Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This has been making me think for the past few days.....Any thoughts would be appreciated.
So, as we know, everything in the universe HAS to follow Darwin's theory....that it has evolved over millions, and billions of years. We can make sense of every 'change', every 'feature', every 'adaptation' technique, through the evolutionary process.
yet, i'm puzzled about the evolutionary process of the "fire-fly" you'd find in your backyard...in the early hours of the evening.
What good does the light at the tail end of the bug do, other than attract bats and other predators? at first glance, it would seem to not follow the evolutionary process.
ps. i'm almost positive that there is a good reason for this....i just wanted to know if anyone else has wondered about this before :-)
This has been making me think for the past few days.....Any thoughts would be appreciated.
So, as we know, everything in the universe HAS to follow Darwin's theory....that it has evolved over millions, and billions of years. We can make sense of every 'change', every 'feature', every 'adaptation' technique, through the evolutionary process.
yet, i'm puzzled about the evolutionary process of the "fire-fly" you'd find in your backyard...in the early hours of the evening.
What good does the light at the tail end of the bug do, other than attract bats and other predators? at first glance, it would seem to not follow the evolutionary process.
ps. i'm almost positive that there is a good reason for this....i just wanted to know if anyone else has wondered about this before :-)
It's for mating. (I believe) a blinking tail light means that they are ready for mating.
yeah, i read something similar.....but again, doesn't that attract predators and make them an easy target? if so, that doesn't help the firefly much!
Evolution isn't perfect; there will be many, many flaws along the way. Look to any animal and we are able to see that. I haven't studied firefly's that much, but what I can discern is that it is effective enough to keep the general specie alive, because if it weren't, we wouldn't have them around as much or at all. It may be very inefficient, but, it's efficient enough to keep the genetic line in tact.
Fireflys spend most of their life as larva. Like many other insects they only become adults for a very short time to mate...As a kid living in the east I loved these cool beetles, but here on the west coast....sadly no fireflies. Firefly Evolution
Fireflies are considered all part of the family of beetles called Lampyridae. There are about 2000 species of Lampyrids globally, with about 120 of those in North America.
I think it depends on how you look at it and what the initial advantages of the "night light" on the firefly's tail was and how it affects its survival now. We humans are so often quick to think of things that would hinder the survivability of things that we can come up with a million reasons why something shouldn't be alive. Why don't ants run faster so you can't step on them? Why don't fish have the intelligence not to get caught? Why do bees almost always die if they sting you and still survive?
What has to be weighed out is the overall benefit and cost versus the negation of said product. Keep in mind, the light is only one part of the firefly that plays a role in its survival and not the key component. However, the key component we humans notice is the blinking light.
But, regardless of whether we think something is disadvantaged by its traits or not, each trait has played an important part in the actual success of the organism at any given time. It's nature's "number game."
If a bright light were to attract numbers of different predators and each time the light were shone it decreased the survivability rate by 35% than in order for the firefly to survive it must have components that overcome that 35% rate (and any other detriment) in order to make it a stable organism.
However, I don't feel that the firefly light is actually as dangerous as you may first think. Bats primarily use echolocation to find their pray so a blinking light is essentially not visible to them. Most birds, I repeat - most, birds do not hunt at night so the actual exposure component for a blinking light may actually be far less than what you think.
Furthermore, if the blinking light is used for mating purposes (I'm not sure if it is or not but someone mentioned that) than the potential for reproductive sustainability and genetic hand-me-downs would increase each time the light were flashed. The firefly that flashes the most, has the brightest light, etc... may be the one who passes his genes down. If the potential for passing genes down is, let's say 50% for a 'good' firefly who shines his light, and the exposure rate for being eaten is 35% for each time it shines than it's rather obvious what holds the higher advantage!
Clearly, despite the fact that 35% of the time the exposure rate may kill the firefly, 50% of the time it will reproduce and pass its genes down. Mind you, these are strictly arbitrary round numbers I pulled up but you see what I'm getting at, right? It's not as though the insect is doing the math in his head and thinking "Alright, if I flash my light, I might get to have sex but I might also die." That's simply not how it works. Rather, the insect is 'pre-programmed' to flash his light a certain amount of times or at a certain luminosity because it betters his/her survival chances, or should I say, the survival chance to pass on his/her genetics down the line.
Now, what I alluded to before, the light may or may not be as effective a tool as it once was. Over time, as different predators may begin to stalk or leave the areas the firefly inhabited, the success or failure rates may change or it may not do much at all. We could actually be seeing a time in the firefly's evolution in which the light is actually hurting its chances of survival or we may see a population explosion because it is helping. Or, we could just be seeing a period of stasis in which the balance is rather finely tuned. Yet, within all of that, whatever component of the firefly exists is there because it once served a very valid purpose (even if that was millions of years ago in a completely different ecological niche.)
I think it depends on how you look at it and what the initial advantages of the "night light" on the firefly's tail was and how it affects its survival now. We humans are so often quick to think of things that would hinder the survivability of things that we can come up with a million reasons why something shouldn't be alive. Why don't ants run faster so you can't step on them? Why don't fish have the intelligence not to get caught? Why do bees almost always die if they sting you and still survive?
What has to be weighed out is the overall benefit and cost versus the negation of said product. Keep in mind, the light is only one part of the firefly that plays a role in its survival and not the key component. However, the key component we humans notice is the blinking light.
But, regardless of whether we think something is disadvantaged by its traits or not, each trait has played an important part in the actual success of the organism at any given time. It's nature's "number game."
If a bright light were to attract numbers of different predators and each time the light were shone it decreased the survivability rate by 35% than in order for the firefly to survive it must have components that overcome that 35% rate (and any other detriment) in order to make it a stable organism.
However, I don't feel that the firefly light is actually as dangerous as you may first think. Bats primarily use echolocation to find their pray so a blinking light is essentially not visible to them. Most birds, I repeat - most, birds do not hunt at night so the actual exposure component for a blinking light may actually be far less than what you think.
Furthermore, if the blinking light is used for mating purposes (I'm not sure if it is or not but someone mentioned that) than the potential for reproductive sustainability and genetic hand-me-downs would increase each time the light were flashed. The firefly that flashes the most, has the brightest light, etc... may be the one who passes his genes down. If the potential for passing genes down is, let's say 50% for a 'good' firefly who shines his light, and the exposure rate for being eaten is 35% for each time it shines than it's rather obvious what holds the higher advantage!
Clearly, despite the fact that 35% of the time the exposure rate may kill the firefly, 50% of the time it will reproduce and pass its genes down. Mind you, these are strictly arbitrary round numbers I pulled up but you see what I'm getting at, right? It's not as though the insect is doing the math in his head and thinking "Alright, if I flash my light, I might get to have sex but I might also die." That's simply not how it works. Rather, the insect is 'pre-programmed' to flash his light a certain amount of times or at a certain luminosity because it betters his/her survival chances, or should I say, the survival chance to pass on his/her genetics down the line.
Now, what I alluded to before, the light may or may not be as effective a tool as it once was. Over time, as different predators may begin to stalk or leave the areas the firefly inhabited, the success or failure rates may change or it may not do much at all. We could actually be seeing a time in the firefly's evolution in which the light is actually hurting its chances of survival or we may see a population explosion because it is helping. Or, we could just be seeing a period of stasis in which the balance is rather finely tuned. Yet, within all of that, whatever component of the firefly exists is there because it once served a very valid purpose (even if that was millions of years ago in a completely different ecological niche.)
As a side note, most of the time, during the day, I find the lightning bugs on the underside of leaves, Azalea, Dogwood, Roses et.al.
This has been making me think for the past few days.....Any thoughts would be appreciated.
So, as we know, everything in the universe HAS to follow Darwin's theory....that it has evolved over millions, and billions of years. We can make sense of every 'change', every 'feature', every 'adaptation' technique, through the evolutionary process.
yet, i'm puzzled about the evolutionary process of the "fire-fly" you'd find in your backyard...in the early hours of the evening.
What good does the light at the tail end of the bug do, other than attract bats and other predators? at first glance, it would seem to not follow the evolutionary process.
ps. i'm almost positive that there is a good reason for this....i just wanted to know if anyone else has wondered about this before :-)
Another side note: Darwin's theory makes no predictions about the universe at large. It deals ONLY with explaining how the rich diversity of life came about on Earth. Extrapolating that theory to explain ALL of the phenomenon in the universe is a bit of a stretch, to say the least.
I apologize for being harsh, but us rational folks would come down HARD on a creationist if they used a similar argument (gross extrapolation) to justify their point of view. At least we can say that we are being unbiased in applying logic to our arguments!
As for your firefly comment, I need to point out that your underlying assumption is false. Your conclusion that firefly light should be a detrimental evolutionary adaptation assumes that all predators hunt based on senses that us human are familiar with. Human rely primarily on sight, and the visual perception of light. However, most other predators do not rely on sight as their primary sense for hunting (e.g. dogs/cats species use smell and hearing, bats are effectively blind but use sonar/hearing to hunt...etc). Therefore, firefly light is not something that would be a detriment to them by making them easier prey for predators. Unless of course you consider children collecting fireflys a significant predator.
It's kind of a self-answering question isn't it? I mean, if the firefly's light were enough of a detriment to survival, fireflies would go extinct. They are not, so it obviously is not. There must be another benefit to the light that outweighs the risks of attracting predators.
This is especially true when you learn that there are some bugs that emulate a firefly's flash in order to lure them close for a quick dinner. So despite birds, bats, spiders, counterfeit fireflies, and eight-year-olds, the flash is still valuable enough that fireflies continue to use it and reproduce.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
