Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 20:52:45 UTC No. 16065487

No, many larvae are derived forms. As a whole they’re no more representative of their ancestors as the mature form. This is like the fifth thread you’ve posted about this sort of thing

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 11:04:20 UTC No. 16066246

>>16065487
Not OP, but couldn't there be something to it? As organisms evolve as modifications of the previously existing forms, changing something early is very likely to break everything, while adding something on top later on in the development may work more likely, without breaking everything on top of it.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 21:19:52 UTC No. 16067047

>>16066246
Lots of larval forms are very specialised. The larvae of butterflies, beetles, etc are far more advanced than the nymphs of more primitive insects like roaches and silverfish. Same goes for a lot of marine fish and snail larvae. There probably are lots of larval forms that are similar in shape and structure to an animal’s ancestors, but the opposite is equally true

🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 05:42:47 UTC No. 16067636

>>16067047
On the contrary, it seems much more likely that it's how it developed - once a worm or whatever got some kind of rest state, the genes overwhelmingly influenced the post rest state, until it evolved into outright metamorphosis, and there was just no way to push the difference to the earlier stages without breaking the caterpillar. That seems far more plausible than the other way round.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 05:49:45 UTC No. 16067643

>>16067047
On the contrary, it seems much more likely that it's how it developed - once a worm or whatever got some kind of rest state, the genes overwhelmingly influenced the post rest state, until it evolved into outright metamorphosis, and there was just no way to push the differences to the earlier stages without breaking the caterpillar. That seems far more plausible than the other way round.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:32:16 UTC No. 16067953

>>16067643
You’re thinking about it the wrong way. The baseline is a primitive insect that’s something like a silverfish. Silverfish barely change in shape from birth to maturity, they’re the most primitive living insects.
In holometabolous insects like butterflies with distinct adult/pupa/larval stages it’s the adult that’s most similar to the baseline silverfish, aside from the fact they have wings. If the larvae were the ancestral form then you’d expect the primitive insects like silverfish to be sedentary and worm-like, not highly mobile creatures that scurry around. The instars of a growing silverfish nymph are equivalent to the stages in a butterfly’s life cycle. Hemimetabolism is also much older than holometabolism, larval stages didn’t show up until well after things like cockroaches and dragonflies had already evolved

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 12:24:32 UTC No. 16068002

>>16067953
>The baseline is a primitive insect that’s something like a silverfish.
What is the reason for believing this?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 12:45:36 UTC No. 16068019

>>16067953
Or, in other words, what makes you think that silverfish is the most primitive form? What would it evolve from? There seems to be a rather "straightforward" way from a nematode to a fly, as the worm accumulates mutations that change its final adult molt. Then, you would have holometabolism as the "primitive" form (as they stay worm like for most of their developmental stages) unlike more advanced arthropods which are not wormlike anymore.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 13:35:11 UTC No. 16068067

>>16068002
not a genetic reason, thats for sure

I made a wide gene comparison between silverfish and winged insects (no relative of silverfish is winged) and noticed its genes are nowhere close other insects altough is closer to insects than to lets say a harvestman (spider look alike that belongs to arachnids but is no spider at all, they don't have larvae, they look like microscopic adults when they are hatched from an egg)

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 13:58:56 UTC No. 16068096

>>16068067
What does it say about which of those are more "primitive"?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 14:56:43 UTC No. 16068167

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:04:33 UTC No. 16068173

>>16068096
here, if you are interested in seeing one such gene comparison here is a bunch of insects and a harvestman and a lobster

if a number between two species is 1.0, it means they are 100% different, such a thing has never happened but I wouldnt rule it out to be impossible in nature

if a number is 0.05, they are 99.5% identical
(human and chimpanzee gives this number on the comparison of same gene set we now use for insect like creatures)

as you can see insects are not very closely related to each other due to them all being hundreds of millions of years old and having gone their separate way for who knows how long ago

humans and chimps on in comparison diverged maybe 5 million years ago from one ancestor species

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:18:53 UTC No. 16068192

>>16068173
Yes but what does it say about which form is the more primitive one?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:37:29 UTC No. 16068221

>>16068192
this one I can't truly answer

I am merely commenting that silverfish (lepisma) genes arent exactly very close to other insects

but then again it has lived on Earth for 333 million years at minimum (so did the harvestmen)

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 21:51:13 UTC No. 16068943

>>16068002
>>16068019
>What is the reason for believing this?
Some of the oldest known insect fossils are silverfish relatives. They and their relatives are the only living insects which lack wings as a basal trait, all other wingless insects are only secondarily so
>as the worm accumulates mutations that change its final adult molt. Then, you would have holometabolism as the "primitive" form (as they stay worm like for most of their developmental stages) unlike more advanced arthropods which are not wormlike anymore.
Holometabolism only appears over a hundred million years after insects first evolved. Hemimetabolous insects like silverfish already existed long before then.
>>16068067
>>16068173
>not a genetic reason, thats for sure
How so? Your graph shows quite clearly that they are very basal to the lineage containing the other insects, diverging from the others very early on

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 21:56:25 UTC No. 16068956

>>16068002
takes about ten seconds to find the answer on google
>The predecessors of silverfish, along with those of jumping bristletails, are considered the earliest and most primitive insects. They evolved at the latest in mid-Devonian and possibly as early as late Silurian more than 400 million years ago.[31]

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 06:48:15 UTC No. 16069631

>>16068956
Google is a waste of time, it only finds the most superficial aswers, if anything at all. This made sense 10+ yeaes ago, but Google search has its best days behind it.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 07:45:49 UTC No. 16069677

>>16069631
use duckduckgo

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 07:49:24 UTC No. 16069678

>>16069677
I don't give a shit, you should be able to justify your opinion.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 08:09:45 UTC No. 16069687

>>16069678
I'm a different guy and I only point out Google shouldnt be used

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 10:25:51 UTC No. 16069819

>>16069631
Maybe if you don't take the time to actually open a link. If you use the right search terms then it should not be hard to find a paper discussing the topic in detail
>>16069678
You mean the opinion that was justified here >>16068943?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:54:35 UTC No. 16070426

no