation. And that is just as true for plants.

In neither animals nor plants is any conscious volition a part of the evolutionary process. It happens at the genetic level of random mutations, some of which increase survival and some do not. Those that do get passed on to the next generation, which will eventually shift properties of the population to be more adapted to the environment in which the animal or plant lives.

So, yes, of course, the ear of corn falls under this. It is the way the plant produces the next generation. An ear that makes the next generation more likely to sprout and survive will pass its genes on. That's one reason the teosinte that was the ancestor of corn had a brittle cob that tended to disperse seeds. When humans got involved, they selected for cobs that kept the seeds together and bred those varieties. That was a different survival environment for that plant, so it adapted to humans because we made different criteria for survival.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

‘Did this simpler plant exhibit a survival instinct, so that another plant (corn) became the solution?’

1) There was not "one plant," but a population of plants--members of a species--living under set of environmental conditions.
2) Living things don't have so much a "survival" instinct as a reproductive instinct. Yes they "want" to survive, but survival is only meaningful through having offspring that also survive.
3) The descendant generation(s) must also survive under whatever environmental conditions that they find themselves living in.
4) Whatever survives and reproduces is the "solution." (Not actually sure where this term comes from, but it implies some sort of purpose or intention; that does not happen, because evolution continues for the descendants--the only exception is when a lineage of a developing species goes extinct.)
5) Over time, from some ancient ancestor, the predecessor species for maize, evolved.
6) Humans saw the potential utility in that species, and through selective breeding, created "corn."

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

1) There was not "one plant," but a population of plants--members of a species--living under set of environmental conditions.
2) Living things don't have so much a "survival" instinct as a reproductive instinct. Yes they "want" to survive, but survival is only meaningful through having offspring that also survive.
3) The descendant generation(s) must also survive under whatever environmental conditions that they find themselves living in.
4) Whatever survives and reproduces is the "solution." (Not actually sure where this term comes from, but it implies some sort of purpose or intention; that does not happen, because evolution continues for the descendants--the only exception is when a lineage of a developing species goes extinct.)
5) Over time, from some ancient ancestor, the predecessor species for maize, evolved.
6) Humans saw the potential utility in that species, and through selective breeding, created "corn."

And on top of that, from that ancient ancestor, there were lots of other "solutions"...not just the wild grass that became corn, but lots of other species descended from that ancestor, that have different traits and live in different environments. "cousins" of corn, if you will.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I mean...look at the horseshoe crab. Its weak, ugly, stupid, and it has barely changed at all for millions of years. It just keeps on surviving in its current form. Is it because its reached maximum complexity? No, it could definitely be more complex, better looking, more efficient and stronger. What keeps it the same is that many mutations have occurred which have not helped with reproduction rates and survive-ability in offspring.

Another thing is that crabs get eaten frequently. For example suppose some crabs got a mutation that made their claws pink. That would make them more complex, but it wouldn't help them survive better down there in the dark facing the sea floor. Such a change would propagate to offspring but the probability of the pink claws propagating throughout the population is low. Crabs get eaten. Crabs fail to mate and things like that, and so with the crab's high turnover the pink claws disappear relatively soon.

 

[whirlingmerc]

In an earlier post, a particular topic of discussion sort of got lost in the various comments, so I wanted to start it fresh.

Someone described evolution thusly:
“Evolution happens in an environment and is directed towards survival in that environment (adaptation is the first step).”

I followed with this question:
“Does an ear of corn fall under this ‘survival’ statement?”

A response:
“Yes, of course. The evolution of corn happened in an environment where humans were selecting those ears that provided more kernels and made sure they were the ones that produced the next generation.”

My follow up:
“Let me clarify my ‘ear of corn’ statement... I was not talking about human beings developing a variety of corn. I’m talking about long before that. I’m referring to that point in time before corn even existed. Evolution tells us that a previous “simpler” plant must have given rise to corn, right? My question remains, ‘Did this simpler plant exhibit a survival instinct, so that another plant (corn) became the solution?’ “

Thoughts appreciated!

In an evolutionary model each change in the series must be propelled by an advantage of that change. In some cases that makes that type of evolution difficult or impassible for complex radically different multipart changes

There is also the epigenome. A plant or animal can be subjected to something during its life and it will affect the dynamics of the DNA as if throwing some switches affecting the current or next generation. That isn't exactly evolution because the switches can switch back if the driving effects are not present in a future generation. In that case the epigenome is already programmed somehow to adapt to a variety of changes and the genetics not inherently changing

And there are limits. You can only get sugar cane to approach some level of sugar.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If corn starts growing teeth (to defend itself), that's when I'll start to worry!

 

[Crossboard]

Evolution happens in plants and animals for essentially the same reasons: differential survival. An animal with a mutation that increases the ability to survive and breed will be more likely to be in the next generation. And that is just as true for plants.

In neither animals nor plants is any conscious volition a part of the evolutionary process. It happens at the genetic level of random mutations, some of which increase survival and some do not. Those that do get passed on to the next generation, which will eventually shift properties of the population to be more adapted to the environment in which the animal or plant lives.

So, yes, of course, the ear of corn falls under this. It is the way the plant produces the next generation. An ear that makes the next generation more likely to sprout and survive will pass its genes on. That's one reason the teosinte that was the ancestor of corn had a brittle cob that tended to disperse seeds. When humans got involved, they selected for cobs that kept the seeds together and bred those varieties. That was a different survival environment for that plant, so it adapted to humans because we made different criteria for survival.

Thanks for your reply, Polymath.
Even though I began this thread in regard to plants, I’ll unashamedly divert to the example of animals, since you mentioned animals in your post; the comment caught my attention!

I really want to get to the heart of the matter regarding what “survival” really means within the scope of evolutionary theory.

You stated, “An animal with a mutation that increases the ability to survive...”

I’d like to visualize this for us. Just for example, we’ll call it some land dwelling mammal (doesn’t matter what it is). This animal has been born, and it has a mutation. Yes, it’s a very small change of some sort, on the genetic level, as you explained. To look at the complete litter, you’d never know that this particular animal is different.

Let’s suppose that the average lifespan of this kind of animal is, say, 20 years. So this one little “mutated” animal makes his life journey. And along the way he: 1) matures, 2) reproduces, and 3) dies. And by the way, he makes it to age 20, the lifespan which was expected of him.

Questions:
- Did he “survive??” And what does it actually mean for this animal to survive? Is he a survivor simply because he makes to the end of a typical lifespan?

- Does his “survival” mean that he fended off a predator sometime along the way?

- How does a tiny genetic-level mutation aid in any way to this animal’s ability to overcome whatever obstacle he’s faced with?

- How does “surviving” have anything at all to do with the whether or not this genetic-level mutation is passed along to his offspring? (Or, simply bypassing this question...what guarantees that this genetic-level mutation is going to be preserved in any offspring, period?)

- Isn’t he likely going to mate with a (female) who does not possess this mutation? Won’t this pose a problem to this trait continuing to the offspring?

In picturing the scenario that evolutionary theory requires, these basic questions float to the surface.

Any follow up much appreciated..

 

[Valjean]

My follow up:
“Let me clarify my ‘ear of corn’ statement... I was not talking about human beings developing a variety of corn. I’m talking about long before that. I’m referring to that point in time before corn even existed. Evolution tells us that a previous “simpler” plant must have given rise to corn, right? My question remains, ‘Did this simpler plant exhibit a survival instinct, so that another plant (corn) became the solution?’ “

"Survival instinct" implies awareness and intentionality.
There's no need for either of these. Natural selection, genetic drift, &c account for everything. Plants evolve mechanically, exactly the same way animals do. Humans just noticed a promising looking species and began intentionally, selectively breeding it, eventually leading to the maize we know today.

I mean...look at the horseshoe crab. Its weak, ugly, stupid, and it has barely changed at all for millions of years. It just keeps on surviving in its current form. Is it because its reached maximum complexity? No, it could definitely be more complex, better looking, more efficient and stronger. What keeps it the same is that many mutations have occurred which have not helped with reproduction rates and survive-ability in offspring.

What keeps it the same is that it's a good design, versatile enough to maintain a reproducing population through millions of years of environmental change or, alternatively, because it chanced to be adapted to a stable niche that did not significantly change during that period.
This doesn't mean other species did not evolve from it, to fill other niches.

 

[shunyadragon]

In an earlier p cvhxxxxdost, a particular topic of discussion sort of got lost in the various comments, so I wanted to start it fresh.

OK . . . but the wording of the following is a bit misleading, because as in the title of this thread, is not so subtly attributed anthropomorphic intent, which is not how evolution works.

Someone described evolution thusly:
“Evolution happens in an environment and is directed towards survival in that environment (adaptation is the first step).”

I followed with this question:
“Does an ear of corn fall under this ‘survival’ statement?”

A response:
“Yes, of course. The evolution of corn happened in an environment where humans were selecting those ears that provided more kernels and made sure they were the ones that produced the next generation.”

My follow up:
“Let me clarify my ‘ear of corn’ statement... I was not talking about human beings developing a variety of corn. I’m talking about long before that. I’m referring to that point in time before corn even existed. Evolution tells us that a previous “simpler” plant must have given rise to corn, right? My question remains, ‘Did this simpler plant exhibit a survival instinct, so that another plant (corn) became the solution?’ “

Thoughts appreciated!

 

[Polymath257]

Thanks for your reply, Polymath.
Even though I began this thread in regard to plants, I’ll unashamedly divert to the example of animals, since you mentioned animals in your post; the comment caught my attention!

I really want to get to the heart of the matter regarding what “survival” really means within the scope of evolutionary theory.

You stated, “An animal with a mutation that increases the ability to survive...”

I’d like to visualize this for us. Just for example, we’ll call it some land dwelling mammal (doesn’t matter what it is). This animal has been born, and it has a mutation. Yes, it’s a very small change of some sort, on the genetic level, as you explained. To look at the complete litter, you’d never know that this particular animal is different.

Let’s suppose that the average lifespan of this kind of animal is, say, 20 years. So this one little “mutated” animal makes his life journey. And along the way he: 1) matures, 2) reproduces, and 3) dies. And by the way, he makes it to age 20, the lifespan which was expected of him.

Questions:
- Did he “survive??” And what does it actually mean for this animal to survive? Is he a survivor simply because he makes to the end of a typical lifespan?

- Does his “survival” mean that he fended off a predator sometime along the way?

- How does a tiny genetic-level mutation aid in any way to this animal’s ability to overcome whatever obstacle he’s faced with?

- How does “surviving” have anything at all to do with the whether or not this genetic-level mutation is passed along to his offspring? (Or, simply bypassing this question...what guarantees that this genetic-level mutation is going to be preserved in any offspring, period?)

- Isn’t he likely going to mate with a (female) who does not possess this mutation? Won’t this pose a problem to this trait continuing to the offspring?

In picturing the scenario that evolutionary theory requires, these basic questions float to the surface.

Any follow up much appreciated..

Very good questions!

Survival, in this context, means survival until reproduction and having offspring that also survive until reproduction, etc. Also, in general, having more surviving offspring means your genes will take over the population.

So, in the case of a plant that produced no fertile seeds, or an animal that doesn't reproduce, that is NOT survival as is required for evolution. Even if an organism survives to a ripe old age, it is an evolutionary 'failure' if it leaves no offspring.

Whether the mutation can add to survival in this sense depends strongly on the environment. Remember that environments change over time, so 'solutions' that work at one time might not work so well later. But, for example, if winters are getting longer, it can be an advantage to have a bit warmer of a coat. Or, if you are a plant, to be able to store nutrients in the roots that are below the level of frost. On the other hand, if the environment is getting warmer, it might be more advantageous to have a longer period of acquiring nutrients before going to seed, or to have a bad-tasting chemical produced that wards off herbivores.

There is no guarantee. If the mutation happens in an individual that gets killed by chance before reproduction, that mutation didn't help at all. But, if that mutation happens 100 times and helps 10 to reproduce better, it will spread.

Many mutations are additive with other mutations, so if the mate doesn't have the mutation, it can still benefit the offspring. Or, if dominant, it can appear and help the second or further generations.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Thanks for your reply, Polymath.
Even though I began this thread in regard to plants, I’ll unashamedly divert to the example of animals, since you mentioned animals in your post; the comment caught my attention!

I really want to get to the heart of the matter regarding what “survival” really means within the scope of evolutionary theory.

You stated, “An animal with a mutation that increases the ability to survive...”

I’d like to visualize this for us. Just for example, we’ll call it some land dwelling mammal (doesn’t matter what it is). This animal has been born, and it has a mutation. Yes, it’s a very small change of some sort, on the genetic level, as you explained. To look at the complete litter, you’d never know that this particular animal is different.

Let’s suppose that the average lifespan of this kind of animal is, say, 20 years. So this one little “mutated” animal makes his life journey. And along the way he: 1) matures, 2) reproduces, and 3) dies. And by the way, he makes it to age 20, the lifespan which was expected of him.

Questions:
- Did he “survive??” And what does it actually mean for this animal to survive? Is he a survivor simply because he makes to the end of a typical lifespan?

- Does his “survival” mean that he fended off a predator sometime along the way?

- How does a tiny genetic-level mutation aid in any way to this animal’s ability to overcome whatever obstacle he’s faced with?

- How does “surviving” have anything at all to do with the whether or not this genetic-level mutation is passed along to his offspring? (Or, simply bypassing this question...what guarantees that this genetic-level mutation is going to be preserved in any offspring, period?)

- Isn’t he likely going to mate with a (female) who does not possess this mutation? Won’t this pose a problem to this trait continuing to the offspring?

In picturing the scenario that evolutionary theory requires, these basic questions float to the surface.

Any follow up much appreciated..

If an individual has a mutation that favors survival, if it survives to reproduce so that its offspring will be more likely to survive, eventually that mutation becomes a part of the genome of the population--maybe not present in every individual, but in a portion of the population.

Individual survival only matters in evolution if it means that the traits (a minor mutation in your example) that makes it even slightly more likely to survive to reproduce than other members of the population of which it is a member.

 

[Brickjectivity]

"Survival instinct" implies awareness and intentionality.
There's no need for either of these. Natural selection, genetic drift, &c account for everything. Plants evolve mechanically, exactly the same way animals do. Humans just noticed a promising looking species and began intentionally, selectively breeding it, eventually leading to the maize we know today.
What keeps it the same is that it's a good design, versatile enough to maintain a reproducing population through millions of years of environmental change or, alternatively, because it chanced to be adapted to a stable niche that did not significantly change during that period.
This doesn't mean other species did not evolve from it, to fill other niches.

I see what you mean, so in that case the overall population continues but a separate population develops. I think that probably means that the population is divided first as with the birds on the Galapagos islands. Something has to divide the population or smaller mutations are less likely have a long term impact. I am not sure what might divide the horseshoe population, but it could happen. For example what if some horseshoe crabs live in a different climate than most? That might make some genetic mutation significant in that climate but not in the other climate.

 

[Nakosis]

In an earlier post, a particular topic of discussion sort of got lost in the various comments, so I wanted to start it fresh.

Someone described evolution thusly:
“Evolution happens in an environment and is directed towards survival in that environment (adaptation is the first step).”

I followed with this question:
“Does an ear of corn fall under this ‘survival’ statement?”

A response:
“Yes, of course. The evolution of corn happened in an environment where humans were selecting those ears that provided more kernels and made sure they were the ones that produced the next generation.”

My follow up:
“Let me clarify my ‘ear of corn’ statement... I was not talking about human beings developing a variety of corn. I’m talking about long before that. I’m referring to that point in time before corn even existed. Evolution tells us that a previous “simpler” plant must have given rise to corn, right? My question remains, ‘Did this simpler plant exhibit a survival instinct, so that another plant (corn) became the solution?’ “

Thoughts appreciated!

Supposedly nothing "prompts" evolution. Because of genetic drift changes in a species occur. An imperfection in the reproduction process. What effects the survival of a species is its ability to reproduce. If a change occurs which causes a plant to mature faster allowing it to reproduce faster for example. This allows the plant to dominate plants which don't have this genetic change.

Changes which increase the reproductive rate of a species makes it more likely for those changes to be passed on just because more will be produced. Changes which affect the reproductive rate negatively are less likely to be passed on.

Changes in the environment can also affect the reproductive rate of a species. So environmental changes and genetic changes which affects the reproductive rate of a species over time changes the characteristics that species.

 

[Sunstone]

...‘Did this simpler plant exhibit a survival instinct...

Besides the fact that plants apparently do not have instincts, instincts (including survival instincts) do not drive evolution. That is, an organism does not assess the environment it's living in, notice that something has changed about it, and then strive to adapt itself to the new. That was Larmarck's idea of evolution, but his notions were discredited at least a hundred years ago.