[2810712]

Monocots R sid to be more evolved than dicots. Why? Monocots show reduction in the no. of some parts eg. petals, germinal pores etc. It is said that reduction in no. indicates further evolution. , why ? Is it true in all cases?
Please help.

hrushikesh ❓

[biostudent84]

Nothing is ever “more evolved” than anything else. Humans are not “move evolved” than bacteria…each species simply evolves to fill it’s respective niche. When the niche changes, that is when evolution occurs. Each organism fills their respective niches better than any other organism can.

[2810712]

Nothing is ever “more evolved” than anything else. Humans are not “move evolved” than bacteria…each species simply evolves to fill it’s respective niche. Each organism fills their respective niches better than any other organism can.

& What about the answers of the questions in the exams which ask this?Monocots appeared first or dicots appeared first? & from what origin ?
Monocots & dicots play same role in the community so they compete with each other,
so, by saying ‘who is more evolved ‘i mean ‘who is at advantage’ as compared to the other eg. in saving energy………………………

When the niche changes, that is when evolution occurs.
When niche changes evolution occurs ,but when evolution occurs niche may or may not change,in the natural conditions, M I right?Please correct me if I M wrong …..

[2810712]

Nothing is ever “more evolved” than anything else. Humans are not “move evolved” than bacteria…each species simply evolves to fill it’s respective niche. Each organism fills their respective niches better than any other organism can.

& What about the answers of the questions in the exams which ask this?Monocots appeared first or dicots appeared first? & from what origin ?
Monocots & dicots play same role in the community so they compete with each other,
so, by saying ‘who is more evolved ‘i mean ‘who is at advantage’ as compared to the other eg. in saving energy………………………

When the niche changes, that is when evolution occurs.
When niche changes evolution occurs ,but when evolution occurs niche may or may not change,in the natural conditions, M I right?Please correct me if I M wrong …..

hrushikesh

[mith]

If you’re saying further evolved as further branched from the ancestral species then yes, some species are more evolved. The important thing is not if an organism has less parts etc…It’s how adapted to a specific environment it is. Let’s say for example the different intermediary forms of whales. The further advanced form will be more streamlined and have less land locomotion characteristics. So in a sense it has small vestigial organs kinda like your monocots. But we also have to note that other organs are highly developed such as their fins.
So I think if an organism shows many vestigials it would suggest it has been through many different stages and therefore is more “evolved”(I prefer distantly related to an ancient ancestor).

[2810712]

thank U for making my question clearer to me . But why R monocots more evolved than dicots? Please help.

hrushikesh

[mith]

Here’s what I think. Whenever a species diverges say like when your monocots and your dicots separate into two groups from a common ancestor, one group becomes more and more different(evolved) whereas the other group might maintain the same niche and perhaps not change as much. One example would be the tuatara, one of those ancient lizards from new zealand. They are supposed to be distant relatives of dinos. So way back in time, tuataras diverged from dinos. The dinos got bigger, ate cavemen then died out from high cholesterol(my version of prehistory :lol:). The tuatara stuck to it’s ecological niche and hasn’t changed much since.

[2810712]

Yes, thanx , U made it clearer to me , now I know better what I did mean by ‘more evolved’ is undergone more steps of changes.
di & mono cots may have common Ncestry but it is also possible that monocots evolved from a group of dicots which existant even today . How did scientists conluded that they had common Ncestors ?

hrushikesh

[2810712]

Yes, thanx , U made it clearer to me , now I know better what I did mean by ‘more evolved’ is undergone more steps of changes.
di & mono cots may have common Ncestry but it is also possible that monocots evolved from a group of dicots which existant even today . How did scientists conlude that they had common Ncestors ?

Also, cholesterol? how do U know that , have U hypothesized ? Interesting!

hrushikesh

[mith]

Cholesterol?????

[2810712]

. The dinos got bigger, ate cavemen then died out from high cholesterol(my version of prehistory ).

cholesterol? how do U know that , have U hypothesized ? Interesting!

hrushikesh

[biostudent84]

quote 2810713:

. The dinos got bigger, ate cavemen then died out from high cholesterol(my version of prehistory ).
hrushikesh

Please tell me you’re kidding…

[ERS]

praytell, where exactly did you get your version of prehistory??
just curious at this point
ERS

[mith]

Animaniacs :-D.

For the non-cartoon viewers, that’s a stupid dumb cartoon show. And yes, I’m obviously kidding.

[RobJim]

2810713 –

How did scientists conlude that they had common Ncestors ?

Originally it was by observing similarities between the two branches of plants. Remember, all life is hypothesized to have had a common ancestor (or maybe a few of them). Therefore, all plants had a common ancestor at some point. Now, how far back the common ancestor of any two plants was is determined nowadays by comparing the degree of similarity in the genome. If two organisms have the same gene, it generally means they evolved from the same ancestor fairly recently. Before the genomes could be examined directly, scientists looked at morphological similarities and similarities in the biochemistry of the organism.

[2810712]

sorry for such a non-biological activity [ regarding cholesterol].

How did scientists conlude that they had common Ncestors ?

Originally it was by observing similarities between the two branches of plants. Remember, all life is hypothesized to have had a common ancestor (or maybe a few of them). Therefore, all plants had a common ancestor at some point. Now, how far back the common ancestor of any two plants was is determined nowadays by comparing the degree of similarity in the genome. If two organisms have the same gene, it generally means they evolved from the same ancestor fairly recently. Before the genomes could be examined directly, scientists looked at morphological similarities and similarities in the biochemistry of the organism.
– RobJim

OK , but isn’t it possible that monocots evolved from a group of dicots which may be existant even today . How did scientists conlude that they had common Ncestors & not evolved from each other ?

hrushikesh

[RobJim]

Yes, that’s possible. However I guess they assume that over the long period of evolutionary time in which the monocot evolved, there would also be some change in the dicots, even if it’s small.

Even if a dicot living today is genetically identical to the one that the monocots evolved from, it is still a descendent of that dicot, and therefore the two plants share a common ancestor.

[keldo]

So back to the first question your saying divergent evolution took place. Kind of like the brown bear diverging into the the polar bear, grizzly bear. But isn’t biostudent right by saying that nothing is more evolved then anything else. It just evolves to fit the niches. Basically adaptive radiation. For example if a bacteria did’nt have a niche speaking hypothetically I think it would evolve more and more until it filled a niche. That is also why I think serious forms of macroevolution is not happening now. Humans are in some sorts controlling niches. Think about it. We are intellectually superior to other animals. We control them. If an animal wanders from the place its suppose to be we put it back. Thats why I think animals aren’t evolving dirastically. We are making them stay in there certain habitats.

[mith]

They are evolving.
If you subscribe to the theory of punctuated equilibrium, the mutations will accumulate now and suddenly be expressed.
Also we have only been on earth for a couple thousand years. Evolution takes eons to cccur, at least the drastic ones you’d like to see.

[2810712]

They are evolving.
If you subscribe to the theory of punctuated equilibrium, the mutations will accumulate now and suddenly be expressed.
Also we have only been on earth for a couple thousand years. Evolution takes eons to cccur, at least the drastic ones you’d like to see.

I agree mithrilhack.But aren’t some of them [mutations] being exposed even today ?
Such as the delta 32 mutation- its presence inhibits the entry of HIV and the in the cells.

And by saying more or less evolved we can compare either the duration of the evolution of two organisms i.e. who originated first or the number of stages of evolution they have undergone till today i.e. no. of evolutionary changes or who is better adapted [‘ more no. of evolutionary changes’ doesn’t mean ‘better adapted’]

hrushikesh:)

[Author]

Posts