• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evolution: the Facts.

It's a result of symbiosis with winged insects. You can read about it in the article on [swiki]Symbiosis[/swiki], where it's used as an example.

I'm not sure about the fossil record, but I can imagine that flowers don't fossilize particularly well. Still, it does provide us with some confirmation (see article).
 
Last edited:
Dr Adequate said:
It's a result of symbiosis with winged insects. You can read about it in the article on [swiki]Symbiosis[/swiki], where it's used as an example.

I'm not sure about the fossil record, but I can imagine that flowers don't fossilize particularly well. Still, it does provide us with some confirmation (see article).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the article - I at least found the missing element - I never realised non flowering plants produced a form of pollen, go figure lol - Once you realise that, symbosis is an obvious step once the right sort of insects begin to become present

In terms of preservation - you might have a point. Most botanical material comes from swamp and marshy environments. It wasn't till flowering plants cracked that enviroment that evidence became available. So the transition folrms may taken rise in arid conditions - but we dont see the results until flowers have reached a fairly dominant position
 
MG1962 said:
Not sure if my question should go here - Or start a new thread. I have been curious about the evolution of flowering plants. A sweep of the net really didn't bring much up that answers my question

My understanding is as follows. Flowering plants as an evolutionary process seems to have occured very quickly, and from what I garnered on the internet we have not identified anything that might be considered a transitional species.

Currently our understanding of the process of how and why is very poorly understood. So knowing scientists like to have hypothisies about virtually everything, can anyone point me to a link or source of information where I could read up what their latest thoughts might be.
Click to expand...

There's a thread on this on one of my other forums. There's this OEC who keeps harping on about how evolution can't explain this, or evolution can't explain that - basically claiming that absence of evidence is evidence of absence - and the angiosperms is one of his favourite topics. So if you're able to come up with anything, I'd like to know too.
 
Are there any plants that are both wind and insect-pollinated?

Just the idea that insects, in eating some of the pollen, would also transport other pollen too.
 
jimbob and arthwollipot - the link that Dr Adequate really does cover it off nicely
 
Yes thanks, and it also points out the huge benefits and different "strategies" so that being both wind-polinated and insect-polinated is an unstable situation.

Which implicitally answers my question.
 
OK.

[swiki]Chromosomes[/swiki], with a separate article on [swiki]Sex Chromosomes[/swiki].

Comments? Criticism? Is the explanation of recombination sufficient, or does it want a separate article with some diagrams?

---

Plan: write ---

* an article on Polyploidy

* one on DNA

* one on Population Genetics which introduces the field and links to, and introduces, the various articles on [swiki]Selfish Genes[/swiki], [swiki]Evolutionarily Stable Solutions[/swiki], and [swiki]Genetic Drift[/swiki]

* One on Genetics as a whole, sketching out classical, molecular, and population genetics, and linking to the relevant articles more or less in the order: [swiki]Mendelian Genetics[/swiki], [swiki]Chromosomes[/swiki], [swiki]Sex Chromosomes[/swiki], Polyploidy (not wrotten yet), DNA (not written yet), [swiki]Mutation[/swiki], [swiki]Artificial Selection[/swiki], [swiki]Natural Selection[/swiki], Population Genetics (not written yet), [swiki]Genetic Drift[/swiki], [swiki]Evolutionarily Stable Stategies[/swiki], [swiki]Selfish Genes[/swiki] and [swiki]Molecular Phylogeny[/swiki].

That ought to be about enough genetics to serve as a basis for talking about evolution.
 
Acleron said:
Radrook you have now done it twice.
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. . .

you must try to convince people rationally if you want rational argument, otherwise you are just pissing in the wind.
Click to expand...

:) Indeed
 
I would appreciate comment from non-biologists and biologists on the last few articles about genetics. I've always been good at explaining things, because I can still mentally bridge the gap between the people who don't yet understand and the people who can't remember why the concept was difficult in the first place. However, I am worried that in this case I am overstretching myself in both directions.

I would welcome any advice.

---

P.S: Apologies for all the typos in my previous post, which in some cases break the links.
 
Last edited:
The Chromosome article is very good. It's clear and concise.

I think the Sex Chromosome article could be enlarged with some diagrams, especially in the part on Mendelian Genetics.

One diagram could show a comparison of chromosome splitting and the Mendelian inheritance.

Where I think there should be a diagram is in explaining gene mapping from divergences in Mendelian ratios.

In general both are excellect. Well done.
 
Acleron said:
I think the Sex Chromosome article could be enlarged with some diagrams, especially in the part on Mendelian Genetics.

One diagram could show a comparison of chromosome splitting and the Mendelian inheritance.
Click to expand...
Mmm ... I have some vague ideas about how I might try to represent this visually ...

Where I think there should be a diagram is in explaining gene mapping from divergences in Mendelian ratios.
Click to expand...
I'll think about that one.

That would have to be a new article on recombination, it can't go in the middle of the bit on meiosis in the middle of the bit on chromosomes.

The trouble with biology is that whatever you're trying to explain, you wish that you'd explained everything else first, then it would be easy.
 
On reflection, ie reading your comment:) I agree totally with the second point.

The attempt to explain everything at once is common in all sorts of areas, you have at least the advantage of hypertext.
 
[swiki]Recombination[/swiki]

Recombination.jpg


It's pretty ... but is it Art?
 
Enter it for the Turner prize. Just don't tell them what it really is.
 
I read your natural selection article - it might be worth noting that although a creature may become more adaptive to it's environment, it may actually make itself more prone to going extinct.

Example the comparative success of the Brown Bear and the Panda
 
Dr Adequate said:
OK.

[swiki]Chromosomes[/swiki], with a separate article on [swiki]Sex Chromosomes[/swiki].

Comments? Criticism? Is the explanation of recombination sufficient, or does it want a separate article with some diagrams?
Click to expand...

A nit - the meiosis of diploid cells drawing - the telophase I drawing depicts the chromosomes as identical on each side, whereas they should be as depicted in the next drawing below that one.

The text, though is great. Nice level of detail - not too general, not too detailed.

Plan: write ---

* an article on Polyploidy

* one on DNA

* one on Population Genetics which introduces the field and links to, and introduces, the various articles on [swiki]Selfish Genes[/swiki], [swiki]Evolutionarily Stable Solutions[/swiki], and [swiki]Genetic Drift[/swiki]

* One on Genetics as a whole, sketching out classical, molecular, and population genetics, and linking to the relevant articles more or less in the order: [swiki]Mendelian Genetics[/swiki], [swiki]Chromosomes[/swiki], [swiki]Sex Chromosomes[/swiki], Polyploidy (not wrotten yet), DNA (not written yet), [swiki]Mutation[/swiki], [swiki]Artificial Selection[/swiki], [swiki]Natural Selection[/swiki], Population Genetics (not written yet), [swiki]Genetic Drift[/swiki], [swiki]Evolutionarily Stable Stategies[/swiki], [swiki]Selfish Genes[/swiki] and [swiki]Molecular Phylogeny[/swiki].

That ought to be about enough genetics to serve as a basis for talking about evolution.
Click to expand...

"Think ya used enough dynamite there, Butch?" :)

A worthy goal. How about one on the chemical basis of life, touching on how proteins do their thing? A deep subject, to be sure, but one that connects all these strange molecules to physics? Perhaps that wouldn't be very germane to your goal, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom