[_ Old Earth _] The Non-evolution of the Parasol Ants

[Asyncritus]

THE LEAF CUTTING ANT (PARASOL ANTS)​

We have in this example, another phenomenal illustrative piece on the helplessness of the evolution theory to explain observable facts.

These are observable, have been observed, and there is no guesswork or speculation involved. The whole mechanism sprang full blown to birth, or it couldn’t have happened at all. Judge for yourselves.

The Parasol Ant

The parasol ant is a real pest to farmers and causes a lot of damage to crops, because the foraging ants go out in numbers, cut large amounts of leaf material off crop plants, and this costs money.

They go forth, cut the leaves with their specially constructed jaws, and carry them back to their nests. They climb trees up to 100-feet tall and cut out small pieces of leaves. They then carry these fragments, weighing as much as 50 times their body weight, back to their homes.

Sometimes they must travel 200 feet, equal to an average human walking about 6 miles with 5,000 lbs. on his/her back! The forest floor is converted to a maze of busy highways full of these moving leaf fragments.

They travel a distance equivalent to a 6 foot man walking 5 miles in a forest carrying 5000lbs on his back! So how do they get home? Incredibly, they leave a trail of pheromone-like substances on their trails.

Could they have invented such chemicals? Certainly not!

Back at the nest, the marvels begin. The ants were once thought to use the ‘parasols’ as covering to shield them from the rain. That, however, is not the case.

The leaf cutters take the material back to their nests, and there, in specially designed underground chambers, cut them up into minute little pieces, spray them with excrement, saliva, and then plant a particular species of fungus on the decaying material.

But that is not the whole story.: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2627

"Incredibly, the ants do not eat the leaves. Rather, they cultivate miniature gardens of fungus on pieces of leaves. which they chew and then store in underground compost piles.

Several million ants usually inhabit their colonies, and the garden chambers can extend as deep as twelve feet underground.

In order to fulfill all the needs of the colony, the ants divide the work among classes. Each class of workers is designed to do a special job.

The biggest ants have powerful jaws to cut leaves, flower petals, and blades of grass. They bring these big pieces back to the nest where slightly smaller workers cut and dice the plant material into tiny lumps. The smallest workers chew these up into balls, adding bits of fungus.

The ants’ saliva contains ingredients that help the fungus break down the plant material, and also kills harmful bacteria and other fungi.

Small workers strip off wax and other parts of the plants that the fungus cannot use. Workers dump this refuse into special waste chambers.

The relationship between the ants and the fungus is symbiotic, meaning that both benefit. The fungus benefits because the ants feed it, protect it, and spread it from place to place. In return, the fungus grows a clump of special hyphae. Each clump is like an instant three-course meal, which the smallest ant workers use to feed the larvae."

This is the only fungus the ants eat and feed the larvae on.

Note particularly carefully that without the ant, the fungus is doomed, and without the fungus, the ant is doomed. BOTH ANT AND FUNGUS HAD TO APPEAR SIMULTANEOUSLY.

You may recall the difficulties faced when researchers attempted to cultivate the Penicillium fungus in order to produce penicillin in the World War. Fleming, Florey and Chain were awarded Nobel prizes for their discovery (Fleming), extraction and purification of the antibiotic (Chain and Florey).

Here are ants who have 'discovered' the single species of fungus that suits them, and 'developed' effective cultivation methods of the fungus.

They have 'discovered' how to obtain and produce the the right composting medium for its growth. They maintain the correct temperature for it's cultivation and growth. Instinct, you see. Perhaps they too should be awarded the Nobel prizes for the animal world!

When the young queen leaves the nest, she takes a piece of the fungus with her to act as seeding material!

While Mueller and Schultz worked on the ants’ relationship to fungi, a team of biologists at the University of Toronto were noting—and wondering about—the presence of a persistent and ravaging mold, called Escovopsis, in attine gardens.

How was it, they asked, that this potent parasite didn’t regularly overrun the attine nests?

Taking note of a white powder on the undersides of the attine ants, they ultimately identified it as a type of bacteria, Streptomyces, that secretes antibiotics.

The antibiotics were keeping the Escovopsis at bay. More important, they were doing so over long periods of time, without the Escovopsis becoming totally resistant.

Evolution cannot account for the origin of this complex organisation, biochemistry,

specific knowledge of fungal cultivation,

specific knowledge of fungal identification,

pre-programmed behaviour patterns of the workers,

reccognition of which parts are waste, knowledge that a piece of fungus will act as a cutting which could be used to propagate the only fungus they eat,

the scissor like jaws which do the leaf-cutting, the selection of proper leaves which can be used as their composting material, the production of the pheromone-like ‘scent’ which marks their tracks – all this and more.

At every step of their discovery process, error would have caused the extinction of the species. Recall that this is the only species of fungus that they eat.So if they got that wrong, species extinction would have taken place.

Which raises another of these curious anomalies.

If this is the only fungus they eat, and this is the only way that the fungus is propagated, then which came first? The ant, or the fungus?

The ant depends on the fungus, and the fungus depends on the ant, like the old lock and key analogy. Without the lock, the key is useless, and without the key, the lock is equally so.

Consider the number of individual pieces of instinctive behaviour the ants exhibit, and ask yourself, how did these

a. start and

b.get into the genome?

 

[Asyncritus]

1. They know they have to eat. Where did that come from?

2 They can walk. Where did that come from?

3 They have leaf-cutting jaws. Where did that come from? And where did the instincts powering the use of those jaws come from?

4 They 'know' that they must go cut the leaves. Where did that come from?

5 They know they must bring it back to their nest. Where did that come from?

6 They know they mustn't eat the leaves. Where did that come from?

7 They know they have to chew them up and make compost with them. Where did that come from?

8 They know they must excrete on the chewed up leaves to make the compost. Where did that come from?

9 They know they must place spores of the fungus on the compost. Where did that come from?

10 They know how to keep the nest clean, and how to tend the 'gardens' of fungus. Where did that come from?

11 They know how to make tunnels, and keep them at the correct temperature and wetness. Where did that come from?

12 They know that the fungal hyphae must not be eaten. Where did that come from?

13 They know the fungal fruiting bodies are edible, and they eat those. Where did that come from?

14 There is a whole social stratification of ants in the nest. Queen, workers which do one thing, and workers which do another. For example, the leaf-cutting ants cannot chew the leaves up and make the compost. There are smaller ants whose jaws are designed for that purpose.

This is a leaf-cutter. Observe the size of the jaws.








The above are workers creating the compost. Note the small size of the jaws.


15 There are a very large number of other behaviours we could ask the same question about. But the next most remarkable is the fact that when a young queen flies off to start a new colony, she invariably carries a piece of the fungus with her to act as the seed for the new gardens. There is clear purpose in her doing so - but she has a brain the size of a pinhead.

If she didn't do this, she and the species would perish, since new colonies could not form, and the old ones would eventually die out. Species extinction would be the result.

Also note that the eggs she lays, and which hatch out, produce workers (and some males). The workers do NOT need instructions in constructing the fungus gardens, cutting the leaves, and all the other required behaviours. So, the information is somehow programmed into their genes.

'Somehow' is the leading word here. How? And how did it all begin?

As we can clearly see, it's all or nothing. It either worked first time, or the species perished. Since the ant is with us here today, then it worked. First time.

That is a description of an act of creation, not evolution.

The instincts, ants and fungus arose together, and have continued ever since their creation. There are fossil Atta ants in the Miocene (c25 mya) - identifiable ones, 'One of the fossil species of Atta resembles in general form and in the venation of the wings the curious Atta cephalotes of Tropical America'.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v16/n398/abs/016122a0.html

All of those instincts, and many others we haven't mentioned, were implanted in the ants when they were created. No small, beneficial steps could have implanted them.

It is staggering that both sides of the evolution debate have failed to see the importance of this point. The pro-evolutionists DON'T WANT to see it, and the anti-evolutionists have missed it altogether, or at least haven't capitalised sufficiently on it.

I am happy to redress the balance. www.howdoesinstinctevolve.com goes into much more striking detail.

Q. How did all that get into their genes?

A. God put it there..

 

[Barbarian]

Note particularly carefully that without the ant, the fungus is doomed, and without the fungus, the ant is doomed. BOTH ANT AND FUNGUS HAD TO APPEAR SIMULTANEOUSLY.

Before Columbus, Mesoamerican Indians lived on maize. They couldn't survive without it, no other source of calories could support their population. But maize doesn't exist in the wild, and it would die out in one generation if not for humans. BOTH HUMANS AND MAIZE HAD TO APPEAR SIMULTANEOUSLY.

Or maybe you can think of another way. Almost anyone can, if they think of it for a few minutes.

Actually, that's not quite right. The ants actually live on the leaf sap. The fungus is used to feed the larvae.

The rest of your stuff is "gee whiz, I don't see how it could evolve, so God must have done it by magic."

 

[Barbarian]

And the evolution of the symbiosis left a few traces...

Free-living fungal symbionts (Lepiotaceae) of fungus-growing ants (Attini: Formicidae)
Surveys of leucocoprinaceous fungi (Lepiotaceae, Agaricales, Basidiomycota) in the rain-forests of Panama and Brazil revealed several free-living counterparts of fungi cultivated by primitive attine ants (the lower Attini, Formicidae, Hymenoptera), adding to two such collections identified in a survey by Mueller et al (1998). The accumulated evidence supports the hypothesis that perhaps all fungi of lower attine ants have close free-living relatives. Free-living counterparts of ant-cultivated fungi are collected most readily during the early rainy season; in particular these are free-living mushrooms of fungal counterparts that are cultivated as yeasts in gardens of ants in the Cyphomyrmex rimosus group. Free-living and symbiotic fungi of these yeast-cultivating ant species might represent a promising study system to compare the biology of sympatric, conspecific fungi existing outside versus inside the attine symbiosis.
Mycologia March/April 2009 vol. 101 no. 2 206-210

So the fungi cultivated by more primitive leaf-cutter ants still can live without cultivation.

This might help Async figure out why the ants and the fungus didn't have to appear at the same time.

 

[lordkalvan]

Before Columbus, Mesoamerican Indians lived on maize. They couldn't survive without it, no other source of calories could support their population. But maize doesn't exist in the wild, and it would die out in one generation if not for humans. BOTH HUMANS AND MAIZE HAD TO APPEAR SIMULTANEOUSLY.

Or maybe you can think of another way. Almost anyone can, if they think of it for a few minutes.

Actually, that's not quite right. The ants actually live on the leaf sap. The fungus is used to feed the larvae.

The rest of your stuff is "gee whiz, I don't see how it could evolve, so God must have done it by magic."

Indeed. This appears to be yet another parade by Asyncritus of personal incredulity masquerading as a critique of evolutionary theory, with the usual assertions that evolutionary pathways for the phenomena in question are 'impossible' of explanation. Of course, even when such pathways are shown to be entirely plausible, that plausibility is simply denied - hardly surprising since he has already told us elsewhere that no such explanations are acceptable to him. Which no doubt accounts for the numerous threads he has started and abandoned once his many assertions are shown to be at best misunderstandings and at worst misrepresentations, so leaving questions unanswered and counterpoints and counterarguments unresponded to.

There is at least one scholarly article readily available online that discusses the evolutionary development of leafcutter ants - A breakthrough innovation in animal evolution by Ulrich G. Mueller and Christian Rabeling, available here:

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/14/5287.full

- with full references to other articles on the same subject. Of course, as no definitive proof is offered by these articles, they can simply be dismissed as speculative, although it remains the case that, unlike Asyncritus's preferred alternative 'explanation' to account for the phenomena, the 'speculations' in question can at least be tested as further research is carried out.

 

[Asyncritus]

Before Columbus, Mesoamerican Indians lived on maize. They couldn't survive without it, no other source of calories could support their population. But maize doesn't exist in the wild, and it would die out in one generation if not for humans. BOTH HUMANS AND MAIZE HAD TO APPEAR SIMULTANEOUSLY.

Completely wrong. God created the plants before the people, remember?

Or maybe you can think of another way. Almost anyone can, if they think of it for a few minutes.

We're looking for evidence here, remember? You've got the facts, despite your little carping. Now explain their origin evolutionarily this year, next year, sometime...

Actually, that's not quite right. The ants actually live on the leaf sap. The fungus is used to feed the larvae.

Maybe. But if the larvae died out, then the ants would too, wouldn't they?

And that's quite bad for evolution, I would have said...

The rest of your stuff is "gee whiz, I don't see how it could evolve, so God must have done it by magic."

Heh heh heh!

So not even you can produce any sensible explanation of all this. Again and again.

You just don't learn, do you.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:

Before Columbus, Mesoamerican Indians lived on maize. They couldn't survive without it, no other source of calories could support their population. But maize doesn't exist in the wild, and it would die out in one generation if not for humans. BOTH HUMANS AND MAIZE HAD TO APPEAR SIMULTANEOUSLY.

Or maybe you can think of another way. Almost anyone can, if they think of it for a few minutes.

Completely wrong.

Demonstrably true. Maize evolved from teosinite, a grass that looks nothing at all like maize. The grass was cultivated for it's seeds and over time, evolved into maize, which cannot survive without human cultivation.

Sort of the way the different fungi cultivated by the ants, have free-living forms which are still somewhat able to cross-breed with the domesticated species.

Are you beginning to realize those stories they feed you always leave something important out of the text? If so, you're wising up.

God created the plants before the people, remember?

See above. You've been had once again.

We're looking for evidence here, remember? You've got the facts

And you don't. Specifically, they didn't tell you that those fungi have free-living counterparts, or that most species of the ants can live off plant sap, and feed the fungus to the larvae.

Now explain their origin evolutionarily this year, next year, sometime...

The most primitive of the attines (leaf cutters) gather all sorts of organic material, including plant material, and store it as food. It does develop fungus, which is also eaten. This isn't very efficient, and the primitive species have rather small colonies. The most evolved species only collect living leaves, and have evolved many behaviors that make their farming more efficient.

So, once again, transitional forms demonstrate that not only could this have evolved in steps, some of the steps you thought were impossible, still exist.

(Async was told the ants live exclusively on fungus)
Actually, that's not quite right. The ants actually live on the leaf sap. The fungus is used to feed the larvae.

Maybe. But if the larvae died out, then the ants would too, wouldn't they?

Kind of the way that maize would die out if humans didn't cultivate it. VBut that doesn't mean it appeared magically. Do you suppose humans once lived on other things, and only later adapted to maize?

And that's quite bad for evolution, I would have said...

And once again, Async is blindsided by reality.

Barbarian chuckles:
The rest of your stuff is "gee whiz, I don't see how it could evolve, so God must have done it by magic."

So not even you can produce any sensible explanation of all this.

As you just learned, it wasn't by magic, after all. Just a God capable of making a universe in which such wonders can evolve.

You just don't learn, do you.

 

[Asyncritus]

Barbarian observes:

Demonstrably true. Maize evolved from teosinite, a grass that looks nothing at all like maize. The grass was cultivated for it's seeds and over time, evolved into maize, which cannot survive without human cultivation.

Compost material again.

The identity of maize's wild ancestor remained a mystery for many decades. While other grains such as wheat and rice have obvious wild relatives, there is no wild plant that looks like maize, with soft, starchy kernels arranged along a cob. The abrupt appearance of maize in the archaeological record baffled scientists. Evolution was generally thought to occur gradually through minor changes. Why did maize appear so suddenly?

Notice the word SUDDENLY? Natural selection etc doesn't work like that.

Through the study of genetics, we know today that corn's wild ancestor is a grass called teosinte. Teosinte doesn't look much like maize, especially when you compare its kernals to those of corn. But at the DNA level, the two are surprisingly alike. They have the same number of chromosomes and a remarkably similar arrangement of genes. In fact, teosinte can cross-breed with modern maize varieties to form maize-teosinte hybrids that can go on to reproduce naturally.

Genetics is the last desperate fallback of evolutionists. Nothing else works? Try genetics: that's always good for a laugh if nothing else.

So teosinte exists today. Teosinte can cross with modern maize. Therefore teosinte, existing as it does, side by side with modern maize, CANNOT BE an ancestor of maize, wishful thinking notwithstanding.

Go back to sleep, perchance to dream.

Sort of the way the different fungi cultivated by the ants, have free-living forms which are still somewhat able to cross-breed with the domesticated species.

What domesticated species? This is gross irrelevancy, and totally useless as any form of evolutionary explanation.

Are you beginning to realize those stories they feed you always leave something important out of the text? If so, you're wising up.

I think you must be some kind of bottom feeder. The junk that drops out of evolutionary fish tanks fills you up, and worse, you gratefully swallow, glug glug glug.

Try the brain. Your oesophagus is not the organ of thought.

And you don't. Specifically, they didn't tell you that those fungi have free-living counterparts, or that most species of the ants can live off plant sap, and feed the fungus to the larvae.

I don't know who 'they' may be. You thinking of some sort of mafia here? There isn't one - merely the exercise of intelligence. You are called upon to account for the behavioural instincts' origin and genome entry. Specifically:

Account for the obligate specificity of the choice of fungus.
Account for the young queen's taking a piece of the fungus to act as seed.
Account for the design structure of the nest.
Account for the ant's ability to create the compost.
Account for their mouthparts' evolution.
Account for the non-sexuality of the workers.
Account for tha ants' ability to maintain the correct temperature and humidity in the tunnels.
Account for their identifying a bacterium to protect their nests.

[...] The most evolved species only collect living leaves, and have evolved many behaviors that make their farming more efficient.

Heh heh heh! You been at the mushrooms again?

How? How? How? did all this evolution take place?

Start us off from an ant which didn't cut leaves, and with some non-pathetic evidence, show how it 'evolved' the leaf-cutting behavioural instinct.

Ant (doesn't cut leaves) ---X--->Ant (does cut leaves, but doesn't know what to do with them when cut) -----> Y ----> Ant (which knows)

What happened at X and Y?

So, once again, transitional forms demonstrate that not only could this have evolved in steps, some of the steps you thought were impossible, still exist.

If evolution has occurred, those forms should not exist.

But see above for the devastating questions requiring answers.

(Async was told the ants live exclusively on fungus)
Actually, that's not quite right. The ants actually live on the leaf sap. The fungus is used to feed the larvae.

As you now know, if the larvae didn't feed on the fungus, the species would perish. I thought that was obvious even to a hardened evolutionist?

Barbarian bluffs, and drags in an irrelevance:

Kind of the way that maize would die out if humans didn't cultivate it. [Proof?] VBut that doesn't mean it appeared magically. Do you suppose humans once lived on other things, and only later adapted to maize?

You just don't learn that irrelevance doesn't save you, do you.

Try answering the questions instead.

 

[lordkalvan]

Compost material again.

Excellent rebuttal.

Notice the word SUDDENLY? Natural selection etc doesn't work like that.

It wasn't natural, any more than the many varieties of domestic dog are natural.

Genetics is the last desperate fallback of evolutionists. Nothing else works? Try genetics: that's always good for a laugh if nothing else.

Another excellent rebuttal with reasoned argument from evidence.

So teosinte exists today. Teosinte can cross with modern maize. Therefore teosinte, existing as it does, side by side with modern maize, CANNOT BE an ancestor of maize, wishful thinking notwithstanding.

So I guess Europeans can't be the ancestors of Americans, existing as they do side by side with modern Americans?

Go back to sleep, perchance to dream.

What domesticated species? This is gross irrelevancy, and totally useless as any form of evolutionary explanation.

Those would be the ones that aren't wild, i.e. not cultivated by the ants.

I think you must be some kind of bottom feeder. The junk that drops out of evolutionary fish tanks fills you up, and worse, you gratefully swallow, glug glug glug.

Try the brain. Your oesophagus is not the organ of thought.

Nice collection of ad hominems and well-poisoning there.

I don't know who 'they' may be. You thinking of some sort of mafia here? There isn't one - merely the exercise of intelligence.

Sadly, the exercise of intelligence seems to be directed largely towards misunderstanding at best and misrepresentation at worst.

You are called upon to account for the behavioural instincts' origin and genome entry. Specifically:

Account for the obligate specificity of the choice of fungus.
Account for the young queen's taking a piece of the fungus to act as seed.
Account for the design structure of the nest.
Account for the ant's ability to create the compost.
Account for their mouthparts' evolution.
Account for the non-sexuality of the workers.
Account for tha ants' ability to maintain the correct temperature and humidity in the tunnels.
Account for their identifying a bacterium to protect their nests.

Descent with modification over tens of millions of years and tens of millions of ant generations.

Heh heh heh! You been at the mushrooms again?

Hmm, more reasoned refutation.

How? How? How? did all this evolution take place?

See above.

Start us off from an ant which didn't cut leaves, and with some non-pathetic evidence, show how it 'evolved' the leaf-cutting behavioural instinct.

Ant (doesn't cut leaves) ---X--->Ant (does cut leaves, but doesn't know what to do with them when cut) -----> Y ----> Ant (which knows)

What happened at X and Y?

Mueller and Rabeling can help inform your understanding:

'Schultz and Brady's comprehensive reconstruction of attine evolution (5) identifies several cycles of ant–fungus specialization followed by ant diversification. Three distinct specialized fungicultural systems arose out of the generalized ancestral attine fungiculture, and one of these specialists gave rise subsequently to the even more narrowly specialized leaf-cutter fungiculture. That is, more generalized systems gave birth to specialized systems, which, as the specialized descendents diversified, led to opportunities for further specialization. Such successive cycles of coevolutionary innovation followed by diversification were hypothesized more than 40 years ago (7), but empirical support for this model has accumulated only recently (e.g., refs. 8 and 9). Schultz and Brady provide a phylogenetic framework that will now allow testing of this model also for the attine ant–fungus symbiosis...'

Source: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/14/5287.full

If evolution has occurred, those forms should not exist.

Just like Europeans shouldn't exist, I suppose?

But see above for the devastating questions requiring answers.

Devasting in what sense?

As you now know, if the larvae didn't feed on the fungus, the species would perish. I thought that was obvious even to a hardened evolutionist?

Barbarian bluffs, and drags in an irrelevance:

You just don't learn that irrelevance doesn't save you, do you.

And it's 'an irrelevance' why, exactly?

Try answering the questions instead.

Is that the sound of exploding irony meters I hear?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:

Demonstrably true. Maize evolved from teosinite, a grass that looks nothing at all like maize. The grass was cultivated for it's seeds and over time, evolved into maize, which cannot survive without human cultivation.
Compost material again.

The identity of maize's wild ancestor remained a mystery for many decades. While other grains such as wheat and rice have obvious wild relatives, there is no wild plant that looks like maize, with soft, starchy kernels arranged along a cob. The abrupt appearance of maize in the archaeological record baffled scientists. Evolution was generally thought to occur gradually through minor changes. Why did maize appear so suddenly?

Turns out, it didn't. There's a long archaeological history that shows how maize evolved from teosinte.

Genetics is the last desperate fallback of evolutionists.

(Translation: Moderators! The evil scientists are resorting to evidence, again.)

Note, though, that the archaeological evidence confirms the genetic analysis. You lose again.

So teosinte exists today. Teosinte can cross with modern maize. Therefore teosinte, existing as it does, side by side with modern maize, CANNOT BE an ancestor of maize, wishful thinking notwithstanding.

Ah, the old "if you're a live, your uncle has to be dead" argument. C'mon. Do you really think anyone believes that?

Barbarian chuckles:
Sort of the way the different fungi cultivated by the ants, have free-living forms which are still somewhat able to cross-breed with the domesticated species.

What domesticated species?

The varieties the ants have domesticated. So far, all of the identified ones have free-living varieties.

Barbarian chuckles:
Are you beginning to realize those stories they feed you always leave something important out of the text? If so, you're wising up.

I think you must be some kind of bottom feeder.

Well, you know how Barbarians are... We're pretty much immune to snarks.

Barbarian continues:
Specifically, they didn't tell you that those fungi have free-living counterparts, or that most species of the ants can live off plant sap, and feed the fungus to the larvae.

I don't know who 'they' may be.

Whoever fed you all that misinformation. Does it bother you that they set you up for this debacle?

You are called upon to account for the behavioural instincts' origin and genome entry. Specifically:

Account for the obligate specificity of the choice of fungus.

Turns out, it's not obligate for many species of these ants. The primitive ones just bring organic stuff in, eat it, and opportunistically eat any fungi that grow on it. More advanced ones are pickier, and the really evolved ones use only live leaves, and only allow one or a few species of fungus to grow.

Account for the young queen's taking a piece of the fungus to act as seed.

Queens that didn't, tended to fail to form a succesful colony. As you learned, selectable behaviors are often selected.

Account for the design structure of the nest.

It's pretty simple. The workers tend to move bits of dirt about, and pile them on top of other bits. As the pile gets higher, they tend to lean it toward another pile, forming an arch. Over time, this produces an arched cavity in the earth.

Account for the ant's ability to create the compost.

All ants drag organic material into nests. Storing it composts it.

Account for their mouthparts' evolution.

It's called "tagmosis." Already present in the ancestors of ants. Would you like to learn how it works?

Account for the non-sexuality of the workers.

Genetically haploid. A bad mutation, if it weren't for a fertile queen, which makes them useful adjuncts to the nest. Because the queen has all their genes, there is no selective pressure for them to reproduce.

Barbarian chuckles:
So, once again, transitional forms demonstrate that not only could this have evolved in steps, some of the steps you thought were impossible, still exist.

If evolution has occurred, those forms should not exist.

Wrong. If a population of ants undergoes speciation, there is no reason why the other populations in the species has to die out.

But see above for the devastating questions requiring answers.

(Async was told the ants live exclusively on fungus)
Actually, that's not quite right. The ants actually live on the leaf sap. The fungus is used to feed the larvae.

As you now know, if the larvae didn't feed on the fungus, the species would perish.

For some species, but not all of them. So that, too has transitionals. Which could easily evolve.

I thought that was obvious even to a hardened evolutionist?

You've been suckered again.

If you want to learn more about tagmosis, or any of the other questions, start a new thread for them.

 

[Asyncritus]

Barbarian observes:

Demonstrably true. Maize evolved from teosinite, a grass that looks nothing at all like maize. The grass was cultivated for it's seeds and over time, evolved into maize, which cannot survive without human cultivation.
Compost material again.

The identity of maize's wild ancestor remained a mystery for many decades. While other grains such as wheat and rice have obvious wild relatives, there is no wild plant that looks like maize, with soft, starchy kernels arranged along a cob. The abrupt appearance of maize in the archaeological record baffled scientists. Evolution was generally thought to occur gradually through minor changes. Why did maize appear so suddenly?

Turns out, it didn't. There's a long archaeological history that shows how maize evolved from teosinte.

I note that, significantly, you had to choose the word 'archaeological' there. That means, quite simply, that there was considerable human selection involved. Intelligent selection, in other words. Evolution? Natural selection? No, not at all. Human intervention, niothing else.

If lntelligent, directed selection is your idea of evolution, then tough luck pal. Scratch round some more.

Note, though, that the archaeological evidence confirms the genetic analysis. You lose again.

As shown above, you don't know what you're talking about, so I'd keep quiet, if I were you.

So teosinte exists today. Teosinte can cross with modern maize. Therefore teosinte, existing as it does, side by side with modern maize, CANNOT BE an ancestor of maize, wishful thinking notwithstanding. Ah, the old "if you're a live, your uncle has to be dead" argument. C'mon. Do you really think anyone believes that?

If teosinte can cross with modern maize, then we are not discussing 2 different species. Two different species cannot interbreed in the wild.

So can we get back to the point?

Chuckles:
Sort of the way the different fungi cultivated by the ants, have free-living forms which are still somewhat able to cross-breed with the domesticated species.


The varieties the ants have domesticated. So far, all of the identified ones have free-living varieties.

I don't know what you're talking about here - as an explanation, it sounds like utter nonsense again.

You say the ants have domesticated. The word domesticated reveals that the ants have intelligence enough to 'domesticate' species of fungi.

You clearly have been swallowing the garbage truck again. Ants do not have the intelligence to domesticate anything, now do they?

I can see it happening.

Ant spots a likely fungus, examines it carefully, and decides it can be domesticated. Which means what, really?

The fungus has to produce a structure which is suitable for the young ants to eat. Now how did an ant figure that out? I'll tell you.

It took about 30 different species of fungus back to the nest. Created growing gardens for the fungi, examined them carefully, fed the fruiting bodies to the larvae, and killed them all.

Queen most unhappy! Species finished.

But wait a minute - the ant knows how to create a fungus garden! How? Of course, it's been cutting leaves for centuries. Maybe a bit of saliva and poo would make the leaves do the job - and it does.

Now comes the tricky part. How does the ant pass that info down to its descendants? Lamarck rises from the dead again!

You, however, can't, and your theory goes down with you. Gurgle gurgle gurgle!

Chuckles:
Are you beginning to realize those stories they feed you always leave something important out of the text? If so, you're wising up.

The ones you're making up have one great quality: they're really good for a laugh. See above. You should become a fiction author, you know, you'd give Grimm brothers a real hard time!

Chuckles:

Specifically, they didn't tell you that those fungi have free-living counterparts, or that most species of the ants can live off plant sap, and feed the fungus to the larvae.

You're evading the issue again. There are zillions of free-living fungi.

You are being called upon to account for the way this particular species of fungus became cultivated by this particular species of ant in such a particularly well-designed way.

You can figure out, of course, that if the young queen does NOT take a cutting of the fungus with her, then the species is extinct: because she can't feed any of her offspring.

She, however, does do so. How did she figure that one out? I know: she used the same intelligence that the rest used to figure out how to domesticate the fungus in the first place. Didn't she?

Turns out, it's not obligate ...

Some ants in the genus Atta, for example, form an OBLIGATE symbiosis see below... for many species of these ants. The primitive ones just bring organic stuff in, eat it, and opportunistically eat any fungi that grow on it. More advanced ones are pickier, and the really evolved ones use only live leaves, and only allow one or a few species of fungus to grow.

All this may be interesting to you. However, you still have the above questions to answer. You really should get rid of that garbage truck, you know.

How did you say the really evolved ones managed to really evolve? From what? And how?

No wand- or arm-waving now.

Queens that didn't, tended to fail to form a succesful colony. As you learned, selectable behaviors are often selected.

I said, no arm-waving or wand waving either.

It's pretty simple. The workers tend to move bits of dirt about, and pile them on top of other bits. As the pile gets higher, they tend to lean it toward another pile, forming an arch. Over time, this produces an arched cavity in the earth.

Have you ANY idea of the complexity of an Atta nest? If you haven't, then go read it up on wikipedia or in a textbook of attine entomology. Then come back and talk sensibly, or stop talking altogether.

Here's a bit to enlighten your darkness. Note the mess the evos are in:

The ants are celebrated for their diversity and success. Amongst the most remarkable evolutionary developments, however, is the independent emergence of agriculture, which has many striking similarities to that of humans (where indeed agriculture has developed independently a number of times).

The agriculture developed by the attine ants involves the construction and maintenance of a fungal "farm", and this too is convergent having developed independently also in the termites, certain beetles, and even snails.

Ha ha haaaa!!! 3 separate times! In 3 entirely separate groups!!! Hey LK, what's the probability of all that happening by chance? Make any assumptions you like...

Of key importance are three factors. First, the crop must be manured and this is achieved by application of nitrogen-rich excreta produced by the ants.

Got that? They know all about nitrogen fertilisers and fertilisation! But there's more...

Second, the monoculture of fungi is in constant danger of pathogens, most notably a virulent fungal parasite known as Escovopsis.

To counter this, the ants apply antibiotics, which extraordinarily are secreted by bacterial filaments (actinomycetes) that live symbiotically on the bodies of the ants.

Got that? They know about antibiotics too, and cultivate symbionts which produce the antibiotic! Wahey!!

How have these ants, which adopted this type of agriculture millions of years ago, managed to ward off attack by pathogens?

Yeah, how?

In addition to this defence system, like other ants these attines possess metapleural glands whose secretions also provide protection against pathogens. In addition to the application of manure and protection against pathogens, the ants also engage in weeding of the crop.

You don't say!!!!???

The dump-pits are only one manifestation of the complex structure of the nest, [Ho Ho Ho!] which not surprisingly needs adequate ventilation (including monitoring of carbon dioxide), and rather extraordinarily even wind-induced ventilation to ensure sufficient supplies of oxygen.

http://www.mapoflife.org/topics/top...-ants-leaf-cutters-(attines)-and-non-attines/

What was that about bits of wood or whatever falling on other bits and producing a nest like this?

And note the word OBLIGATE. You know what that means, don't you? Like in the Yucca life history? Can you remember that far back?

Some ants in the genus Atta, for example, form an OBLIGATE symbiosis with the basidiomycete Attamyces, which is reminiscent of that between a termite family and the basidiomycete genus Termitomyces.

All ants drag organic material into nests. Storing it composts it.

It's called "tagmosis." Already present in the ancestors of ants. Would you like to learn how it works?

If you don't know, just keep quiet. Doesn't look so bad:
Definition of TAGMOSIS. : division of the anthropod body into tagmata.

Just read the above quotes willya? We don't need further demonstrations of ignorance and inability to answer simple questions.

Wrong. If a population of ants undergoes speciation, there is no reason why the other populations in the species has to die out.

Unfortunately for you, ant fossils have been found some 54 mya. and guess what? They are in LARGE COLONIES. meaning that their nests were no less complex that today's ants':

the Eocene (ca. 45 Ma). It is at this time that modern genera that form very large colonies (at least 10,000 individuals) first appear.

PNAS

Therefore, ants lived long before that, learning, domesticating, breaking Lamarck's stupid theory. Where did they come from? Oh yeah. They evolved! From what?

Ah, yes:

"Ants are a dominant feature of nearly all terrestrial ecosystems, and yet we know surprisingly little about their evolutionary history: the major groupings of ants, how they are related to each other, and when and how they arose," said graduate student Corrie Moreau.

Ha ha haaaaaa! :toofunny We dunno, in other words.

Since you have all the answers, Barbarian, perhaps you better go tell 'em.

If you want to learn more about tagmosis, or any of the other questions, start a new thread for them.

What, more garbage? No thanks, I don't swallow the stuff.

But I do want answers to the questions above. Now stop ducking and diving.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Demonstrably true. Maize evolved from teosinite, a grass that looks nothing at all like maize. The grass was cultivated for it's seeds and over time, evolved into maize, which cannot survive without human cultivation.

Compost material again.

As you learned, archaeology has demonstrated the fact, finding a complete series of transitionals between maize and tosinte. No point in denying it.

Turns out, it didn't. There's a long archaeological history that shows how maize evolved from teosinte.

I note that, significantly, you had to choose the word 'archaeological' there. That means, quite simply, that there was considerable human selection involved. Intelligent selection, in other words.

Yep. Evolution works by human selection, too.

Evolution?

Yep. New species due to a change in allele frequency over time. Surprise.

Barbarian chuckles:
Note, though, that the archaeological evidence confirms the genetic analysis. You lose again.

As shown above, you don't know what you're talking about, so I'd keep quiet, if I were you.

It must be embarrassing, being shown up by an ignorant old Barbarian, um?

No teosinte exists today. Teosinte can cross with modern maize. Therefore teosinte, existing as it does, side by side with modern maize, CANNOT BE an ancestor of maize,

You've been snockered on that, too. It's quite possible for a new species to evolve from an old one, while the old one continues to exist.

If teosinte can cross with modern maize, then we are not discussing 2 different species.

You think horses and zebras are the same species? Seriously? Grizzly bears and polar bears? C'mon. In the wild teosinte can't cross with maize. Only special intervention can do it.

Two different species cannot interbreed in the wild.

They don't interbreed in the wild. Maize can't even survive in the wild.

Barbarian Chuckles:
Sort of the way the different fungi cultivated by the ants, have free-living forms which are still somewhat able to cross-breed with the domesticated species.


The varieties the ants have domesticated. So far, all of the identified ones have free-living varieties.

I don't know what you're talking about here

More importantly, you don't know what you are talking about.

You say the ants have domesticated. The word domesticated reveals that the ants have intelligence enough to 'domesticate' species of fungi.

Nope. As you learned, it's not required.

Ant spots a likely fungus, examines it carefully, and decides it can be domesticated. Which means what, really?

The fungus has to produce a structure which is suitable for the young ants to eat. Now how did an ant figure that out?

Didn't. Most ants carry dead organic material back to a nest to store it. Fungus grows on such stuff. Occasionally, the fungus is a better deal than the substrate. No mystery there.

But wait a minute - the ant knows how to create a fungus garden!

How?

The way humans do. bring food into the house, leave it out too long.

Lamarck rises from the dead again!

You get outraged when we laugh about you not knowing the difference between Darwinism and Lamarckism, but then you make an error like that.

Barbarian, regarding Async's latest goof:
Are you beginning to realize those stories they feed you always leave something important out of the text? If so, you're wising up.

Barbarian points out some errors in Async's story:
Specifically, they didn't tell you that those fungi have free-living counterparts, or that most species of the ants can live off plant sap, and feed the fungus to the larvae.

You're evading the issue again.

You were fooled by guys who were just as ignorant as you.

You are being called upon to account for the way this particular species of fungus became cultivated by this particular species of ant in such a particularly well-designed way.

You're assuming what you propose to prove, again. As you learned, there's no need for design.

Barbarian observes:
Turns out, it's not obligate for many species of these ants. The primitive ones just bring organic stuff in, eat it, and opportunistically eat any fungi that grow on it. More advanced ones are pickier, and the really evolved ones use only live leaves, and only allow one or a few species of fungus to grow.

I highlighted in red the part you quote-mined out to make it look as though I said something I did not.

Some ants in the genus Atta, for example, form an OBLIGATE symbiosis see below...

Yeah, that's a common trend in evolution. Most changes like this start out as optional things, and later often become obligate behaviors.

Barbarian observes:
Queens that didn't, tended to fail to form a succesful colony. As you learned, selectable behaviors are often selected.

I said, no arm-waving or wand waving either.

Feel free to show it's wrong. But you have no evidence, do you?

Barbarian observes:
It's pretty simple. The workers tend to move bits of dirt about, and pile them on top of other bits. As the pile gets higher, they tend to lean it toward another pile, forming an arch. Over time, this produces an arched cavity in the earth.

Have you ANY idea of the complexity of an Atta nest?

African termite nests are much, much more complicated,and the termites do it that way, too.

Async admits:

Amongst the most remarkable evolutionary developments, however, is the independent emergence of agriculture, which has many striking similarities to that of humans

What was that about bits of wood or whatever falling on other bits and producing a nest like this?

And note the word OBLIGATE. You know what that means, don't you?

Yep. See above. It means the primitive ants didn't depend on the fungus, having other sources of food as well. Only later did it evolve to be obligate. (remember, I restored that part you removed)

Barbarian talks about the evolution of arthropod body parts:
It's called "tagmosis." Already present in the ancestors of ants. Would you like to learn how it works?

If you don't know, just keep quiet. Doesn't look so bad:
Definition of TAGMOSIS. : division of the anthropod body into tagmata.

Perhaps you don't know what it means:

However, two major evolutionary trends have occurred in the arthropods: tagmosis, or the fusion of segments into different body regions (or tagma), and the specialization of appendages in the different body regions.
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~biol240/labs/lab_19arthropod/pages/evolarthrop.html

You either confused it yourself or you've been looking up stuff on the creationist sites you depend on. Tagmosis is about the fusion of body segments, and the specialization of limbs to new uses. Would you like to see the evidence for that?

Just read the above quotes willya?

Reality just blind-sided you again. Remember, if you'd read up and learn about this stuff on your own, you wouldn't be embarrrassed so often.

Barbarian chuckles:
Wrong. If a population of ants undergoes speciation, there is no reason why the other populations in the species has to die out.

Unfortunately for you, ant fossils have been found some 54 mya. and guess what? They are in LARGE COLONIES.

But the first ants go back a lot farther. A little less that a hundred million years old. Again, if you learned a little about biology, things wouldn't be surprising you so often.

Therefore, ants lived long before that, learning, domesticating, breaking Lamarck's stupid theory. Where did they come from? Oh yeah. They evolved! From what?

Primitive hymenopterans:
In 1966, E. O. Wilson and his colleagues identified the fossil remains of an ant (Sphecomyrma freyi) that lived in the Cretaceous period. The specimen, trapped in amber dating back to more than 80 million years ago, has features of both ants and wasps.[20] Sphecomyrma was probably a ground forager but some suggest on the basis of groups such as the Leptanillinae and Martialinae that primitive ants were likely to have been predators underneath the surface of the soil.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant

Another transitional. Surprise. Note that the combination of features were almost exactly what was hypothesized for the ant/wasp transitional.

Ha ha haaaaaa! We dunno, in other words.

Surprise.

Since you have all the answers, Barbarian, perhaps you better go tell 'em.

Or (after 1967) they could just look it up here:
Wilson E O, Carpenter FM, Brown WL (1967). "The first Mesozoic ants". Science 157 (3792): 1038–1040

Here's another hint: if you do a quick literature survey before you fall for another quote-mined deception, you can save yourself further embarrassment.

(Barbarian offers to explain tagmosis and how it involves insect morphology)

(Async declines)

But I do want answers to the questions above.

Answered them again for you. You're a forgetful guy, aren't you?

 

[AlexBC]

Fantastic reply. Crom approves the Barbarian's answers.

 

[cupid dave]

If we had not yet discovered that 22 species of now extinct humans had preceded us, the same complex and amazing behavior of humans today would confuse us, and tempt a beief in some super natural means by which we Spontaneously Generated as the finished product of an unseen power, too.

The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-TwoSpecies of Extinct Humans

by G.J.Sawyer, (Author)