Insects are important for flowering plants. They perform an important function (carrying male sperm cells to the female parts of the flowers) and hence pollinating them. But did these plants evolve because of the presence of the insects? The plants that do not flower depend upon fertilization by the wind (which is inefficient)-it appears that flowering plant are much more successful. So which came first?
Lots of flowering plants are wind-pollinated too. However, it’s generally considered that this is a secondary evolution, and angiosperms were originally all animal-pollinated. But si-blakely is right, it was co-evolution not chicken-egg stuff.
To go to an excess of technicality, the lineages of insects which predominantly feed from and pollinate flowers are the ones which co-evolved with angiosperms, mostly in the Cretaceous and Cenozoic (~140 mya-present). Insects with other lifesttke choices had been around since Late Devonian-Mississippian times, roughly three times as long ago.
Insects evolved long before flowering plants. And insects pollinate some non-flowering plants, including cycads and other gymnosperms. Insect pollination of these species goes back to the early Cretaceous.
The evolution of flowering plants may have been prompted by the presence of insects that were already adapted to pollinate gymnosperms. The first pollinators were probably relatively non-specialized, like beetles. However, once the relationship was established it opened the way for much more specialized relationships with pollinators to develop.
As has been said, the earliest flowering plants were probably insect pollinated, and wind pollination developed later. (However, wind pollination was probably the ancestral form of pollination among the gymnosperms.)
The nature of symbiotic relationships is that both parties must have come into existence simultaneously. This is an argument for creation, and not evolution, obviously.
This statement is false.
This statement is stupid.
As has been said, this is completely incorrect, and quite ridiculous. Mutualistic relationships can develop without either species being entirely dependent on the other. Dependency can develop over a long period of time.
Moderator Instructions
reefshark, this forum is for factual information. Don’t come into threads in GQ to post blatantly false information in order to claim it’s evidence for creationism. You’ve done this sort of thing before. If you want to debate creationism vs evolution, start a new thread in Great Debates. Further comments along these lines in GQ may be subject to an official warning.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Can you cite a Symbiotic (not just mutualistic) relationship in which that is the case, please?
Please support your claim that it is false. Thank you.
Moderator Warning
Any basic knowledge of biology would show that the statement is false. This is an official warning for violating my instructions. If you want to argue creationism, do it in Great Debates. Do not post in this thread again, and do not post creationist arguments in this forum.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator