The origin of the flowering plants is, as DarkSyde observes, critical to the world as we know it. Not just because chocolate is lovely, as are roses. But because honey tastes good, and the diversity of butterflies is a never-ending source of joy to us all. If not for flowering plants, the insects would be a drab bunch.
It's hardly surprising that insect diversity and plant diversity have followed one another closely through geological history. Like so many romances, the story of plants and insects is a love-hate relationship, with happiness built by finding a happy middle.
The bee in the photograph above the fold is a member of the family Halictidae, a sweat bee, and it is collecting pollen. Bees get protein from pollen, and get sugar from the nectar at the base of the flower. The turn that protein and sugar into honey for their young, and as they fly from flower to flower, some of the pollen that stuck to them in one flower gets transferred to the next. This is why farmers will hire beekeepers to set their hives up in orchards and fields, because those bees are necessary to produce the fruits we all enjoy.
Not all flowers are as promiscuous as the rose that bee is pollinating. A flower that lets any insect at all get to the pollen will waste a lot of pollen. The bee might not fly to another rose of the same species, and might not have come from a rose of the same species. They have to waste energy producing excess pollen and attracting more bees so that enough will come by to ensure that some bee will eventually do the job.
Orchids have chosen a different path. Their elaborate flower shapes often wind up resembling a very specific species of insects, and will produce odors similar to that one insect's pheromones. The fly or bee will be fooled into thinking he has found a mate, and in tussling with the tricky petals, will get covered in pollen, off he'll go, and the next female he thinks he sees may well be another orchid flower, where he can release some of the old pollen and inadvertently get some more. Of course, as different species of orchids come into contact, the ones that are most effective at attracting insects that are as different from other orchids will do the best at pollinating and getting pollinated, and thus species boundaries will get reinforced, and orchid diversity skyrockets.
By the same token, insects that can recognize the difference between a flower and a mate will leave more offspring, and the ones that have the most distinct mating signals will waste less time on flowers. This will create and strengthen mating boundaries between populations of insects, promoting speciation. That tug-of-war has given us the diversity of orchids we see in gardens and flower shops, and on our loved ones during this Valentine's Day.
- Log in to post comments
The evolution of co-dependent traits -- such as the co-dependent traits of bees and flowers -- is called "co-evolution." The serious barriers to co-evolution are discussed in the following articles on my blog --
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/09/co-evolution-redux.html
-- and --
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/04/co-evolutionary-paradox.ht…
Josh said,
This is like saying that human societies where the males waste less time with pornography have greater chances of survival and propagation.
(http:// prefixes have been removed from links to prevent the comment from hanging up)
The evolution of co-dependent traits -- such as the co-dependent traits of bees and flowers -- is called "co-evolution." The serious barriers to co-evolution are discussed in the following articles on my blog --
im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/09/co-evolution-redux.html
-- and --
im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/04/co-evolutionary-paradox.html
Josh said,
This is like saying that human societies where the males waste less time with pornography have greater chances of survival and propagation.
Hi, Larry
Even though I really didn't want to bump up the sitemeter on your blog, I did traipse over there to read this thread (you know, you really ought to learn how to write some basic HTML). It was worth it. Besides the fact that your "argument" is basically the old argument from incredulity (i don't understand how this happened, so it obviously never happened), and the truly hilarious exchanges between DaveTard and JAD in the comments for that post, I thought that the original post sounded just a bit too coherent for you to have written it. I was right. A simple Google search (which I know you are a master of) revealed that the original text was written by someone called Andy H in a comment on Panda's Thumb a couple of months earlier.
Either you are a plagiarist or you faked your identity once again. Tsk tsk. You may end up in hell if you keep up this mendacity.
The plagiarism is not nearly as bad as the fact that he's wrong. I've pointed out a simple model of coevolution here. Larry seems to think that any of these novel traits should have come into existence at once. That is not anything like how anyone thinks evolution works.
Actually, Josh, I have to strongly disagree with your statement that the "plagiarism is not nearly as bad as the fact that he's wrong."
Larry is ALWAYS wrong; that is a given. So his blog post is unremarkable in that regard.
As an academic, and a scientist, I can forgive someone for being wrong. But since science and lots of other human enterprises depend absolutely on honesty, I think that plagiarism is a capital offense. This sort of thing would get him kicked out of a university like the one where you are getting your degree. Granted, the blogosphere is not a university, but in my mind at least, passing off somebody else's words and thoughts as your own is a very serious transgression. I'm frankly sorry to hear that you don't understand that.
Albatrossity said,
"Even though I really didn't want to bump up the sitemeter on your blog"
You couldn't do nearly as good a job of that as PZ Myers. After he said on his blog that my blog is a "bottomless pit of stupidity," my blog traffic spiked to about 5-8 times its normal level.
"I did traipse over there to read this thread (you know, you really ought to learn how to write some basic HTML)."
My opening posts use all of the HTML options available on blogger.com -- blockquotes, bold, italics, strikeouts, text-embedded links, and picture-pasting. The comment threads have only bold, italic, and text-embedded links available. My longer opening posts use "folds," where part of the post is hidden from view on the main and archive pages. Many -- maybe most -- blogger.com bloggers don't use post folding because they are either unaware that it is available or because it requires the addition of special coding to the blog templates.
"It was worth it"
Well, thank you.
"Besides the fact that your "argument" is basically the old argument from incredulity (i don't understand how this happened, so it obviously never happened)"
Well, I will then call your Darwinist stuff "arguments from credulity."
"and the truly hilarious exchanges between DaveTard and JAD in the comments for that post, I thought that the original post sounded just a bit too coherent for you to have written it."
Yes, I myself am sometimes amused by these characters.
"I was right. A simple Google search (which I know you are a master of) revealed that the original text was written by someone called Andy H in a comment on Panda's Thumb a couple of months earlier."
Andy H was me -- I was using a false name because I was banned on Panda's Thumb.
Either you are a plagiarist or you faked your identity once again.
I think that you owe me an apology for falsely suggesting that I am a plagiarist.
Josh said,
"I've pointed out a simple model of coevolution here. Larry seems to think that any of these novel traits should have come into existence at once."
I pointed out a reason for that: co-dependent species often can interact only in large numbers. For example, a bee visits many flowers and a flower is visited by many bees.
True. I guess it's a matter of expectations. Larry and his kindred spirits can be expected to be dishonest. It does no harm for them to live up to that expectation. When they misrepresent science, that actively misinforms people and does harm to many others. If he were plagiarizing truthful statements, that at least would harm only the person being plagiarized.
Larry, even a small change in average fitness will have effects over the long term of evolution. Even a small change, multiplied by large numbers, will have profound effects.
Josh said,
"If he were plagiarizing truthful statements, that at least would harm only the person being plagiarized."
I said that I did not plagiarize anything! Andy H was me.
If you want to denounce a real plagiarist, go after Judge Jones.
Larry's reading comprehension skills come to the fore once more... I pointed out that there are two conclusions that can be derived from the facts. Either he is a plagiarist OR he faked his identity. Now he demands an apology because only one of those statements, separated by "or", is verifiably true. Is English your second language, Larry? Do you understand what "or" means?
Sorry, Larry. I think that faking your identity is still despicable. I think that whatever behaviors got you banned from PT (and Pharyngula, and probably multiple blogs I don't know about) was probably also despicable. I think you should apologize for all of that, but I won't hold my breath.
Oh, and as Josh points out, you're dead wrong about coevolution as well. You're batting 1.000 today. Keep it up.
Albatrossity said,
"Sorry, Larry. I think that faking your identity is still despicable."
Sorry, Albatrossity. I think that arbitrary banning and deletion of comments on the Internet is despicable. My use of false names on Panda's Thumb was justified because I was already banned there.
"I think that whatever behaviors got you banned from PT (and Pharyngula, and probably multiple blogs I don't know about) was probably also despicable."
You are just making blind, wild accusations. My commenting on others' blogs has been civil, serious, and on-topic.
I have been banned only on PT and the personal blogs of PT bloggers PZ Myers, Ed Brayton, and Wesley Elsberry.
"Oh, and as Josh points out, you're dead wrong about coevolution as well."
If you think I am wrong about co-evolution, why don't you give reasons on my blog? You are just a bag of hot air.
Larry wrote re his banning from other blogs: "You are just making blind, wild accusations. My commenting on others' blogs has been civil, serious, and on-topic."
Funny, I don't seem to recall it that way. In fact, I am pretty sure that you were banned from a couple of places for
wait for it....
faking your identity!
Nice try.
"My use of false names on Panda's Thumb was justified because I was already banned there."
No. Comment sections are, in my opinion, the property of the blog owner. If you are asked to leave, coming back under a different identity is still trespassing. You have no inherent right to comment on someone else's blog.
You have been given a clear rebuttal regarding coevolution right here. You can ignore it if you choose, but it is there for you to confront in a manner that would be "civil, serious and on-topic." So far I don't see it.
Josh said,
"Comment sections are, in my opinion, the property of the blog owner. If you are asked to leave, coming back under a different identity is still trespassing. You have no inherent right to comment on someone else's blog."
I emphatically disagree. I think that arbitrarily censoring comments and commenters is contrary to good Internet etiquette. Censorship defeats one of the biggest advances of the Internet: a big potential increase in the interchange of ideas. Furthermore, presenting only one side of a story destroy's a blog's credibility.
You have been given a clear rebuttal regarding coevolution right here.
You said,
I've pointed out a simple model of coevolution here. Larry seems to think that any of these novel traits should have come into existence at once. That is not anything like how anyone thinks evolution works.
You call that a "clear rebuttal"? You didn't specifically address any of the five numbered points that I raised on my blog article at --
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/09/co-evolution-redux.html
Albatrossity said,
Funny, I don't seem to recall it that way. In fact, I am pretty sure that you were banned from a couple of places for
wait for it....
faking your identity!
You're only "pretty sure"? Not "real sure"? Give me one good reason why I should fake my identity where I am not banned. I am not faking it here, am I?
"I think that arbitrarily censoring comments and commenters is contrary to good Internet etiquette. Censorship defeats one of the biggest advances of the Internet: a big potential increase in the interchange of ideas. Furthermore, presenting only one side of a story destroy's a blog's credibility."
This is absurd. You have your place to speak about whatever you want, but you have no inherent right to use someone else's blog to promote your agenda. If you are asked to leave, coming back under a different identity is dishonest and inappropriate.
Here is why your 5 points are wrong:
Wrong. Organisms respond to various aspects of the natural world, including other species. Bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics produced by fungi, and no one seems to find that controversial. The initial phase of coevolution would be an adaptation to some equally ubiquitous aspect of an existing species.
This is silly. You are either equivocating in your meaning of "harmful," or you don't understand what you wrote. What happens in the absence of the other species is only relevant if the first species ever occurs in the absence of the other. If it does, that simply places a strong selective pressure on each species. Selection doesn't only operate when we reduce fitness in some places, one can also increase fitness over the baseline.
(3) Often, co-dependent organisms can interact only in large numbers -- e.g., a bee visits many flowers and a flower is visited by many bees. Hence, it may be necessary for large numbers of both kinds of organisms to simultaneously appear in the same place at the same time.
Or for them to occur in large numbers naturally (not to "appear"). Small changes in fitness can also have large impacts down the road. A flower which slightly increases its pollinator specificity will be marginally more fit. Over multiple generations, those small differences add up. You are posing an "all or nothing" model that is not what any biologist thinks would happen.
(4) Often a co-dependent relationship consists of an "irreducibly complex" combination of pairs of traits rather than a single pair of traits -- e.g., a flower must both produce nectar and have colors and/or scents that attract pollinators, and the pollinators must be able to both consume the nectar and have the ability to detect the colors and/or scents. This compounds the problems presented by co-evolution and irreducible complexity. In some cases, the irreducible complexity involved in co-evolution could involve multiple organs, e.g., bees' digestive systems that process nectar and bees' sensory organs for seeing and/or smelling the flowers.
This simply illustrates the absurdity of IC as a concept. Nectar is sugar, the ability to digest sugar is universal in life. The ability to recognize color or scents can have any number of selective benefits in mate or predator recognition, as well as in identifying good food sources. The idea that this is IC reflects your own ignorance of simple concepts.
"just a few million years"? For bees which reproduce many millions of times per year, and plants which flower annually if not more often? That gets us to millions of generations over millions of years. Even if there were differences in fitness on the order of thousandths of a percent, millions of years are more than enough time. And the differences in fitness observable in nature and in experimental tests of coevolution are dramatically larger than thousandths of a percent.
You would know all of this if you had ever read any of the excellent books or articles on the topic.
Sorry, Josh. I hate to give Larry something to chew on before he tackles your well-reasoned post. But we both know that he probably won't do that anyway, as much as we hope he does.
Larry wrote: "Give me one good reason why I should fake my identity where I am not banned. I am not faking it here, am I?"
Larry, as noted before, I can't give you one good reason to EVER fake your identity! So that may be the single dumbest rhetorical question I have ever seen in my life.
As for "real sure" about why you were banned from other blogs, try this link. Yeah, I'm real sure.
Josh said,
Think about what public forums were like in the "good old days": there were just the letters-to-the-editor sections of newspapers and magazines, radio talk shows, and a few public meetings. Compare those public forums to the Internet as means of disseminating and discussing ideas. We should appreciate the great power of the Internet as a public forum and not diminish that power by practicing arbitrary censorship. Unlike many bloggers, I want to see ideas that are different from my own -- that helps me learn.
The fungi are already there -- I was talking about situations where the other species or its corresponding feature is not there. Also, your bacteria-and-fungi model is not an example of mutualism, where both species benefit. Mutualism is often the most difficult interspecies relationship to evolve because simultaneous and same-place evolutionary responses are often necessary from both species. In contrast, parasitism, for example, often does not require an evolutionary response from the host species (an exception is where the parasite is entirely dependent on the host and the parasitism causes the extinction of the host).
I am not just talking about situations where the other species is absent but I am also talking about situations where the corresponding co-dependent features of the other species are absent. Consider pollen, for example. Pollen is often specially suited to be carried by either animals or the wind (and sometimed water). Having pollen that is suited to be carried only by animals where no pollinating animals are present can be harmful to the plant. And often, a co-dependent trait that is simply useless because the corresponding co-dependent trait does not exist can be harmful, just as wings can be harmful to a bird if there is no atmosphere to fly in -- the wings would just be a burden.
That flower will be marginally more fit only if co-dependent pollinators with corresponding specificity are present.
There are many animals that do not consume sugar and which may lack the ability to digest it. The ability of bees to turn nectar into honey is unique. Some plants take advantage of other species' mating characteristics by mimicking those characteristics in order to attract the other species as pollinators, but this kind of interspecies relationship is comparatively rare.
As for my being ignorant, the big problem with the Dover school board members is that they were incapable of discussing ID or IC at all, and that really hurt their case.
The time factor is just another barrier to evolution, and the time factor is exacerbated by anything that would tend to slow down evolution.
The Internet has almost no articles about co-evolution. As for books on the subject, there may not be any good ones and I can't make it down to libraries anyway.
Albatrossity said,
What made you think that I probably wouldn't answer?
Albatrossity said,
It makes good sense to try to hide one's identity where one has been banned, doesn't it? Anyway, my attempts to hide my identity often do not work because readers often recognize the high levels of knowledgeability and astuteness in my comments and figure that it's me.
Albatrossity said,
Yes, I am aware of what PZ said about me. I think it is more of a reflection on him than it is on me.
Why are you talking about situations where the other species isn't there? Why is that the relevant case to consider? That is not how anyone proposes that coevolution happens. It is a red herring which confuses your entire analysis. Mutualistic interactions begin with two species coming together without being mutualists, and without adaptations to mutualism to begin with.
Furthermore, if you don't think species adapt to parasitism, you are crazy. Parasites harm their hosts (by definition, if they have no effect it is called commensalism). Therefore, an individual that is able to limit the harm from a parasite will leave more offspring, and that trait will spread. A case of parasitism can even turn into a case of mutualism by that process. Mutualism between nitrogen-fixing bacteria and leguminous plants are one example where this happened.
It is demonstrable that virulence of infectious agents declines when a population infected is relatively limited. The infectious agent which is very fatal will kill its host before the host can pass the disease on. An infectious agent which does not kill its host can spread much more widely.
Your idea that pollen specific to a pollinator would have to evolve in one step is simply bogus. No one thinks that. Wind-carried pollen will still stick to a pollinator after all, and the process of adapting to a given pollinator need not be rapid, let alone instantaneous as you seem to believe.
What species do not consume sugar? I am aware of no species that do not.
I don't know where Dover came into this, but if you don't think IC was discussed in the trial, you are out of your gourd. Read the transcript.
I take no responsibility for your inability to go to a library. You choose to remain ignorant, yet to speak without knowledge. Hardly surprising that you have been widely banned. Letters to the editor are edited and radio calls are screened. They require that people who send in letters have given accurate names and addresses, and exclude cranks and people who give fake identities.
That you think such behavior is not only acceptable, but necessary, says a great deal about you and your lack of ethics.
I see Larry is still up to his same tricks. He has repeatedly been told not to comment on Ed Brayton's blog, but it seems he can't help himself and continally makes up new names to post there and lies about it to compound it. He seems to think that everyone has to follow his blog policy and so he's justified in using whatever means he can to post wherever he wants if they don't. It would be one thing if he actually had a anything worth saying, but it's always the same old blather about Judge Jones or refuted arguements like this one about co-evolution repeated ad nauseam. Yes Larry, I know you don't think so. I'm sure you still think nobody has an answer nor have they ever even attempted to answer your objections.
I shant bother with Larry's ill-informed rants on co-evolution yet again. If anyone is interested in what transpired before, you can go HERE to the comments section on Jason's blog. See also HERE.
From his home planet, Larry wrote:
NO, Larry. As pointed out numerous times in English, a language you apparently can write but not yet read, faking your identity is bad. Despicable. Uncalled-for. Disgusting. Get a thesaurus in whatever language you read on that planet and look up all the synonyms you can for "deceitful", and then apply it to your actions.
As for the "high levels of knowledgeability and astuteness" comment, that is such a softball that I will regretfully leave it alone. Whoosh.
Josh said,
"Why are you talking about situations where the other species isn't there?"
I am not only talking about situations where the other species isn't there, but also about situations where the other species does not have the corresponding co-dependent traits. There is a strong likelihood that the co-dependent trait will be absent and if it is, then the first species will not benefit from its mutation and may actually be harmed by it.
"if you don't think species adapt to parasitism, you are crazy."
I never said that. You are putting words in my mouth. I only said that parasitism "often does not require an evolutionary response." Often the host can just learn to live with the parasite and the parasite does not require the host's adaptation in order to benefit and is often hurt by the host's adaptation.
"Therefore, an individual that is able to limit the harm from a parasite will leave more offspring, and that trait will spread. A case of parasitism can even turn into a case of mutualism by that process. Mutualism between nitrogen-fixing bacteria and leguminous plants are one example where this happened."
Was that ever a parasitic relationship?
"Wind-carried pollen will still stick to a pollinator after all, and the process of adapting to a given pollinator need not be rapid, let alone instantaneous as you seem to believe."
Often incremental changes are of no benefit in co-evolution unless there are corresponding changes at the same place and at the same time in other species. A drastic change could be disastrous when the corresponding co-dependent traits in other species are absent. Even where co-evolution can progress by means of alternating incremental changes in the two species, the process would be much slower than where drastic changes are possible, e.g., the sudden appearance of fully developed wings on a lizard. As I said, time is an important factor because many evolutionary processes had only a few million years to take place.
"What species do not consume sugar? I am aware of no species that do not."
Many carnivorous animals do not consume sugar. Some get a little sugar or other carbohydrate from what is in the digestive tracts of their prey. Do any animals in the ocean consume sugar?
"I don't know where Dover came into this, but if you don't think IC was discussed in the trial, you are out of your gourd. Read the transcript."
Dover came into this because you accused me of being ignorant, so I gave an example of real ignorance for comparison: some Dover school board members who voted for the ID policy were asked to give the simplest definitions of ID or IC and could not. IC was of course discussed in the trial -- it was a major part of the expert scientific testimony.
"Letters to the editor are edited and radio calls are screened."
Radio calls of course cannot be screened in advance on the basis of what the callers are going to say. Letters to the editor are screened because of space limitations. Many good letters are rejected and some bad ones are printed. The Internet, however, has no space limitations -- I have seen many comment threads that are hundreds of comments long.
Albatrossity said,
"I see Larry is still up to his same tricks. He has repeatedly been told not to comment on Ed Brayton's blog, but it seems he can't help himself and continally makes up new names to post there and lies about it to compound it."
I stopped commenting on Ed's blog a long time ago -- that's just other commenters who Ed thinks are me. Ed makes himself look good by arbitrarily censoring commenters who disagree with him. Arbitrary censorship is just not good Internet etiquette.
As for the "high levels of knowledgeability and astuteness" comment, that is such a softball that I will regretfully leave it alone. Whoosh.
There is slow-pitch softball and fast-pitch softball. My comments are fast-pitch.
That wasn't Al who said that.
Amazing how those "other commenters" use the exact same arguments and the exact same pseudonyms and the exact same Internet accounts you use. What are the odds!! You're simply not telling the truth here Larry. I wish I could say I was surprised. You got some gall talking about good Internet etiquette when you repeatedly make up false identities to get back on boards where you are banned.
And obviously that fast pitch must have hitted you in the head if you actually think your posts show "high levels of knowledgeability and astuteness".
Dave S. said,
That wasn't Al who said that.
Well, he said something similar, so it is understandable that I used his name by mistake.
Amazing how those "other commenters" use the exact same arguments and the exact same pseudonyms and the exact same Internet accounts you use.
Well, they see my arguments and copy them. I am the only one who uses my Internet account. However, I share a proxy IP address with other users.
You got some gall talking about good Internet etiquette when you repeatedly make up false identities to get back on boards where you are banned.
The ones who got a lot of -- not just some -- gall are the bloggers who arbitrarily ban commenters who are civil, serious, and on-topic. The Internet culture needs to change to make this banning crap widely frowned upon. And ISP's and blog services should change their practices so as to make banning difficult or impossible.
Bloggers should either accept all comments or none. Ed and some other bloggers accept only those comments that make themselves look good.
"Many carnivorous animals do not consume sugar. Some get a little sugar or other carbohydrate from what is in the digestive tracts of their prey. Do any animals in the ocean consume sugar?"
YOU FLAMING MORON!!! YES! SUGAR IS THE BASIC MEANS BY WHICH ALL LIFE STORES ENERGY!!! SUGAR CIRCULATES IN ALL LIFE FORMS, INCLUDING CARNIVORES!!!! LOOK UP "GLUCOSE" SOME TIME. IT IS THE BASIC INPUT INTO ALL AEROBIC RESPIRATION!!!!
Ahh, feels good to get that out of my system. All living things process glucose (a sugar) at some point in their digestive process. Fats, carbohydrates and proteins are converted to sugar (or byproducts of sugar metabolism) in order to be used by any cell.
"Often incremental changes are of no benefit in co-evolution unless there are corresponding changes at the same place and at the same time in other species."
Can you cite any basis for this statement? At all? In other words, are you just making things up? Again? Because I am unaware of any evidence for this absurd claim.
Here is a paper showing how leguminous plants have adapted to prevent rhizobia (mutualistic bacteria) from reverting to parasitism: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AN/journal/issues/v156n6/990093/990093…
Denison, R. (2000) "Legume Sanctions and the Evolution of Symbiotic Cooperation by Rhizobia," American Naturalist, Vol. 156, pp. 567-576.
"There is a strong likelihood that the co-dependent trait will be absent and if it is, then the first species will not benefit from its mutation and may actually be harmed by it."
What basis do you have for saying that? Are you making things up still? When one makes an empirical statement, it helps to be able to cite evidence.
As I've said before, mutualism will often begin with two species which may interact only infrequently. One may begin by deriving a benefit by associating with another species, which may help or harm that other species. That species will then adapt to the first species once they have come into contact. The two species will then continue to adapt to one another and to the changes happening to the other one. I don't see why this is so hard to understand.
Yes Larry. It's not you making up false ID's (but you'd be justified if you did). It's those others who just want to make people think they are you and use your arguments virtually verbatim.
Sheesh. Can you really blame people for not wanting your crap to clutter their blogs? But no, according to you, you should have the right to post on someone's blog whether they want you to or not.
Thankfully, few think like you.
Josh says:
You can say it till you're blue in the face. This has been explained to Larry several times before. He simply repeats the same mantra over and over and over unchanged. Then he'll go off and wonder why no-one has ever addressed his concerns about co-evolution.
I agree with Dave S, mindless repetition is not science.
Josh said,
YOU FLAMING MORON!!!
For a blogger who insists on civility from commenters, it was very hypocritical of you to make that comment.
SUGAR CIRCULATES IN ALL LIFE FORMS, INCLUDING CARNIVORES!!!!
My point was that they do not consume -- i.e., eat -- sugar.
Suppose that at some stage in the evolution of bees, they could find flowers only by sight. Then suppose a flower has a mutation that produces a scent. But that mutation would not do the flower any good unless there are bees or other pollinators around that have a sense of smell.
Here is a paper showing how leguminous plants have adapted to prevent rhizobia (mutualistic bacteria) from reverting to parasitism:
So plants that don't make this adaptation are harmed. No surprise there. I said that my arguments do not apply to parasitism.
Why do I have to explain things that are self-explanatory? If, for example, a mutation makes an organism entirely dependent on the existence of a co-dependent trait in another organism, then the absence of that co-dependent trait in other organisms is obviously going to harm the first organism. Even if there is no absolute dependence, the mutation could still be just a burden. It could be like sprouting wings when there is no atmosphere to fly in.
This is not a direct answer to any of the arguments that I raised. You are just waving your arms here.
Anyway, to me the most important thing is that we are having this debate. Many Darwinists, such as Judge Jones, have been trying to suppress this debate in public schools and elsewhere. Jones prohibited requiring even the mere mention of criticisms of Darwinism (all criticisms, not just ID) in the Dover public schools.
But oh so accurate.
Given that sugar circulates in all life-forms Larry, how do carnivores avoid it when they eat their prey? Do they spit out each molecule?
My what a lot of supposing. No point in asking if you any evidence at all for this, the mere fact you can imagine it is good enough. Suppose bees can smell, which we actually have evidence that they can. Suppose they never found flowers only by sight. Suppose flowers have smell for reasons other than those imaginary bees of yours.
What makes you think wings are only good for flight? Penguins don't fly. Ostriches don't. What good are wings to them?
Gee, isn't there one biologist out there who can answer Larry's arguments?? No?? I thought not.
There is no scientific debate Larry. It's just people talking sense and it having it bounce off your skull. Nothing much to teach there.
But that is both wrong and irrelevant. Saying it makes you a flaming moron. I think it's indecent of you to flaunt your ignorance, and to then insist upon it. There is sugar in every living thing. Therefore, anything that eats living things eats sugar. Quod erat demonstrandum.
First of all, you are assuming that bees have no need for chemoreception (smell) other than finding flowers. This is false. Pheromones are a common means not just of finding food within insects in general, but are a key component of mating and other forms of communication throughout the animal kingdom. A plant which produces a compound similar to a pheromone will attract a specific species of insect. An insect that happens to favor a given scent will tend to frequent that species of flower, which will apply selective pressure to increase the species specificity of the scent, which will increase insect fidelity, and soon you've got coevolution.
But rhizobia aren't currently parasitic. These are adaptations which prevent a return to the ancestral parasitic form.
Like where? Space? Do space insects have wings? Whether a mutation is or is not a burden depends on the mutation. There is a well-understood theory of neutral mutations as the dominant form of mutation. It is an error to assume that a single mutation would make one species instantly dependent on another. The process I and everyone else who talks about coevolution propose is that the changes are gradual. Have you not yet picked up on that, despite my repeating it several times?
Do you consider it "decent" to ignore what people say to you?
Your arguments are wrong. I was explaining why, so that you could present arguments that actually addressed what biologists actually claim happens.
There is an active and ongoing debate within science about the process of evolution. What happened in Dover did not engage that argument. That was a social and religious dispute. The scientific debate happens in the peer reviewed literature. You might just have to visit a library to learn about it.
I think it's interesting that Africanized killer bees release a scent that to us smells like bananas, but to them is a signal for everyone to attack. They also use scent to know we are there in the first place...nothing sets them off like the smell of carbon dioxide.
Josh,
As you can see, I am finally able to post here again (either the webmaster fixed my problem or it disappeared spontaneously -- probably the latter). As you know, I prepared a reply to Dave S., but I am not going to post it. In fact, I am not going to post any more comments on your blog. You just leave a bad taste in my mouth (which I guess was your intent). When I asked you to do me the favor of posting my comment because I couldn't post it myself, you rudely refused, saying that my posting problem was the result of my own "incompetent inability" to post comments. Good riddance.
"In fact, I am not going to post any more comments on your blog."
Woe is me. And woe is you, who insists on attributing to design things more properly attributed to chance. I didn't stop you from commenting, and I didn't pick a fight over it.
Get over it and yourself.
When you said that I had an "incompetent inability to post comments," that was it for me. As I said, it is hypocritical to insist on politeness from your commenters when you are not polite yourself.
Oh dear...all that valuble knowledge lost forever. I'll not be able to sleep tonight wondering what powerful pearls of wisdom Larry had in store for me.
Noted that after he said he wouldn't post here again, he promptly did so the next day. Typical Larry.
Noted that after he said he wouldn't post here again, he promptly did so the next day. Typical Larry.
Physician, heal thyself. You changed your mind about not commenting on my "ill-informed rants on co-evolution yet again" -- see comments #20 and #30 in this thread.
Typical Dave S.
And again.
When I said I was not going to post here again, I meant on-topic posts. Dave S. said that he was not going to respond to any more of my on-topic posts -- i.e., posts concerning co-evolution -- but he did. And the reason why he did was that he found my arguments against co-evolution to be too persuasive.
"In fact, I am not going to post any more comments on your blog."
I don't care if you post or not, but you've posted three times since saying you would post no more comments at all. I don't see weasel words about "on topic," nor do I care. Comment or don't, I don't care. I don't know why you chose to take our email conversation public, and I don't care about that either. I don't know why you couldn't comment before, and I don't care.
Larry just keeps on lying, doesn't he? He can't help himself really.
Watching Larry attempt to argue co-evolution is a problem for evolution is like watching someone try to argue that radiative heat transfer is a problem for thermodynamics because the two objects aren't touching.
Kevin Vicklund can always be counted upon to throw in his two cents when I am in an argument.
I am the first to argue about co-evolution in terms more scientific than "mutual evolutionary pressure."
Larry, if all you intend to do is insult people, I'd prefer you did it elsewhere.
Larry, if all you intend to do is insult people, I'd prefer you did it elsewhere.
So it's OK for others to insult me but not OK for me to retaliate. That seems to be the general rule on these Darwinist blogs.
People insult you when you make trivial mistakes, but they do so in the course of correcting your mistakes and presenting useful information. If the insults get out of hand I step in. You are contributing nothing at all at this point.
People insult you when you make trivial mistakes, but they do so in the course of correcting your mistakes and presenting useful information. If the insults get out of hand I step in.
Have you heard the story about the March Hare at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party in Alice in Wonderland who said that it is OK to put butter in a watch so long as it is the "best" butter? And am I the only one who makes "trivial mistakes"? How come I don't get to insult people when I think they have made a "trivial mistake"? And was my "incompetent inability" to post comments a "trivial mistake"?
I find your patronizing attitude to be disgusting.
You are contributing nothing at all at this point.
Neither are you.
"am I the only one who makes 'trivial mistakes'?"
You are the only one here repeating the same erroneous statements. I don't know why you couldn't comment, and as I said, I don't care. I also don't really care what you think of me.
...and I'm never posting to this blog ever again!!!!
Oh, I just meant within the next 2 minutes.
And Dave S. said, "I'm not going to debate Larry about co-evolution ever again!!!"
"Oh, I meant within the next 2 seconds."
Larry
You know, if you would actually read what other folks write, you might keep your foot out of your mouth a bit more successfully. I am the Dave who said (on another blog, by the way) that I would not bother to engage your "arguments" any more. Dave S. is someone else. And neither one of us is yor brother Dave...
Dave S. said in comment #20 on this thread,
I shant bother with Larry's ill-informed rants on co-evolution yet again.
So who put whose foot in whose mouth?
You will now read something that you will never read coming from Larry's keyboard. I made a mistake. Mea culpa.
I didn't read comment #20, and so was unaware of the fact that two separate Daves, on two separate blogs, have decided not to engage Larry's foolishness again. And if you count his brother Dave, that would make at least three. Maybe we should start "Project Dave"!
You obviously have not been following this discussion, because in Comment #37 I said to Dave S.,
Physician, heal thyself. You changed your mind about not commenting on my "ill-informed rants on co-evolution yet again" -- see comments #20 and #30 in this thread.
My real brother Dave supports my position. It is Fake Dave -- who has been impersonating my brother -- who does not.
Albatrossity said,
You will now read something that you will never read coming from Larry's keyboard. I made a mistake. Mea culpa.
BTW, it was S-less Dave who made that mistake (in Comment #51), not you.
Larry wrote:
You really are a clueless git, aren't you?
Yes he is. Notice how he tries to squirm out of his own deceitfulness by deflecting attention with trivialities.
Signed - The Other Dave