Login

Join for Free!
112334 members


Jussthink!

Debate and discussion of any biological questions not pertaining to a particular topic.

Moderator: BioTeam

Jussthink!

Postby 2810712 » Sun Apr 09, 2006 6:30 am

This is a topic of less interest due to lack of applications...but still i want to sharpen my thoughtpros.


When we say monocots are advanced than dicots, reptiles than annelids etc. then waht are the criteria of desiding the 'advanced'ness?
See,if both groups are surving then both are adapted to the present environment... One point is diference in the origin of that groups eg. as monocots came in later times...they are advanced.
But this doesn't make me call them advanced!


I think the extent to which a thing is adapted to its environment tells howmuch advanced it is...But how to measure the extent...
The one which is getting slowly few in no. [naturally] is definitely less advanced than the one that maintains the same no. of individuals naturally or increasing...but this is not the neccessarily true in every case... see reduction in population might be a character naturally selected, similarly the conct. poppulation may also be an adaptation. So, just % reduction in no. can lead to wrong results.
And to measure those change in no.s we need to take long times spans into considerations for many organisms.
For long time spans the biotic and a biotic factors in the environment go on changing so the adaptability[ advancedness] isn't necessarily the same through out.
So, we just have to see all chara. onebyone as in neumerical taxonomy...or decide for preferences/weightages for different structures and processes as in Phylogenetic system [ here w.r.t. me the weightage is to be given as per the vitality of the strucures and processes at that point of time] as in how many processes & structures of the organism are adapted to the environment and their extent tells us the net adaptability.
For this we need to make our knowledge of environment more and more accurate so as to be able to tell which one is adapted to it.

hrushikesh
2810712
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:19 pm

Postby Enzyme » Sun Apr 09, 2006 5:54 pm

That is a great reflexion, but I want to add one thing: From my point of view, not an organism which is in the end of a filogenetic branch is the most advanced (it is supposed that is the most adapted).

The best example are microorganisms (from domain Bacteria and domain Archaea). How many dogs which respire with sulphate, sulphur, nitrate, amonium, hydrogene, etc do you know? Or, how many people who has fermentative metabolism do you know?

Microorganisms are very simple organisms and the most primitive form of life in this planet, but they have a huge variety of metabolism, adaptations, habitat, etc.
    Image
    Image
    Image
User avatar
Enzyme
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 9:05 pm

Postby 2810712 » Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:27 am

YEah, the end of philogenetic tree is supposed to be most advanced, & itsmost likely to be so as its a result of natural selection.
BUT FOR PARALLEL GROUPS-
eg. aves vs. mammals...as general not just man
And we can't generalize this for these two[ or any parrelel], species of any one group canbe exceptionally advanced than the one from other supposedly advanced group! Or there may be random distribution of advancedness among these groups above certain minimum advancedness threshold.

ANd i think the adaptability is with respect to the environment of the of the organism. Itmay not be adapted to some other environment of someother organism, but stillit can be so much specializedd for its own environ...what do you think?

hrushikesh
2810712
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:19 pm


Postby February Beetle » Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:07 pm

I hope this isn't going too off-topic but I wanted to bring up sea stars which are bilateral (so more advanced, right?) but isn’t it a theory that because the adult form is radial that they evolved to become less advanced? I mean, they're still considered bilateral because of their larva. Even though they are less advanced than most bilateral adults they are pretty kick-butt in their environment. (With the ability to regrow lost body parts even when cut in half and how great they are at calm-hunting.)
So is being less advanced more advanced? There are a lot of paradox or problems with this kind of assortment, phylogeny right?
Image

Man in civilization surveys the creature through the glass of his knowledge and sees thereby a feather magnified and the whole image in distortion. - Henry Benson
User avatar
February Beetle
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 2:47 am
Location: Kansas

Postby 2810712 » Thu Apr 13, 2006 5:02 am

Off topic? NOT ATALL! One by one all here are just enriching the discussion!

So here the problem u r saying is-
When the adaptability of an orgasnism is changing within its life cycle, we have to think how to define its advancedness...do we take average, or just any one of them is considered...

for starfish , initial [ larval] adaptability / advancedness is more & then it changes to less advanced radial adult. So here are two diff. adaptabilities within one life span.

In my opinion the highest of the adaptabilities should be considered...because the credit to take evolution to that stage is of that organism as the character originated in it ,be it pre or post stage in developement of its life span.

hrushikesh
2810712
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:19 pm

Postby February Beetle » Sat Apr 15, 2006 11:48 am

Thanks,
what I was kind of trying to get at was that some organism that arn't highly advanced at all are so perfect for their environment and so good at survival that I think being advanced isn't always better.
I agree with you that the highest abilities should be considered, but in the starfish I think the common theory is that they were first more advanced as an adult then evolved to be radial and less advanced to adapt.
Dinosaurs were more advanced than cockroaches but the cockroaches survive when the dinosaurs didn't, their advances were their downfall.

Enzyme wrote:Microorganisms are very simple organisms and the most primitive form of life in this planet, but they have a huge variety of metabolism, adaptations, habitat, etc.


Like bacteria, you can't kill them off but it sure would be easy for us to kill off the cheetahs or buffalo because they are more advanced. But then again an individual does get to live longer, but in the way of reproduction and success...
Image

Man in civilization surveys the creature through the glass of his knowledge and sees thereby a feather magnified and the whole image in distortion. - Henry Benson
User avatar
February Beetle
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 2:47 am
Location: Kansas

Postby plasmidmap » Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:59 am

One organism being more advanced than another doesn't necessarily mean that it is more fit. When you're comparing two taxa that are monophyletic, the more advanced taxon has a characteristic that the other doesn't and this characteristic developed after the two diverged from their common ancestor.

In the case of mollusca, bivalves (clams) are considered to be more advanced than the highly intelligent cephalopods (including squid and octopods) because of their more recently derived characteristics (loss of the radula feeding structure).

Echinodermata (including sea stars, sand dollars, sea cucumbers...) sort of went backwards when they developed radial symmetry as an adaptation for a sessile existance. Formerly, all radial symmetric animals were grouped in the taxon "radiata," which also included cnidarians (jelly fish...) and ctenophora until the bilateral echinoderm larval stage was discovered. In this case, radial symmetry is an advanced character because they developed from a bilaterally symmetric ancestor. Now some echinoderms are again reverting to bilateral symmetry as an adaptation for predation!

Difficulties with a concept are often linked to the definitions we use for the terms that describe it. It is better to think of "advanced" as "newer" not as "better".

I think if you want to compare two unrelated (distantly related) taxa, like aves and mammals, you might be better off comparing them in terms of fitness rather than advancedness.
... as pleasent as eating a mouthful of glass splinters embedded in evil-smelling gristle
plasmidmap
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 4:00 am
Location: Ottawa

Postby 2810712 » Wed Apr 19, 2006 2:46 pm

those were thoughtfuls February Beetle & plasmidmap...
So we define advanced as newer, then this is definitely artificial system. WE can use 'more complex' as advanced too. But more complex doesn't say better adapted...so both these systems are artificial. But the results from both don't change with environment [place & time changes in environment], but whicj system to choose [ artificial or natural] depends upon whats its use...

What r the applications of calling something advanced ?
2810712
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:19 pm

Postby baikuza » Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:50 pm

what r the application of calling something advanced?


example : comparing the fossil. which is advanced is younger than the other. so that we know the segmentation of time on this earth.
baikuza
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 429
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:09 am
Location: Yogyakarta, indonesia, south-east asia

Postby 2810712 » Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:58 am

baikuza wrote:
what r the application of calling something advanced?


example : comparing the fossil. which is advanced is younger than the other. so that we know the segmentation of time on this earth.


kindly explain a bit more...i didn't get it...
& if we need just it for timescales...then better we use clear adjectives as 'recent', 'primitive' etc. Why confuse students with the word 'advanced'... :roll:




hrushikesh
2810712
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:19 pm

Postby baikuza » Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:43 pm

i though you are asking the use of "advanced" word on something?
well, "advanced" ,as i know, is depend on the complexity of the thing.
more complex is more advanced...it can have more ability than less advanced. --this imply to the ability to survive in the habitats--
--if i use primitive..this word also corelated to the "advance".--

then about your first post in this topic.
...the key word is complexity--as you said before--., and ability to survive and get the aim, maintaining the species. you are talking about how to describe "advance"--why this word can appear again? hah!--right?
if this is the matter, i will said that the more complex-the specialized organs/ cell/tissues to do the valueable thing in its habitat are included-.

i think we all have the same oppinion(?)

oh well.
i think my post was out to the what you want to said to, right? haha..
hope that do not make any sense to you.
baikuza
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 429
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:09 am
Location: Yogyakarta, indonesia, south-east asia

Postby 2810712 » Wed Apr 26, 2006 12:06 pm

sorry for late reply,
Now i'm concluding that advanced means complex.
But see, something complex can be primitive, something recent may be simple, adaptability is independent of these.
So, complexness or RECENTNESS doesn't imply more adaptability...i'm i correct?



Loads'f confusions here!

thanks,

hrushikesh
2810712
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:19 pm

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron