Comments by "Dr. Ian Plect" (@Dr.IanPlect) on "Bizarre Beasts" channel.

I'm a zoologist, but before throwing my 2 cents at this; I am unfamiliar with the details and history of this example, I had to watch the vid to know what your comment was questioning! Anyway, this is an example, for the plant and ants, of mutual symbiosis, wherein each taxon benefits from the interaction. ------ "Is it correct to say that the plant has reason to produce these leaves. Like it has a choice." - neither, if you mean a conscious decision! Like all of evolution via natural selection, the adaptations are unplanned, unguided. They develope because each step along the route to a highly developed adaptation like these leaves has a small but significant advantage among members in the population. Therefore the genes responsible for the incremental steps get passed on through successive generations as those plants having them are successful at reproducing thanks to the developing adaptation. Note this applies to both plant (adapting its leaves that benefit the ant) and ant (adapting its behaviour to living on the plant, giving protection "Of is it correct to say that ants are "supposed to" form a symbiotic relationship. In both cases, it seems like you are saying the plant has made choices and those choices seem to be made while considering its environment." - as in my above response, both parties would have co-developed the relationship, not the plant alone and sending invites out to all ants! Is it ok to talk like this? Is it true. Or is it just a soft way of giving a plant emotions for narrative effect? ie: the plant morphology is defined by its DNA and if the ants and spiders went extinct this winter, it would still be making the same leave like a chump in the summer." - again, both parties would have co-developed the relationship. If somehow the ants went extinct, the plants would not maintain those leaves in future generations. Producing nutrients and structures to hold them is costly! Eventually they would evolve away from this adaptation. Here's a possible incremental development of this symbiosis, in brief. And remember, I know nothing about this very example, I'm drawing upon my general knowledge of evolution etc. a) plant leaves start as normal leaves, no Beltian bodies and no interest from ants b) a mutation in some plants causes the leaf tips to deposit small amounts of extra nutrients than normal. c) ants can detect these nutrients, are attracted to the leaves, begin feeding d) the presence of the ants deters herbivores that would otherwise eat the leaves, putting the plant's survival and ability to reproduce at risk e) as a result of this ant presence, the plants having the extra nutrient gene have a higher success rate at reproducing; that gene spreads and becomes widespread These steps are the beginning of the symbiosis and none of it is preplanned or known in advance by the plant or ant. It's adaptive evolution by plant and ant. You can see that each step requires no forethought, they're consequential to each other. Perhaps you're unaware that mutations are random, so no forethought there either, the mutation just happens to be beneficial. You can then imagine another mutation refining the leaf tips into the bulbous structures that Beltian bodies are, containing even more nutrients that attract ants more, and with greater motivation to reside on and protect the plant. As I said; adaptive evolution in the form of mutual symbiosis.
2
No, the majority of the skeletal structure is still internal, they still have endoskeletons.
2
@niroshangovinder4042 More tripe; the clueless (about evolution) oxygen thief is muted.
2
A cursory look points to vit. c synthesis already being lost in our ancestors. So, we have always required dietary sources.
1
What a groundbreaking observation; 'animals are unaware that humans categorise them'!
1
@johnwhite1534 Detail that abuse.
1
@johnwhite1534 Right, so this is your silly attempt at redressing the balance of a perceived mockery! "semicolon to lead into a quote" - ok, it seems only a colon (of the 2) is acceptable, I'm very happy to acknowledge such a terrible crime in a YT comment! "to top it off you put the exclamation point after the quotations" From grammerly "Using an exclamation point is usually quite simple—you just put it at the end of the sentence. But it can get a little tricky when you also have a quotation mark at the end of the sentence. Here are the rules: Put the exclamation point inside the closing quotation marks if it applies to the words enclosed by the quotation marks. - “There’s a spider on my arm!” yelped Jeremy. If the exclamation point applies to the sentence as a whole, then place it at the very end. - And then the paramedics tried to tell Jeremy it was “only a spider”! ------- Aha! My usage was the latter and is valid! Now, I don't wish to drag this trivia out, don't waffle your way through a reply.
1
@johnwhite1534 "The exclamation is still in the wrong place because of your misuse of the semicolon. Were the semicolon absent then yes it'd be fine but as is a quotation taking up a whole sentence with its punctuation coming after the end quote makes no sense." - I disagree and stick to my response "Don't pretend I'm the one deflecting here. My entire jab at your poor punctuation was just the opener to the rest of the comment you willfully ignored just like the point my original comment was making. You just wanted to cosplay being smart and take what I said, strip it of nuance, and take it so literally that the point I was making is lost" - don't take my jab so harshly, it was tongue-in-cheek
1
 @johnwhite1534 I didn't refer whatsoever to how obvious or otherwise my tongue-in-cheek remark was. You have too much confidence in your ability for inference!
1
They are dinosaurs.
1
@ngtony2969 They are dinosaurs.
1
@ronaldseeder2078 so, you were wrong
1
@fccbaraka5723 Ronald HIMSELF concurred! "Geographically, sure." That followed "Hispañola doesn’t exist anymore", which it DOES ----------- End of; "an island in the Caribbean that is part of the Greater Antilles. Hispaniola is the most populous island in the West Indies, and the region's second largest in area, after the island of Cuba."
1
vomit
1
Music ruins it.
1
As in which evolved first? Snakes, by a long way.
1
seems legit
1
@grantmccoy6739 Just stop typing.
1
@grantmccoy6739 With the amount of drivel you've typed here, I don't see what intelligence I insulted.
1
(M)egalochelys atlas.
1
No thanks, keep your vile mythology away.
1
archives
1
complete tripe
1
None known, poisonous yes.
1
pretty good
1
A comment that comes across as a desperate attempt to limit the scope of evolution in order to protect one's religious notions. Not a word of your comment prevents speciation.
1
@niroshangovinder4042 "But actually, don't you think that a species have an ability to evolve, according to their adaptability. That is their genetic variation?" - yes, but that wasn't the part under scrutiny! --------- So, why did you add; "But still within its species"?
1
@niroshangovinder4042 You haven't addressed my point! "yes, but that wasn't the part under scrutiny! --------- So, why did you add; "But still within its species"?"
1
@niroshangovinder4042 Oh, ok, my intuition was right! "You probably would believe in a common ancestor.... Now my query is this- would you consider that that ancestor had all the different senses and abilities initially?" - not necessarily; evolution can produce novel phenotypes that the ancestor didn't have "According to the Shrimad Bhagavatam- sense and sense objects were created simultaneously." - a remark already ambiguous and without evidence, what do you suppose I do with that? ---------- I repeat, your first comment in no way prevents speciation.
1
@niroshangovinder4042 "Ahhhh, mutation not variation..... Hmmmm, is mutation a part of its variance variation?" - mutations within genes is where variation arises! It's clear you lack knowledge of the subject, and yet you conclude 'But still within its species'! Do you acknowledge you have no basis for this conclusion?
1
@niroshangovinder4042 You have much confusion to iron out.
1
@niroshangovinder4042 'God bless' - I'm not interested in your mythology character
1
fo troll
1
@slibertas1996 The trolling oxygen thief is muted.
1
Just as you cautioned about relatedness in gliding taxa, so you should apply it to the hippo point (even if in that instance there is a connection)! Observing similar morphologies isn't necessarily reliable; convergence is the culprit.
1
@Nerdnumberone It was the 'it doesn't tell you much' bit I'm commenting on. That may well have been the case with the hippo.
1
vomit mythology
1
It is a relative, all organisms are related. It's about degrees.
1
@lemongrab6173 So now you're contradicting yourself, and in doing so, acknowledging my point! Compare; 'It’s not a relative of turkeys' with 'it’s about as related to a turkey' ------- Same response to your ignorance; It is a relative, all organisms are related. It's about degrees. And I'll add, yes, within birds, they are distantly related. But don't state 'it's not a relative of turkeys'. Hoatzins are relatives of bacteria, nevermind turkeys!
1
@lemongrab6173 "I’m not sure if you’re a troll or someone desperately looking for an argument." - neither, I just addressed your error "But as a zoologist I guarantee you" - as you mentioned profession, you might have noticed my username, that's me; BSc biology, PhD zoology. Unlike you though, I don't offer guarantees, a silly remark. All knowledge is provisional. Your next remark makes this guarantee worthless, let's get to that... "that the only thing these two species have in common is that they’re both members of the bird class like how sheep are mammals like humans. But nothing related in terms of genetics anatomy or even behaviour." - Not only have you got it completely wrong regarding relatedness, this bit about 'nothing related in terms of genetics, anatomy or even behaviour' is so deeply wrong it makes me question you saying you're a zoologist! Genetics unites all organisms, anatomy unites all vertebrates (as we're talking mammamls and birds) and behaviour has some degree of commonality across vertebrate level too! "Either way your argument is very pointless. If he had to mention that they’re related to turkeys because they’re simply both birds, then I’m quite certain even some one with special needs has the cognitive capabilities to see it. But that was not his point he was trying to imply that the two birds share a close ancestry but that is simply not true. And spreading false information for mere views is spreading ignorance not something we scientists stand for." - I addressed YOUR comment, this is irrelevant ----------- You increasingly demonstrate your ignorance, I won't be repeating my points. All organisms are related, something you don't understand.
1
Hi Shakespeare.
1
@jessehunter362 blind indeed
1