can you tell how primitive something is by how many progeny it makes in ratio to how many survive?
Oak trees live forever but they drop thousands of acorns in the hopes that a single digit number will survive
thoughts?
Printable View
can you tell how primitive something is by how many progeny it makes in ratio to how many survive?
Oak trees live forever but they drop thousands of acorns in the hopes that a single digit number will survive
thoughts?
it depends on how one defines "primitive". If one is purely going by the phylogenetic and evolutionary scale, then it is reasonable to correlate # of offspring/progeny with eukaryotic "complexity".Quote:
Originally Posted by Finesse Da God
However, one must be wary of terms like the such because they are biased from a human (mammalian) pespective.
On the other side, one could argue that # of progeny is not a defiitive marker of the eukaryotic complexity scale, but rather merely an adaptation to environmental stressors.
For example, the human, typically gives birth to 2.3 offspring ( a function of the number of mammary glands!), however, creatures not bound by a function of the # of mammary glands or those that face a different environmental stressor by way of predation more than likely will give birth to or yield more offspring to account for the environmental stress. This does not mean in a biological sense for ex that humans are "less primitive" than oak trees.
Sometimes. I remember I had a conceptual discussion here about the word "primitive".
To some it can basically just mean "first". It can further mean the first ways, as in "primitive ways" as in recently things have improved or became more efficient.
Besides being one seed, they do not blow in the wind and fall straight to the ground, this could be a sign of being primitive.
Many "predators" that eat the acorns without it getting a chance to germinate, another sign of being an older tree.
I don't know what other predator that disperses the acorns for the tree besides a squirrel or some larger birds so how did the oak trees survive eons ago? I don't know when the first squirrels were around.
The evolution off flowering plants and hard seed bearing trees is intricately tied to the evolution of seed carrying animals. The 1st oak tree (or the first hard seed bearing plant) was not a hard seed bearing plant. It bore soft seeds that could easily germinate.
With the simultaneous evolution of reptiles, mammals and birds, the seed increased in hardness. A proposed potential reason for this in theory is to better the chances of surviving inside the reptilian or mammalian gut prior to defacation.
good points
so is there a consensus on what primitive is?
I made this topic with the idea in mind that primitive means basic
but like My First Timbs said the coming of the hard seeds was a basic adaptation so is that primitive if it does work?
The human male releases millions of sperms to fertilize one egg is that primitive?
ultimately primitive is too subjective of a term to be thrown around with any biological weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Finesse Da God
A "complex" organism by our standards today could be viewed as primitive 500 years from now (depending on the environmental stressors in 2509).
It would be better gauged in terms of biological energy efficiency.
For ex, does the Oak tree utilize more energy to product a vast number of hard shelled seeds when compared to the amount of energy needed for a human male to produce vast amounts of sperm. When asked from an objective point of view such as this, its seen that they are almost equivalent (averaged over the reproductive life span of a human male (16-65 yrs old compared to an oak tree ( 3 to 100 + years old)
Salaam (Peace)...
primitive:
[1350–1400; ME (n. and adj.) (< MF primitif) < L prīmitīvus first of its kind. See prime, -itive]
–adjective
1. being the first or earliest of the kind or in existence, esp. in an early age of the world: primitive forms of life.
2. early in the history of the world or of humankind.
3. characteristic of early ages or of an early state of human development: primitive toolmaking.
4. Anthropology. of or pertaining to a preliterate or tribal people having cultural or physical similarities with their early ancestors: no longer in technical use.
5. unaffected or little affected by civilizing influences; uncivilized; savage: primitive passions.
6. being in its earliest period; early: the primitive phase of the history of a town.
7. old-fashioned: primitive ideas and habits.
8. simple; unsophisticated: a primitive farm implement.
9. crude; unrefined: primitive living conditions.
10. Linguistics.
a. of or pertaining to a form from which a word or other linguistic form is derived; not derivative; original or radical.
b. of or pertaining to a protolanguage.
c. of or pertaining to a linguistic prime.
11. primary, as distinguished from secondary.
12. Biology.
a. rudimentary; primordial.
b. noting species, varieties, etc., only slightly evolved from early antecedent types.
c. of early formation and temporary, as a part that subsequently disappears.
this is seriously crazy - i haven't read any of the post in this thread yet but its absolutely crazy
depends, as mentioned, in what context we want to use the term primitive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Finesse Da God
Finesse, your statement quoted is interesting. In context of survival of the fittest alone, we assume that the woman's passage to the egg is structured in such ways that it takes millions of chances just to get one through. Through your comment it may also be taken that in modern times, this is not necessarily the case.
But what if in modern times, we ought to need more sperm? Say that with the changing climates, the eating habits many of us are used to, lack of exercise (rising obesity levels), our sperm cells are less able and thus we are BECOMING more primitive than ever before.
My comment may be a little complex for no reason, but it is late and I am tired.
But this topic is great!
Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
hahaaaaaa.
lol at my first timbs laying in the weeds for some sort of evolution based question to drop the knowledge.
literally haven't seen you in here in like a year at least.
good to see posts from you again though, i respect that evolutionary mustache you tout.
I get it
the more complex the world gets perhaps we get less complex due to the changing times
for every inverse there must be a reverse