3 ms·
In regard to the question of who was first: while I understand that evolution is built on random mutations, still it seems to me that ants, being endowed with o
by aasasd 8y ago
In regard to the question of who was first: while I understand that evolution is built on random mutations, still it seems to me that ants, being endowed with organs for mobility and sight, are in a much better position to take the initiative on innovation.
- mirceal 8y agoYes. The ants are more disruptive /s
- Nasrudith 8y agoIt is all relative to costs. If they were going with hollow thorns anyway it is theoretically possible the thorns could have existed before there was anything eating them as a "fluke" that didn't cost much anyway. Pre-ants they could have had variants with hollow ones mixed in. Once the hollow ones gave a significant advantage the other styles would fade away unless there were biochemical constraints. I don't know for sure but I would expect slow evolution from hive insects - their reproductive members are a fraction and thus a smaller working genepool. Ironically the sessile but more genetically diverse plants could have outmaneuvered the ants. For an example of biochemical constraints take sickle cell anemia trait for instance. One copy makes red blood cells just deformed enough to function but give malaria resistance. Two however and the cells go conclave. The little bastard mosquitoes and their littler bastard malaria made for a nasty situation. In regions with endemic malaria no copies and you are probably screwed - malaria will probably kill you unless you flee the region - a risk in itself. With two you don't need to worry about malaria killing you - your sickle cell anemia will do it on its own just fine. With one you are a-okay but your children or mate stand a chance of getting either bad outcome. The transmission method has leas to malaria as the number one historical killer.