112 Comments

Do Plants and Insects Coevolve? đŸ„€đŸđŸŒș🩋


Photo & Video Contributions

Those who are interested in contributing photos or videos can upload them to the Queensland Orchid International Facebook Group.

Excellent or exceptional photos and videos uploaded to the group may be featured here to provide exemplary visual documentations of Flower-Pollinator Relationship and Insect-Plant Relationship.

Advertisements

112 comments on “Do Plants and Insects Coevolve? đŸ„€đŸđŸŒș🩋

  1. Co evolution and symbiotic relationships are very common aspects of biology. A very fascinating area of study.

    Liked by 5 people

  2. Hi Sound Eagle,
    You liked a comment I made on the Steve Says blog. I wanted to come over to say hi and introduce myself. Hi, I am Janice.
    This seems like a great site for science lovers. My daughter is into science. I teach history and overlap with science often.
    Nice to meet you.
    Janice

    Liked by 3 people

    • Thank you, Janice, for responding and coming over here. Considering your revelation here and your backgrounds, you and your daughter are very welcome to discover and participate with other readers and followers of this website through various intellectual and creative terrains, as elucidated aplenty in the About page, which is highly recommended to you as it provides an overall introduction to this multifaceted and multidisciplinary website. Please feel free to contact SoundEagle if you (and your daughter) would like to publish quality article(s) on this website.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. There are so many examples in nature of these symbiotic (I think that is the word) relationships that you can easily see how much by design it all is. We have a swan plant in the garden here in Auckland which, as I understand it, is the only plant monarch butterfly caterpillars eat, perhaps another example
although I am not sure what benefit the plant gets from this.

    Also, going a little further than insects, I look at the Tui (NZ bird) drinking nectar from a flax plant and think how the beak is perfectly shaped and sized to fit into the flower buds. There are loads of examples in nature I suppose.

    But where does mankind fit in to this…well…not sure we do…we are kind of embarrassing where ecosystems are concerned.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Thank you for your interest in our article, Graham. It is quite common for insects to eat only a narrow range of plant species. Monarch larvae specialise in plants of the family Asclepiadaceae (commonly called milkweeds). Not all ecological relationships are mutually beneficial; probably the plant does not gain anything from this relationship, except perhaps some help from the adult butterflies in pollination.
      Clear examples of coevolutionary relation ships between humans and other organisms are hard to find. One possible example may be with some strains of gut micro-organisms. Certainly, some of these seem to have important positive effects on human health, but I don’t know to what extent they have become adapted specifically to the environment of the human digestive tract.

      Liked by 5 people

    • Thank you very much, Graham, for reading the post and leaving your comment here. I wonder whether you are an ornithologist by any chance, considering that you mentioned tui (Prosthemadera novaeseelandiae), an endemic passerine (perching) bird of New Zealand, and one of the largest species of honeyeater.

      In symbiogenesis (or endosymbiotic theory), the evolution of eukaryotic cell in animals, plants and fungi could be considered as a case of coevolution to the extent that it began as a symbiotic community of prokaryotic cells or organisms. For example, inside plant cells are DNA-bearing organelles like the mitochondria and the chloroplasts, both descended and coevolved from ancient symbiotic oxygen-breathing proteobacteria and cyanobacteria respectively, and both were endosymbiosed by an ancestral archaean prokaryote, which (co)evolved into the cellular membrane.

      Some scientists, especially those in the interdisciplinary fields of anthrozoology and zooanthropology, may be more inclined to entertain or conclude that the ongoing domestication processes involving humans and animals have been significant coevolutionary forces at work, especially with respect to the development and evolution of human civilization, and to the phenotypic variation and diversity of domesticated animals and pets. By the same token, plants such as wheat, rice and other staple crops and cultivated grasses (including the banana) as well as some hybridized or genetically modified ornamentals and food plants have been dramatically altered even to the point of being sterile or losing their self-seeding ability, their survival relying solely on being cultivated by humans. On the whole, the domestication of animals and plants has caused a rapid shift in the evolution, ecology and demography of both humans and numerous species of animals and plants. Like their human counterpart, these domesticated species have become some of the most abundant and widespread organisms on Earth.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. That’s a very fascinating and detailed post. I’ll have to reread this more closely later.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Thank you, Edmark, for your preliminary comment. Both SoundEagle and the other co-author will appreciate your more detailed reading of, and feedback on, this very special post. Please be informed that you can copiously rely on the internal (sub)heading links and also endnote links to navigate to various parts of this expansive post very quickly and conveniently.

      May you enjoy springtime in Hong Kong excavating even more fun (and surprising) facts as the weather warms up!

      Liked by 2 people

    • Given your penchant for, and excellence in, fact-finding, you are indeed very welcome to include within your forthcoming feedback on this post many fun (and surprising) facts about orchids, (co)evolution and/or any other subject matters discussed in this post.

      The most pertinent and/or awe-inspiring fun (and surprising) facts might eventually be incorporated into the body of this post.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Thank you for sharing this brilliant article. And thanks for the links as well (I read most of the articles which you have linked). I have learned a lot.

    I have been familiar with the concept of coevolution for quite some time but I didn’t give much thought about it. After reading this article and the linked articles, it made me ponder about this topic more.

    Of course, it’s difficult to prove coevolution but I think that they did occur at some point, we may never know when. Based on the examples that this article has enumerated, it’s difficult to not give coevolution some consideration.

    These links may interest you:

    http://proof.nationalgeographic.com/2015/01/28/the-living-breathing-world-of-borneos-carnivorous-pitcher-plants/

    http://bioblog.biotunes.org/bioblog/2007/10/02/cool-bug-9-acacia-ants/

    http://www.aroid.org/gallery/gibernau/aroideana/0121411.pdf

    Regarding specialization, I can relate to that since this is also the case in mathematics. Even specialized fields like Algebraic Topology has many subfields. We may never see the likes of Archimedes and Euler. Perhaps Henri PoincarĂ© and Hilbert were some of the last people who have a great understanding of the different branches of mathematics. Clifford Pickover speculated that the most knowledgeable mathematicians alive today may only know about 5% of the entire corpus of mathematics, though I suspect that it’s a lot less.

    Having so many types of “-ologists” out there cause most people to not care about their research that much because they are too specialized for the “outsiders” to comprehend. As Henry Ward observed, “An expert is one who knows so much about so little that he neither can be contradicted nor is worth contradicting.”

    Liked by 3 people

  6. I have seen few blog sites that have placed this much time and effort into creating an experience that reaches the depth of real sensory stimulation. I commend ALL your effort. Wonderful post!

    Liked by 5 people

    • Hello Dr Jonathan! As the festive season is drawing to a close and February is just around the corner, SoundEagle hopes that you have had a wonderful time celebrating the dawn of 2018 whilst having a great holiday with your family and friends.

      Thank you for your visit and compliment, and for being observant about, and receptive towards, the presentational and experiential aspects of the post, beyond what its diverse and analytical contents convey about the coevolution of plants and insects đŸ„€đŸđŸŒș🩋. Hence, SoundEagle has good reasons to be truly delighted by your regarding the post to be wonderful.

      Also comparable in quality, expanse and “the depth of real sensory stimulation” is the most recent post, aptly named The Quotation Fallacy “💬”, which can firmly constitute excellent food for thought as well as a splendid guide for living a more examined life. May you find the post as enjoyable as it is edifying!

      Liked by 2 people

  7. […] Do Plants and Insects Coevolve? đŸ„€đŸđŸŒș🩋 (soundeagle.wordpress.com) […]

    Like

    • Hello Gary,

      Sorry for the very delayed reply. We are glad to have produced a post that you found useful. I have recently looked at your excellent website. You may be interested in some forthcoming posts, to do with environmental issues, evolutionary effects on human behaviours and human responses to the natural world, as well as various posts by SoundEagle🩅 on diverse topics that are already up on this site.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Thanks for teaching me!

    Liked by 3 people

    • Hello Peter,

      My apologies for the very late response. We are pleased to have produced a post that was of interest to you. I have found that the more I learn about biological organisms and processes, the more I come to appreciate the beauty of their diversity and intricate adaptations. Please consider looking at other posts on this site, and also some forthcoming ones to do with environmental issues, human behaviours and human psychological responses to Nature.

      Liked by 2 people

      • God made them all – all organisms – in their simplicities and complexities. God is behind them all – all happenings – in their endothermicities and exothermicities.

        Like

  9. A comprehensive demonstration that diversity is a source of strength, not weakness, a proven fact which certain modern political and religious creeds seek to sidestep!

    Liked by 4 people

  10. Beautiful examples of something I would not think many people would disagree; indeed, it would be strange, if plants and insects would not co-evolve? i wonder if despite all these arguments, the phylogeny was done on these orchids? DNA sequence can reveal if there is an inter-species relationship or not. if yes, the role of insects is a more favorable factor. Continuing this thought, if flower preparation can be sequenced and the DNA of the same insect can be detected in several different species? Pure speculation of a potential experiment:))
    another comment if on Wiki definition of abiotic factors that cannot be co-evolved since they are not living. Somewhere i read ( sorry cannot provide a ref) about one study of how animals and plants affect abiotic factors and those affecting them back- I do think this have a right to defined as co-evolvolution. but this indeed might spark arguments ( especially from evolutionary biologists:))

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Hi Sound Eagle,
    Look at how much time you put into all this. Quite a compilation! My husband watches many animal shows and my daughter loves science.
    As far as I go, your eagle theme resonated with me. Once, in Alaska, I saw a bald eagle. I’d like to go to Alaska to see bears but I teach and they aren’t visible when I can go.
    You liked a comment I made on Sam’s blog. I wanted to come by to say hi and introduce myself.
    Janice

    Liked by 3 people

  12. I’m thoroughly impressed by your work here. Please pass my appreciation onto SoundEagle. WE have ospreys and golden eagles here in Scotland who send their greetings

    Liked by 3 people

  13. Wowee, what a blog! Very comprehensive. Insects and plants are so tight. As a silly thought-experiment, if insects evolved into the sentient organisms that we became, I can only imagine how influential plants would be in their art and culture, given their primordial co-relationship.

    Liked by 3 people

  14. Interesting thoughts. Mother nature never ceases to amaze. We humans need to take care!

    Liked by 2 people

  15. […] via Do Plants and Insects Coevolve? đŸ„€đŸđŸŒș🩋 […]

    Liked by 1 person

  16. WOW! One of the most insightful and informative posts I have read to date. I love nature and we all coexist, like it or not. Thanks so much for sharing!

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Reblogged this on By the Mighty Mumford and commented:
    IT IS TRUE–PLANTS AND ANIMALS EVOLVE OR ARE CREATED—TO CHANGE TO MAXIMUMLY INTERACT WITH THEIR ENVIRONMENT, OTHER ORGANISMS…AND RESPOND TO MANKIND’S FORCED MANIPULATION FOR HIS AND HER OWN PURPOSES. INDEED ALL ORGANISMS DO INTERACT IN ONE WAY OR OTHERS! SCHOLARLY AND DEFINITIVE WELL-DOCUMENTED RESEARCH. AND SPECIES DON’T CHANGE INTO OTHER SPECIES—BUT AS HERE, THEY ARE VERY ADJUSTABLE (OR NOT!). 🙂

    Liked by 3 people

  18. A very comprehensive and fascinating affirmative answer to the question posed!

    Liked by 2 people

  19. Dear friend,

    I have nominated you for the “Mystery Blogger Award” – congratulation, my friend 🙂

    For more details:
    https://didisvgp.wordpress.com/2018/07/28/thank-you-for-the-mystery-blogger-award/

    All good wishes
    Didi

    Liked by 3 people

  20. Intriguingly fascinating art and thoughts. It’s different and I thoroughly enjoy unique writings- especially nature. Marvelous, simply marvelous!

    Liked by 3 people

  21. A delightful encyclopedia of knowledge that fed my love of plants, Bees, Butterflies and Orchids.. Remarkable knowledge.. ❀

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dear Sue,
      Belated thanks for your appreciation of our post. I have always found that an evolutionary perspective on living things tends to enhance my appreciation of their wonderful diversity, complexity and compatibility with their living and non-living environment. I hope you will be similarly gratified by other posts on this site, including some planned future ones.

      Liked by 2 people

  22. This is a fascinating article, which I admit took me two days to read. It’s so densely packed with information!

    The fact that Darwin predicted the existence of the Morgan’s Sphinx Moth forty years before it was discovered is poetic justice if I ever saw it. It begs the question, why did the flower’s morphology become so extreme? Surely if the adaptation were to exclude some non-beneficial insect, why didn’t its “nectariferous spurs” stop at 9 or 10 inches? Why did they have to go all the way to 11.5 inches?

    I read through some of the papers you linked to but it’s tricky when you have to look up the definition of every second word haha! Although I didn’t find my answers, I’m grateful that you sent me on such an illuminating adventure. Articles like this open one’s eyes to the world. Thanks.

    Liked by 2 people

    • My apologies for the late reply. Thank you for making the effort to read and understand this article in such detail; I’m sure not everyone would do this! In answer to your question, it is sometimes difficult to deduce why biological structures take the exact form that they do. It may have to do with the fact that natural selection must work with whatever random mutations turn up, even if they are not optimal in terms of function or efficient use of resources. Alternatively, I suppose it is possible that another co-adapted orchid-hawkmoth association, involving different species, may once have occupied the middle ground (in terms of corolla tube and haustellum length) between the one discussed here and shorter, more usual lengths, but that these two hypothetical species became extinct relatively recently, not allowing enough time for the relevant structures in A. sesquipedale and X. morganii to shorten to a more economical length.

      Greetings and best wishes for the new year to both of you

      Liked by 2 people

  23. Hello Dear webmasters and readers;

    Co-evolution is larger than most people guess;

    It concerns all things on earth, and also all material in the universe;

    The whole universe is ONE PROGRAMMED MACHINE running to a pre-defined goal;

    and in each step during this course, human can observe new phenomenas,

    just like in a train we can see so many different landscapes between each differents stations…

    So the important for human to be in harmony with the universe is to observe objectively…

    And good travel for you all ; Dear webmasters and reader…

    Liked by 2 people

    • Thank you for reading our post. It would be interesting to consider the evidence that the universe is evolving according to a pre-determined plan, rather than as a result of an unguided interplay between “chance and necessity”.

      Liked by 1 person

  24. It is a pleasant fancy that humans are evolving to a greater fondness for cute animals and animals are evolving to look cuter to humans!

    Liked by 2 people

    • The recognition of “cuteness” probably evolved because it encouraged the protection and nurturance of offspring, and it is interesting that it can often cross species barriers, especially among mammals. In view of the threat of human-caused extinction that hangs over an increasing proportion of species, it may indeed be advantageous for them to appear “cute” to humans, as this may increase their chances of survival, both as individuals and as species!

      Liked by 2 people

  25. Thank you for this very educational post! You obviously put a great deal of work and research into writing this. I can appreciate that! I think my brain may be bleeding now though…

    Liked by 2 people

    • We are grateful that you have read and appreciated our work! It must contain a lot of new information for anyone not already familiar with this field. Both of us learned a good deal in preparing this post, and are pleased if our readers can also learn something from it, even though it may cost a bit of effort! Best wishes, and hoping that you will also read some of our future posts.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Thank you. The post does contain much information that I was previously unfamiliar with. It is refreshing to find an educational blog about this subjects and I look forward to reading (slowly & with english dictionary at my table) your future posts!

        Liked by 2 people

    • ❀ đŸžđŸƒđŸ›đŸ‚đŸŠ‹đŸŒ»đŸđŸŒș🐜 ❀

      Thank you, Mliae, for your visit, comments and compliment, as well as for recognizing the educational value of this special post. Whilst you passively wait for future posts to be published, you are very welcome to actively visit other educational posts to whet your intellectual appetite. Moreover, if your web browser can run Adobe Flash Player properly as it loads the contents of this website, then you will also be able to play games, solve puzzles and/or see more animations, which may indeed counteract over-exertion and stop your brain from bleeding. Happy February and Happy Exploring those posts!
      Rose Greeting
      Yours sincerely,
      ჱܓSoundEagle🩅

      Like

  26. I do not have time to do this lengthy article justice at the moment. In fact, I,d given up reading within the areas of academics or bordering upon it awhile ago, with the occasional exception of philosophy. But nature, genetics, evolution, Darwinism, and Neo-Darwinism (biology as ideology) are all areas I once was quite taken by. I noted too that you veered off into problems with the current structure of academics midway, and I too read B.V.’s article about why he departed the fold. (BV and I also had some dialog awhile back & he looked at one of my longer essays.) So, I will try and make time to get back to this post for a deeper commentary.

    But meanwhile, I will mention that just last week I was watching one of David Attenborough’s wonderful video essays concerning plant/animal cooperations, and I was struck with an interesting intuition. The species involved were a kind of flower with deeply recessed nectar (I believe a red helliconia) and a specific humminbird with a purposed long curved beak. The relationship between these two were such that the bird fed exclusively upon that flower’s nectar while the flower’s relied exclusively upon that bird’s pollination techniques. An interesting all-your-eggs-in-one-basket evolutionary sidepool. The intuition, which I have not had time to develop and articulate better, had to do with the spiritual cooperation between the generating forces (the “ideas”) behind these two disparate species… how they must indeed have a singular and peculiar spiritual relationship in the world behind the physical. (This is fairly typical for me since I do not limit myself to a materialistic, i.e. exclusively physicalist worldview). Plants physicalized on earth first, before animals. So the external evolutionary story, which restricts itself to the purely physical, cannot explicate the entire story here. There is something to understand from a different angle. I leave it there for now. Hopefully I can return.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Hello Rob,

      Thank you for your attention and thoughtful comments. For my part, I continue to be confident that explanations for biological processes can be found wholly within the physical realm. For example, I do not think that the appearance of two different groups of organisms at different times presents any difficulties for the subsequent development of coevolutionary relationships among some of their members – certain species of the second group to appear may develop ecological relationships with existing members of the first, influencing the further evolution of these and having their own evolutionary development affected by the interaction: it is not necessary for the relationships to begin upon the first appearance of both groups. Further, attempts to model the evolution of long sucking organs in various groups of animals and the corresponding evolution of long nectar-bearing corolla spurs in the flowers from which they obtain nectar have suggested that that this process is explicable in terms of conventional natural selection theory (please see my brief discussion of this and the references cited in this post).

      It seems that your positing of the existence of non-material precursors of organisms in “the world beyond the physical” (and potential interactions among these) bears some relation to the Platonic theory of Forms. When you can find the time, you may like to elaborate upon these ideas.

      Greetings and best wishes for the future!

      Liked by 2 people

      • Hi Craig. Very long discussions seeded with this comment. But at the root of the disagreement is always: physicalism. I will offer simply one observation. It is no less a positing on your part, or the parts of materialists, than what you ascribe to me, when you say I point to extra-material phenomena (or ontology, or even causation). It is absolutely an assumption, a positing, on the part of physicalism that all things, including life forms are 100% explicable, eventually, in purely material terms. So… it is a meataphysical position, not a scientific one. And I can think of no possible scientific experiment (as science, biology, physics and so forth are presently and since the 1600s constrained) which would even address this positing. It is an article of faith. And before 1600 or so, it was not, it was quite the opposite. For my asthetics, better to do science, in hopes of reaching a less biased and more complete knowledge picture of all things, without this assumption at all. Cheers to you. 🙂

        Liked by 2 people

      • Hello Rob,

        I think I can appreciate something of your perspective, although for reasons of faith or otherwise, I continue to seek explanations for biological phenomena in physical terms. I hope you may be interested to read and comment on some future posts, dealing with topics such as innate human mental proclivities and their influences on human treatment of the biosphere, human emotional responses to the natural world, and issues to do with the development of environmentally sustainable economic systems

        Liked by 2 people

      • Hi Craig, yes, sure. I will watch for these future thoughts of yours. The situation between us is not personal — one can always appreciate a fellow inquisitive nature. But as one gets older it is revealed as more and more important to devote one’s time to where priorities lie. For me, I see the physicalist mindset as a key linchpin, which if exposed to a more open perspective, would have the power to release the floodgates currently obstructing human cultural potential worldwide. The materialist conception is deeply insidious; so it is extremely difficult to get most people to admit it is in fact an assumption rather than some obvious default observation. Much of my work is devoted to subtly tugging against this assumption, be it with prose or poetry.

        Interesting what you mention about human proclivities vis a vis the living earth. I do not know if the proclivities you think of are innate — I would initially resist this position. But we certainly are dropping the ball regarding stewardship of our biosphere. I would immediately note that it is quite likely that materialism, as an outlook, again has its fingerprints on this particular issue. If natural resources and species are merely regarded as ‘things’, collations of atoms and sub-atomic particles and so on, then it becomes much easier to approach life from a stance of being inured to the way we treat such things. Would be interesting to see why you feel certain attitudes are innate. I would mention here that if something like evolutionary psychology is involved in the reasoning, I find the contributions and underlying concepts around EP to be extremely suspect.

        Environmentally sustainable economic systems: bravo. Let such systems also include socially and humanly sustainable and I am on board and eager to hear about them. Cheers, Craig.

        Liked by 2 people

  27. What a wonderful informative post and those pictures are so beautiful too!

    Liked by 2 people

  28. Thank you for coming to my blog. But I don’t believe in evolution. It’s a theory. None of it makes sense. As an example, the big bang. They never explain how it came to be. You can’t get something from nothing. Creation makes much more sense. Many things have been proven from the bible. And what hasn’t been proven may have been destroyed or something else. Take care.

    Like

    • Thank you for taking the time to read our post. I hope you will also read some forthcoming posts on this site. Two of thse are to be book reviews that will have little or nothing to do with evolution, but with appreciation of nature and human use of materials throughout history.

      Liked by 2 people

    • ❀ đŸžđŸƒđŸ›đŸ‚đŸŠ‹đŸŒ»đŸđŸŒș🐜 ❀

      Hello! Thank you for your comment. Please be informed that the layperson’s use and understanding of the word “theory” is very different from the same term used in modern science. For your convenience and edification, SoundEagle🩅 has included herein the Wikipedia entry of the term as follows:

      A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

      The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory. In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.

      The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain and its simplicity. As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be modified and ultimately rejected if it cannot be made to fit the new findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then required. That doesn’t mean that all theories can be fundamentally changed (for example, well established foundational scientific theories such as evolution, heliocentric theory, cell theory, theory of plate tectonics etc). In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions. A case in point is Newton’s laws of motion, which can serve as an approximation to special relativity at velocities that are small relative to the speed of light.

      Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causes of a particular natural phenomenon and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (for example, electricity, chemistry, and astronomy). Scientists use theories to further scientific knowledge, as well as to facilitate advances in technology or medicine.

      As with other forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are both deductive and inductive, aiming for predictive and explanatory power.

      The paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote that “…facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.”

      In recent years, even the Catholic Church has had to accept evolution, though on a theistic basis. As for the pitfalls and fallacies of the design argument, visit the following:
      http://www.iep.utm.edu/design/
      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

      It will be nearly or altogether impossible to claim or prove that (the theory of) evolution is wrong or invalid, for it has been estimated that if evolution (both macro and micro) were wrong, then more than 99% of all scientific disciplines would be wrong too due to the high degree of cross-collaborations and confluences of data. That is not (just) SoundEagle🩅’s claim; and it is from some scientists who have made the interconnections and stocktaking of disciplines and knowledges. When creationists try to debunk certain parts and/or the whole of the findings of evolutionists or evolutionary scientists, they have cited certain problems with some scientific claims and/or techniques which rely on or are founded on mathematics, measurements, instruments, various disciplines and so on in very interconnected ways, and have been reliably used for a long time. For example, many instruments rely on the veracity and reliability of quantum mechanics, electronics and electrical engineering, which in turn rely on other disciplines such as physics, mechanical engineering, optics and so on
 It is a very highly interconnected web.

      By “cross-collaborations” (whether by design or by accident, whether independently or co-dependently, and whether concurrently or not), SoundEagle🩅 meant the cumulative results, benefits and synergies from the convergence of evidence from diverse disciplines and researchers who may or may not be collaborating and/or aware of each other’s findings and activities in the first place; and SoundEagle🩅 also meant that research(ers) on/in evolution and evolutionary sciences have relied and benefited, both directly and indirectly, fertilizations, findings, paradigms and techniques from diverse disciplines. Let SoundEagle🩅 quote Michael Shermer from his essay entitled “A skeptic’s journey for truth in science” as further examples:

      To be fair, not all claims are subject to laboratory experiments and statistical tests. Many historical and inferential sciences require nuanced analyses of data and a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry that point to an unmistakable conclusion. Just as detectives employ the convergence of evidence technique to deduce who most likely committed a crime, scientists employ the method to determine the likeliest explanation for a particular phenomenon. Cosmologists reconstruct the history of the universe by integrating data from cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, spectroscopy, general relativity and quantum mechanics. Geologists reconstruct the history of Earth through a convergence of evidence from geology, geophysics and geochemistry. Archaeologists piece together the history of a civilization from pollen grains, kitchen middens, potshards, tools, works of art, written sources and other site-specific artifacts. Climate scientists prove anthropogenic global warming from the environmental sciences, planetary geology, geophysics, glaciology, meteorology, chemistry, biology, ecology, among other disciplines. Evolutionary biologists uncover the history of life on Earth from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, genetics, and so on.

      Rose Greeting
      Yours sincerely,
      ჱܓSoundEagle🩅

      Liked by 1 person

  29. Awesome post. Thank you for sharing. Blessed are those who see plants and insects coevolve.đŸđŸŒ»

    Liked by 2 people

    • We are grateful that you took the time to read our post. You may be interested in others on this site (by SoundEagle alone) and some forthcoming joint posts.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Thank you. I will for sure take a look at the other posts. đŸŒș🐝

        Liked by 2 people

      • I have written a short poem about the wonderful way a flower and a bumble bee 🐝 co evolve. You may be interested to find it on my blog.
        It goes like this-
        How to tell you
        How to tell you what is sweeter than a drop of honey
        Sweeter than a grain of sugar
        Sweeter than the juice of a strawberry 🍓
        How to tell you
        Nothing is sweeter than your tongue
        Melting like ice in my mouth
        How to tell you what is a flower without a bumblebee
        Or a bumblebee without a flower
        Or….

        Liked by 2 people

      • ❀ đŸžđŸƒđŸ›đŸ‚đŸŠ‹đŸŒ»đŸđŸŒș🐜 ❀

        Thank you, Anita Bacha, for your visit, comments and compliment, as well as for sharing your lovely poem entitled “How to tell youHow to tell you”. In the version of your poem shown in your comment above, SoundEagle🩅 can see that you have spiced up the poem with the two emojis 🐝 and 🍓, which are duly noted and appreciated here.

        Happy May to you very soon and Happy Exploring other posts as you become even more familiar with the many special features and topics presented on this blog! Moreover, if your web browser can run Adobe Flash Player properly as it loads the contents of this website, then you will also be able to play games, solve puzzles and/or see more animations.
        Rose Greeting
        Yours sincerely,
        ჱܓSoundEagle🩅

        Liked by 2 people

      • Happy May to you too.
        I am glad you visited my blog and read the poem ‘How to tell you.’ The illustrating picture was clicked by me in Borehamwood in England. It was in the month of July. I am not too sure the insect is a bumblebee. I observed it and others for a long time with my iPhone ready to catch a picture of the ‘bee’ busy drinking the nectar of the flower in a bush of berries.
        I just love nature and its populace.
        đŸŠ‹đŸŒ»đŸžđŸŒž

        Liked by 2 people

      • Thank you for sharing your delightful poem. Did you see the poem “Coexistence” by Cheryl KP in the post? Best wishes.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Sadly I scroll up and down several times I don’t see the poem Coexistence.
        Possibly it’s not loading on my lappie.

        Liked by 2 people

      • The insect in the photo accompanying your poem is certainly a bumblebee, probably Bombus lapidarius or just possibly Bombus ruderarius. SoundEagle has requested me to ask whether you know what the flowers in this photo are: could they be hellebores?
        By the way, you may be interested in SoundEagle’s recent long reply just above your first comment (21st March) explaining what constitutes a scientific theory and why the theory of evolution is soundly based.
        Best wishes

        Liked by 2 people

      • Thank you for the the response Craig. Matter of fact, Borehamwood is a shooting ground that offers family a range of shooting facilities, like clay pigeon etc. I was there with my family to experience gun shooting because it demands focus and concentration.
        On the side walk, I heard the buzzing of bees 🐝 🐝 and I followed them to click pictures.
        I have some more pictures. The bees were very busy devouring what was left of flowers in wild bushes.
        If you wish I can send them to you by wats app or email.
        I thank SoundEagle for his profound interest in the 🐝
        Hopefully we will go clay pigeon shooting again this summer.
        Anita

        Liked by 2 people

      • Hi Craig
        Hi SoundEagle
        I forgot to tell you one important observation I made on the day I clicked the picture of the bumblebee (s).
        We had to protect our ears because of the deafening noise of shooting. Yet the bumblebees and the flowers carried on with their romancing undisturbed by the sound of shooting.
        They were peaceful and happy.
        đŸŒžđŸđŸŒŒđŸđŸŒ»đŸđŸŒŒđŸđŸŒž

        Liked by 2 people

      • Hello Craig, SoundEagle, I have posted a few pictures of our bumblebee(s). Please visit my blog and see ‘Flowering’.
        Happy weekend to you both.
        Anita
        đŸŒžđŸŠ‹đŸŒŒđŸŒ»đŸ

        Liked by 2 people

    • Hello Anita,
      Loud noises usually have little effect on insects, unless they drown out their auditory communications. I don’t have any personal experience of living bumblebees, as they do not occur in Australia, except for one species that was deliberately (and illegally) introduced into Tasmania in the early 1990s. I like to read accounts of exotic insects and other animals that I have not seen myself. Thank you for sharing.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Hi Craig
        Thank you for the clarification.
        I am truly glad and thankful to you and SoundEagle to learn so much about insects.
        I have posted a few pictures on my blog. Please have a look at my latest post ‘Flowering.’
        En passant, I live in Mauritius and here, there’s no bumblebee.
        We have the honey bee. It’s completely black in color, whereas the bumblebee is black and orange. It also uses its long arms to embrace the flower.
        🌾🐝

        Liked by 2 people

  30. Pretty long post about this very interesting topic…

    Liked by 3 people

  31. Thank you Craig, I now see the poem Co-Existence of Cheryl KP 2017.
    Awesome đŸŒčđŸâŁïž

    Liked by 2 people

❄ ❅ ❆ Leave some Thoughts💭 or Comments💬

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: