What prompts a plant to evolve?

[Jumi]

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

Unlikely to evolve at this point by natural selection, but humans can make a human selection.

I wonder where you got the idea that they would suddenly develop teeth? Was it just a joke or your understanding of evolution?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Unlikely to evolve at this point by natural selection, but humans can make a human selection.

I wonder where you got the idea that they would suddenly develop teeth? Was it just a joke or your understanding of evolution?

Just joking around, man!

BTW, what do you mean by "pure monotheism"?

 

[HonestJoe]

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

That’s a result of human intervention, actively propagating crops that work best for us farming it rather than the plant thriving naturally. The OP was specifically asking about the period before that and more generally about the drivers of natural plant evolution.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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!

Corn has always been a modified plant right from the start. You could say it evolved given that insects also have an active hand in modifying plants so that it survives.

Back on the subject of corn itself, most of the consensus , as mentioned already on this thread, has corn originating in central Mexico at least seven thousand years ago. Its history is really interesting.

As mentioned, It started From a wild grass called Teosinite that had small spaced kernels, and looked very different from the corn you get from farm lands today. Over the course of time it developed into the modern ear of corn. Much like how we modify today with selected modifications integrated into each growing season generation to generation.

 

[ChristineM]

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!

The imperative of the earlier plant (grass/all life) is to survive via reproduction. The more/stronger seed the grass produced aided that survival.

 

[Derek500]

For some reason I think that you're still unfamiliar with the basics of evolutionary theory. Populations evolve. Individuals don't.

 

[Jumi]

Just joking around, man!

Good, I never know on these forums.

BTW, what do you mean by "pure monotheism"?

Just one God with no extra baggage, no trinity, no satan, no adherence to dogmas.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

^ what he said.

 

[LuisDantas]

“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!

I am not sure if it is possible to tell whether modern corn's direct ancestors count as simpler plants (as opposed to simply constrasting ones), but I can tell you that there is no need nor (far as I can tell) evidence for a survival instinct for corn-like plants.

Selective pressure, not instincts, direct the adaptations that comprise plant evolution.

 

[Tmac]

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.

Your first paragraph sounds like a Beatle's song and your second one like Joni Mitchell and the rain forest gets smaller every day. It's a *****, but life is change, to stand still is to die.

The force behind evolution is not survival but the desire to be more, better. Its now time to evolve away from that concept.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It should be understood, also, that not every characteristic of a plant (or animal) is necessarily the "best fit" for current circumstances/environment, etc. EVERY form is an in-between form when considering evolutionary pressures - which are present in one form or another at all times. For example, corn may have evolved to be a tall plant, with its seed pods forming up high off the ground, because that configuration offered protection from many of the types of insects or grubs that might like to eat the cobs. Likewise the husk likely evolved for the same reasons - as a shield vs. pests and the elements. However, other creatures would also be evolving to get what they needed also - like insects who can fly up to the corn cobs, or burrowers who can make their way through the tough, multi-layered husks. So, given more time and exposure to these dangers in a more-or-less isolated ecosystem, corn may very well become something else entirely, with even more, or different protection mechanisms aimed at safeguarding it from whatever contemporary attackers it continually faces.

Also, not every characteristic's development had evolution/survival playing a heavy-hand in its development, especially probably those had from early stages. Think of a line pointed out into space directly at the center of the sun from Earth. It doesn't take many degrees of change to that line's trajectory to miss the sun entirely if you were to travel along the line. Meaning that some things may have started out early one way, and that way decided A LOT of what some characteristic of the plant/animal was going to be like by the time we reached modern day, but basically may be more or less arbitrary if that characteristic has never been entirely necessary for survival.

Lastly, I don't believe that "instincts" apply to plants. There is no central "knowledge" house, or data-store. So a plant doesn't necessarily have "instincts" as you're thinking of them. It has chemical or nastic or (etc.) reactions to environmental stimuli - which it came to have through evolutionary processes. Things the plant needed ended up being fitness cases of its progeny - the best of which were seen to move on to the "next round." The best of those doing the same, etc. Attributes the plants had that helped them survive would have been seen to amplify, and those that were detrimental to survival would be seen to become stunted, or vanish entirely.

 

[David T]

Your first paragraph sounds like a Beatle's song and your second one like Joni Mitchell and the rain forest gets smaller every day. It's a *****, but life is change, to stand still is to die.

The force behind evolution is not survival but the desire to be more, better. Its now time to evolve away from that concept.

Tmac Sorry my writing is way too long of a post a morning riff... Hell just listen to Eddie vedder.. Lol if ya like then read. Video at bottom.

Thank you and yes we need to move past our current narratives but that's a tricky thing. From a creative perspective I just call it presence. It can be felt in church and in nature. In religion theology, intelligent design, creationism, philosophy all kill presence. In nature all mechanical articulations kill presence. Both religion and science conspire to kill presence. They just disagree which is the proper way to go about that. I find it all stupid and confused.


I have really gotten into music lately in particular American root music. It's that pre literate illiterate music that used to be just orally passed on. No sheet music just played. It's the music of the people not of the highly educated. I want you to go and wiki how great thou art and study it's history. It's remarkable. I can Change about 5 words on that song subtly toning down the Christian articulation without the need to destroy that articulation and suddenly it's john Muir. John Muir was an extremely dedicated church goer he just went to the big church is all, it has no walls and he called it home. He just mailed into culture that it was open to all, but we seem to prefer our boxes.

It's just too much effort to really step out it's easier to read about it. Muir said "in stepping out, I was really stepping in". For john nature was alive, not just some dead **** randomly accidentally self assembling or a marionette maker existing outside reality. Which btw has been updated to a computer in some geek circles. Pitiful, hell not even half a clue.

If you check out how great though art and then you listen to this Eddie vedder cover of hard sun by indio, the two songs are identical. Both are nature and presense articulated differently with identical presence. I think music does this better than any other medium of art, but some in the various mediums are starting to become more aware the world is screwy. Stripmalls, TV, media culture, science, religion, philosophy, money politics, education, ain't everything by a long shot. It's a 24/7 lights on zoo in the middle of times square arguing how did times square create nature. Lol goofed.

 

[David T]

It should be understood, also, that not every characteristic of a plant (or animal) is necessarily the "best fit" for current circumstances/environment, etc. EVERY form is an in-between form when considering evolutionary pressures - which are present in one form or another at all times. For example, corn may have evolved to be a tall plant, with its seed pods forming up high off the ground, because that configuration offered protection from many of the types of insects or grubs that might like to eat the cobs. Likewise the husk likely evolved for the same reasons - as a shield vs. pests and the elements. However, other creatures would also be evolving to get what they needed also - like insects who can fly up to the corn cobs, or burrowers who can make their way through the tough, multi-layered husks. So, given more time and exposure to these dangers in a more-or-less isolated ecosystem, corn may very well become something else entirely, with even more, or different protection mechanisms aimed at safeguarding it from whatever contemporary attackers it continually faces.

Also, not every characteristic's development had evolution/survival playing a heavy-hand in its development, especially probably those had from early stages. Think of a line pointed out into space directly at the center of the sun from Earth. It doesn't take many degrees of change to that line's trajectory to miss the sun entirely if you were to travel along the line. Meaning that some things may have started out early one way, and that way decided A LOT of what some characteristic of the plant/animal was going to be like by the time we reached modern day, but basically may be more or less arbitrary if that characteristic has never been entirely necessary for survival.

Lastly, I don't believe that "instincts" apply to plants. There is no central "knowledge" house, or data-store. So a plant doesn't necessarily have "instincts" as you're thinking of them. It has chemical or nastic or (etc.) reactions to environmental stimuli - which it came to have through evolutionary processes. Things the plant needed ended up being fitness cases of its progeny - the best of which were seen to move on to the "next round." The best of those doing the same, etc. Attributes the plants had that helped them survive would have been seen to amplify, and those that were detrimental to survival would be seen to become stunted, or vanish entirely.

Nature is a singular manifesting multiplicity, not a multiplicity manifesting a grand singular narrative. Place the dysfunctionally self labeled region of the human brain"higher functiining" at the bottom of evolutionary development that's a fact. That region of the brain as its developed is the newest and absolutely most primative part of the evolutionary narrative on this planet. I would like to know based on what evidence other than its natural tendency towards self reference points to that region of the cranium being anything but dysfunctional and primative. A simple look at the current enviromental issues points to it being dysfunctional. Science calls it the antropocene epoch. The dysfunctionalism is manifesting in the enviroment itself. Nature starts top down not random chaotic primative crap up to profound me or the Higher function locus in the cranium. That region of the brain is, as understood, complete nonsense. That's a pine needle pretending it's manifesting the tree. Wrong. "I think" has zero to do with evolution "I think" is evolutions b@@ch absolute in totality. Oh look identical to the old Joseph narrative 3000 years ago. Nothing new ever just repeating ourselves is all in new clothes.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Nature is a singular manifesting multiplicity, not a multiplicity manifesting a grand singular narrative. Place the dysfunctionally self labeled region of the human brain"higher functiining" at the bottom of evolutionary development that's a fact. That region of the brain as its developed is the newest and absolutely most primative part of the evolutionary narrative on this planet. I would like to know based on what evidence other than its natural tendency towards self reference points to that region of the cranium being anything but dysfunctional and primative. A simple look at the current enviromental issues points to it being dysfunctional. Science calls it the antropocene epoch. The dysfunctionalism is manifesting in the enviroment itself. Nature starts top down not random chaotic primative crap up to profound me or the Higher function locus in the cranium. That region of the brain is, as understood, complete nonsense. That's a pine needle pretending it's manifesting the tree. Wrong. "I think" has zero to do with evolution "I think" is evolutions b@@ch absolute in totality. Oh look identical to the old Joseph narrative 3000 years ago. Nothing new ever just repeating ourselves is all in new clothes.

You are railing against nothing at all. I completely agree that what we consider our "evolved" brain is still in its infancy, and has definitely not proven to be any objective "best" among the possible attributes that a creature may be found to be adept at. And yes, many people point to the human intelligence as the paragon of evolutionary "achievement" - which is a complete load of crap.

So we are in agreement on that point. However... none of that means I can't make conjecture about how a corn plant became a corn plant, or bear witness to the subject of evolution when I feel that I can see its forms, results and vast likelihood in all life that I witness on this planet. What gets hurt when I do so? If it is nothing more than someone's feelings then I can safely maintain that nothing at all of any importance was hurt, and whatever accusation you are leveling at me with the above tirade has absolutely no base.

 

[atanu]

... 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. .....

But we do that. Don't we? If you say yes, then will you also say that evolution developed this trait of SWOT analysis in us?

 

[David T]

You are railing against nothing at all. I completely agree that what we consider our "evolved" brain is still in its infancy, and has definitely not proven to be any objective "best" among the possible attributes that a creature may be found to be adept at. And yes, many people point to the human intelligence as the paragon of evolutionary "achievement" - which is a complete load of crap.

So we are in agreement on that point. However... none of that means I can't make conjecture about how a corn plant became a corn plant, or bear witness to the subject of evolution when I feel that I can see its forms, results and vast likelihood in all life that I witness on this planet. What gets hurt when I do so? If it is nothing more than someone's feelings then I can safely maintain that nothing at all of any importance was hurt, and whatever accusation you are leveling at me with the above tirade has absolutely no base.

I wasn't railing against you at all. In fact I wouldn't have written if I knew you were some clueless goof. Maybe my way of saying yes, but push it a lot further. Even Our conversations about evolution are encapsulated by evolution.

It's a big topic that our narratives can't get around on. Life interconnected, nature as primary and alive is all pre literate, pre civilization given. So the topic isn't remotely new. We along the way educated ourselves into intellectual fantasy about nature is all. Strip away thousands of years of transfered fantasies in our theories about books, about books about books, and modern communication all we then have is nature and a teepee!! Lol.

I think we want the civilization without the inconvience of nature as a culture!! It's such a pain in the ***. I say pave it all, be done with it. One giant new York City globally. Now that is a great dream. Maybe one giant amazon globally with a variety of stores inside and silk plants maybe? OK the silk plants are a bad idea. Cotton? Carbon fiber? Dacron? Lol.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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..

Survival in this case simply means being able to pass on their genetic material via reproduction. They could live only a single year, but if they reproduce they will have passed their genetic material along. Of course there is no guarantee that the offspring will successfully reproduce, in which case that particular genetic material will be lost.

 

[atanu]

Nature is a singular manifesting multiplicity, not a multiplicity manifesting a grand singular narrative. ....

 

[David T]

A nice expression of the logos!!!

 

[Valjean]

The force behind evolution is not survival but the desire to be more, better. Its now time to evolve away from that concept.

But that's just not so. Natural selection, gene flow, mutation and genetic drift drive evolution, not wishful thinking.

But we do that. Don't we? If you say yes, then will you also say that evolution developed this trait of SWOT analysis in us?

Alas, we do do that. In a way, we've removed ourselves from the natural checks and balances of ecology and become an infectious organism.