In the lab, E. coli have long been a model organism for tracking mutations. They are single celled bacteria with no nervous systems.
Plant life has probably been around for up to 100,000 years. Where in specific do you think you see plants evolving?
Yet we have ample evidence sponges have evolved.
Deep Phylogeny and Evolution of Sponges (Phylum Porifera)
Sponges (phylum Porifera) are a diverse taxon of benthic aquatic animals of great ecological, commercial, and biopharmaceutical importance. They are arguably the earliest-branching metazoan taxon, and therefore, they have great significance in the reconstruction of early metazoan evolution. Yet, the phylogeny and systematics of sponges are to some extent still unresolved, and there is an on-going debate about the exact branching pattern of their main clades and their relationships to the other non-bilaterian animals. Here, we review the current state of the deep phylogeny of sponges. Several studies have suggested that sponges are paraphyletic. However, based on recent phylogenomic analyses, we suggest that the phylum Porifera could well be monophyletic, in accordance with cladistic analyses based on morphology. This finding has many implications for the evolutionary interpretation of early animal traits and sponge development. We further review the contribution that mitochondrial genes and genomes have made to sponge phylogenetics and explore the current state of the molecular phylogenies of the four main sponge lineages (Classes), that is, Demospongiae, Hexactinellida, Calcarea, and Homoscleromorpha, in detail. While classical systematic systems are largely congruent with molecular phylogenies in the class Hexactinellida and in certain parts of Demospongiae and Homoscleromorpha, the high degree of incongruence in the class Calcarea still represents a challenge. We highlight future areas of research to fill existing gaps in our knowledge. By reviewing sponge development in an evolutionary and phylogenetic context, we support previous suggestions that sponge larvae share traits and complexity with eumetazoans and that the simple sedentary adult lifestyle of sponges probably reflects some degree of secondary simplification. In summary, while deep sponge phylogenetics has made many advances in the past years, considerable efforts are still required to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the relationships among and within the main sponge lineages to fully appreciate the evolution of this extraordinary metazoan phylum.
Here’s the first example (of many) google offered up:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14691
The abstract:
Pollinator-driven diversification is thought to be a major source of floral variation in plants. Our knowledge of this process is, however, limited to indirect assessments of evolutionary changes. Here, we employ experimental evolution with fast cycling Brassica rapa plants to demonstrate adaptive evolution driven by different pollinators. Our study shows pollinator-driven divergent selection as well as divergent evolution in plant traits. Plants pollinated by bumblebees evolved taller size and more fragrant flowers with increased ultraviolet reflection. Bumblebees preferred bumblebee-pollinated plants over hoverfly-pollinated plants at the end of the experiment, showing that plants had adapted to the bumblebees’ preferences. Plants with hoverfly pollination became shorter, had reduced emission of some floral volatiles, but increased fitness through augmented autonomous self-pollination. Our study demonstrates that changes in pollinator communities can have rapid consequences on the evolution of plant traits and mating system.
No, you wrote:
Plants are organisms that truly do not have brains or nervous systems, and they evolve rapidly. Why doesn’t your hypothesis account for that?
Here for example
Age and rate of diversification of the Hawaiian silversword alliance (Compositae)
The Hawaiian silversword alliance ( Argyroxiphium , Dubautia , Wilkesia ; Compositae) has been considered “the best example of adaptive radiation in plants” (1). Life-form diversity among the 28 Hawaiian-endemic species in the group encompasses trees, shrubs, subshrubs, mat-plants, monocarpic and polycarpic rosette plants, cushion plants, and vines that occur across a broad environmental spectrum, from rainforests to desert-like settings (2). Although monophyly of the group is well established (3), absolute ages of the silversword alliance and other Hawaiian lineages have been difficult to estimate. Ages are essential in the reconstruction of the absolute diversification rates—the rate of speciation minus extinction ( S − E ). Availability of such rate estimates would permit comparisons with other insular radiations and with continental radiations, which may exhibit qualitatively or quantitatively different patterns of diversification
Comparisons between insular and continental radiations have been hindered by a lack of reliable estimates of absolute diversification rates in island lineages. We took advantage of rate-constant rDNA sequence evolution and an “external” calibration using paleoclimatic and fossil data to determine the maximum age and minimum diversification rate of the Hawaiian silversword alliance (Compositae), a textbook example of insular adaptive radiation in plants. Our maximum-age estimate of 5.2 ± 0.8 million years ago for the most recent common ancestor of the silversword alliance is much younger than ages calculated by other means for the Hawaiian drosophilids, lobelioids, and honeycreepers and falls approximately within the history of the modern high islands (≤5.1 ± 0.2 million years ago). By using a statistically efficient estimator that reduces error variance by incorporating clock-based estimates of divergence times, a minimum diversification rate for the silversword alliance was estimated to be 0.56 ± 0.17 species per million years. This exceeds average rates of more ancient continental radiations and is comparable to peak rates in taxa with sufficiently rich fossil records that changes in diversification rate can be reconstructed.
1 Like
Just what I thought. Supposed millions of years in the fossil record. Nonsense. You are looking at multiple species of plant life, many which are long ago extinct.
Show me a modern example of how plant life evolves.
Did you miss my link?
1 Like
Let the tap dancing continue. All the species in the Hawaiian Silversword alliance are extant BTW. They just all evolved from a common ancestor. That refutes your claim plants don’t evolve even if it only took 100K years.
I notice you’re still dodging the question about how an embryonic animal with no developed brain yet uses its non-existent brain to alter its DNA. 
1 Like
Sounds like the beginning of a Stephen King novel:
“Until one of them found a way. And nothing is worse than a mutated bacteria with a nasty attitude.”
(According to Robert, that rogue bacteria knew that he could mutate whenever he had a mind to. The name of the novel is You Can Call Me Mr. E. Coli.)
What are you talking about? It took cavefish a long time and going through a lot of offspring and generations to get to the point where they are eyeless. Your attack is completely baseless. Nonsense.
Which brings us back to the original question you dodged:
Do you realize in your scenario the fish doing the “changing” to its DNA wouldn’t have any morphological change itself? Any changes would only show up in its offspring. How did the fish brain figure that out?
ETA: Also why should it take such a long time and lots of generations? If the brain can change the DNA why not just get rid of the eyes in one generation? As an experiment if we took a colony of mice and let them live and breed in complete darkness how many generations would it be before they changed into an eyeless variety?
1 Like
Why did it happen this way? You seem to be saying that if you put fish in the dark then their sensory input will cause all of their offspring to be born without eyes. This should happen in one generation across the entire population, shouldn’t it?
[Edit: what @Timothy_Horton said]
1 Like
Your suggestions are complete nonsense. Read the article
Mutations are involved
“Genetic studies show that about a dozen eye genes are mutated in Astyanax cavefish, and different genes are mutated in different cavefish populations, suggesting multiple driving factors,” Jeffery says.
Pleiotropy may be involved
One such process in Mexican blind cavefish is a phenomenon called pleiotropy, in which genes usually involved in eye development are reassigned to features more useful to life in caves, such as increased numbers of taste cells for finding food in the dark.
The theory of energy conservation may be involved
In fact, Moran says, the evidence suggests both pleiotrophy and energy savings are major drivers in the cavefish eye loss.
Shouldn’t all the fish produce these same mutations in a single generation if they are exposed to the same stimulus, according to your model? If not, then why does a stimulus produce a specific mutation only rarely?
3 Likes
We know why mutations are slow to happen and slow to accumulate under evolutionary theory. We’re asking why they are so slow under your brain–>think–>POOF hypothesis.
Please try to answer the question .
3 Likes
An overview of a new discipline in biology
Well you just blew it. Not even the researchers Damian Moran or William Jeffery interviewed by National Geographic can share your confidence. So, who is your funding coming from?
Ok, I will call your bluff.
My answer is easy because it involves a complete loss of the sense of sight which in turn causes the brain to send mutational signals to gametes over a number of generations, resulting in a gradual shrinkage of the visual center – or midbrain in this case – and finally the mutations that call for the a complete loss of a stage of embryonic development associated with the creation of the eye. All of this occurring slowly over several generations but nonetheless, a self-directed endeavor originating from natural selection and the organism’s own center of intelligence.
Now it’s your turn. This ought to be entertaining. Please tell us all how this eyeless fish comes about due to randomness.
That doesn’t explain why it happens slowly and not all at once since as you claim the DNA changes are under brain control. Try again to answer the actual question.
1 Like
Just as soon as you tell us how the eyeless cave fish arose due to randomness.