Evolution… one of the most remarkable processes of the living world.

When we talk of natural selection, we think of Darwin’s finches and giraffes with long necks and have an understanding of how the process works and why it is so.
It is relatively easy to see how mutation invokes a change in a species that enables a better trait for survival during times of hardship or a change in climate. Even to the conquering of new territory – as from sea to land – evolution makes sense.

And then we come to plants – specifically flowers – and their symbiotic relationship with birds and insects.
We know that flowers evolved to take advantage of pollination, and the reward of nectar for doing so, and that many species of plants are linked to one particular species of insect or bird.
In fact, some are so specialized that they mimic to an amazing accuracy the partner they are symbiotically involved with.
A good example are the orchids, like the bee orchid, where the flowers look like female bees and even release a pheromone resembling that released by the female, thus encouraging the males to try and mate – which leaves one frustrated male and a severe dose of pollen.

Another one showing ongoing evolution is the passion flower.

Here the flower is in a struggle with butterflies known as Longwings. The butterfly wants to lay its eggs on the leaves of the flower for its larvae to feed on and the flower responds by growing bumps that mimic the butterfly eggs. If the butterfly thinks the plant is already laced with eggs it will look elsewhere as the caterpillars of those eggs would eat the eggs it lays.
On some of the species the flower hasn’t got it quite right yet, so we see yellow spots or dashes that don’t fool the butterfly.

But, in all of these ploys by plants to aid pollination or defend themselves from predators, how do they know?
How does a passion flower know what the Longwing’s eggs look like? Or orchids their insect counterparts and what smell they release?

Yes, we can say that a very long time has passed for mutation to take effect, but it still leaves the question hanging. We don’t see passion flowers trying out orange pyramids or blue cubes, or orchids with some hell spawn insect for a flower that smells like a dead fish.

Natural selection of animals follows self-explanatory reasoning, but the plant world seems to invoke something deeper than just evolution.
It looks as if there is some other mystery process at work that goes beyond pure natural selection and that plants have a far greater and unknown capacity than we would give them credit for.

Is there a simple answer to this?
I don't know. But I do believe there is more at work here than can be explained away by Darwin’s discoveries…

__________________
I don't believe in mathematics. Albert Einstein

Biologically speaking, if something bites you it's more likely to be female. Desmond Morris.

Quantum analysis is scientific dithering

Professor Frink: My observations n'hey, n'hey, show the universe could be a torus Weh, uh, or toriod it may like the typewriters and bananas and the monkeys with big teeth the biting the screaming Mm-hai!

Homer: mmmmm... doughnuts!

The plants didn't intentionally try bumps. Random mutations made bumps and a great many other things over long periods of time. The ones with bumps survived better than those without bumps so the bump genes were passed on to future generations. Those generations had their own random mutations, a few of which made the bumps look even more like eggs. Those plants were the ones that survived and passed their more egglike bump genes to future generations. This went on for a long time causing the bumps to imitate eggs very well.

A mutation that caused a structure that did not benefit the plant would not last long because there are far more damaging mutations than beneficial ones. Random mutations that damaged the bumps would lower the plant's survival chances so that damage would not be passed on, and the bumps remain in future generations. Damage to an useless structure, like blue cubes, would be passed on and more damage would accumulate over many generations until the structure disappeared or evolved into something useful. If the harmful butterfly became extinct then plants with damaged bump genes would no longer be weeded out. The bumps would eventually disappear unless they had some other beneficial properties.

Things look like they were designed for their environments not because they were designed but because their ancestors that had beneficial random mutations were the ones that survived and reproduced. Over many generations, living things come to fit their environments very well or go extinct in the battle for resources against their more fit competition, leaving those that survive looking like they were made for their roles.

If anything, your point illustrates evolution far more greatly than I.D.

The plants lack the intelligence to grow bumps by will.
Trial and error doesn't take all THAT long and considering hundreds of millions of years of it? The complex diversity we see today Could Only Arise from such a process. I.D. would have far less diversity.

But instead, with each genetic variant on its own to mutate and evolve- we end up with a lot of diversity.

Just to point out I am not advocating ID here. Just a thought on the complexities of evolution.

__________________
I don't believe in mathematics. Albert Einstein

Biologically speaking, if something bites you it's more likely to be female. Desmond Morris.

Quantum analysis is scientific dithering

Professor Frink: My observations n'hey, n'hey, show the universe could be a torus Weh, uh, or toriod it may like the typewriters and bananas and the monkeys with big teeth the biting the screaming Mm-hai!

Homer: mmmmm... doughnuts!

Similar to a discussion we had in the "Blind Cavefish" thread.

It's exactly has Chuck said; the plants didn't learn to, know how to, or choose to grow bumps. What happened is somewhere along the lines, a random mutation occured that caused the phenomenon*. The resulting plants survived better than the unmutated plants, so as the mutating plants propigated, the non-mutating ones die out, until all--or the majority--of the remaining species has the mutation.

What you don't see are all the other random mutations that either provided no advantage to species survival, or the ones that resulted in poorer chances of survival. You may come across a few here and there (e.g., two headed turtles or snakes which you occasionally see in the news). But that particular mutation doesn't give the species an out-lasting advantage over the non-mutation, so after time, there is no reason you would see the overall change across the whole species.

Now, if a mutation didn't give the species a worse chance at survival, then there's the possibilty that a new species will take root...a branch in the evolutionary tree. We see those all over the place.

*ETA: We of course can't assume the mutation occured all at once. But a series of mutations that stuck eventually resulted in the defense mechanism.

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

it is called coevolution I think this might help explain what you mean!
http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/plantEvolution.shtml
take a look down to : appearance of flowering plants and check out (coevolution)
it is all a good and interesting read.

__________________
Great minds discuss ideas,average minds discuss events,small minds discuss people.Admiral Hyman Rickover.USN.

"Make the most of every day like it could be your last, enjoy each others companyas this will make good memories for when we pass". chrissy

To clarify as well, I didn't think that you were.

But to be honest, when I look at evolution it is not unusual for me to want to try entertaining some kind of I.D. proposal to account for it. But then when I look deeper, I see with more clarity how evolution worked.

Like a Giraffe's neck stretching out. The trouble with I.D. is that it would have happened generation to generation, not over thousands of years or even millions.

While I in no way embrace ID or Creationism (to say the least). I have always been fascinated by the bright red hour glass on a black widow spider. What part of natural selection can account for this? Seems like the spiders who have less of a warning sign would do better at capturing prey. Same with the brown recluse and countless other venomous creatures; usually they are equipped with some sort of flashy sign.

Sure seem like a warning labels, don't they?

Now don't slam me for asking the question. I really am curious.

The black widow spider's marking is on her back, where presumably potential prey, being beneath and/or in front of her, won't see it. It's a warning to predators of the spider herself, who approach from above (birds, etc.)

The venomous coral snake is colored all around its body because its predators approach from all directions.

Also, the spider is a lie-in-wait predator; she could be glowing neon orange with a flashing scrolling "SPIDER! SPIDER!" marquee, and it wouldn't affect her ability to catch prey, because all she has to do is weave her web and then go away and hide somewhere, and wait. Her drab coloring--and red marking--is for protection from her own predators.

Their appearance does not factor into whether or not the catch prey.
In fact, most spiders have unusual markings and flashy colors.
Look at the little spines on the crab spider or Orb weaver spider.
Insects don't "see" the spider. They get caught in the web (of webbuilders anyway- wolf spiders and tarantuals tend to be brown or gray.)
And Venomous spiders seem to prefer dark seculded places.

But it DOES warn off other creatures that would kill them.

Many kinds of venomous snakes and spiders have flashy colors or a distinct appearance because their appearance wards off predators that would rather NOT get poisoned by a venomous bite.

It ensures survival from predation not from starvation. Those that have the scary mark, survive.

In fact, there are some animals in nature that have "scary venom" markings even though they are not venomous, because the markings helped ensure survival from predators.

It's on the underside of the abdomen.

Maybe. It's on the underside, though. How much help would that be from predators? I suppose it depends on which creatures prey on black widows (I know certain other spiders do) and how they do it.

Your second point makes perfect sense as far as non-venomous mimicking. But I still would think the black widows without the mark would be more successful hunters. But that may just indicate that I don't have enough information.

Many things prey on spiders. Including other spiders, birds, lizards, snakes, and even insects.
Learning which ones you don't want to mess with can be tough luck!
But much of it is also inherent too.
Now what preys on black widows? Not much! Because of the markings.

Brown recluse spiders have NOT developed flashy colors and... Yep. They get preyed on more often and their bite is more venomous than the Black Widow.

I have been bitten many times by black widows. Have found them in many places. But I've never seen a brown recluse live (was bitten by one in my sleep once though).
No, you are just thinking that Insects pay attention to the coloration of the spider. But they don't really. Even the Black Widow is not easy to spot in its web and when you are flying around with compound eyes in the looy dizzy zig zags that bugs do...

I was watched a beetle smack right into the garden spider in its web and knock it right out of the web.

A bird is more observant and much more intelligent than an insect. Even lizards are. They will shy away from the markings, whereas most prey for the spider doesn't know it's caught until it's too late.

Then I guess it's a good thing for them that they don't hunt.

What do they feel/look like and for how long? They are quite common here, yet managed so far not to get bitten.

__________________
*

Black widow topside.

Black widow below decks.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Organisms often get into escalating "arms races." For example, a plant may develop spots that look enough like eggs to fool an insect, but over time the insects develop the ability to tell the difference between spots and eggs and so there is pressure for the plant to develop even more realistic looking fake eggs which provides pressure for insects to become better at detecting them and so on. These arms races have contributed to a lot of the adaption we see around us.

Might be just my lack of caffeine, but what do black widow spiders have to do with flowers have to do with evolutionary arms races?

__________________
[Foot mouth in put]
Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.