Coevolution is often seen in a number of species of flowering plants that coevolved with specific pollinators (insects, bats, etc). The pollinator gets a reward such as nectar for pollinating the plant. Moth-pollinated plants often have spurs or tubes the exact length of a certain moth’s “tongue.” For example, Charles Darwin predicted the existance of a moth in Madagascar based on the size and shape of a flower he saw there. The moth was actually discovered about 40 years later. The common snapdragons that many people plant in their gardens are designed for a bumblebee of just the right weight to trip the opening mechanism.From: Coevolution and Pollination
Note Darwin's remark that there had to be a specific insect that fed on this plant. Well here we see the problem, the insect could not live without the plant and the plant could not live without the insect.
There you go again, mistaking your shortsightedness for facts.
First, nowhere does it in any way say that the "insect could not live without the plant". You just made that up.
You are invited to explain where, exactly, you got the bizarre idea that the moth is somehow crippled in a way that makes it impossible for it to feed from any other flower in the area. Such an explanation will go a long way towards documenting your flawed reasoning processes.
If you're making the mistake of reading too much into the opening "definition" of coevolution on that page ("evolution of two species totally dependent on each other"), this only shows why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Coevolution is *not* limited to "total" dependence, as even a quick Google search for the term (not to mention any Biology text) would make clear. Complete mutual dependence is *one* type of coevolution, but hardly the only type. And there's nothing about the Predicta moth which would preclude it from feeding on other flowers. It just *prefers* the Star of Bethlehem Orchid because, being the only moth able to reach its nectar, it has no competition inter-species competition there.
Second, although the orchid almost certainly is totally dependent upon the moth for pollination, that's no problem for evolution (nor would it be even if the moth *were* completely dependent upon the orchid). See below.
In fact, the plant had to be the correct shape, etc. for the insect to feed on it.
No, again, the moth has a long enough proboscis it could feed on damned near anything it wanted to, including the Star Orchid if it were many other shapes/sizes.
Just saying that flowers coevolved with specific pollinators does not answer the question of how such a thing could occur.
Of course it doesn't. Simple understanding of evolution, however, *does*. Which is why you're left baffled, presumably.
but what has to be taken into account is that it takes time, lots of time, for the proper mutations to arise and plants (like all species) have to continue reproducing throught this long time. Without the insect, and a specific constitution to allow this insect to spread its pollen, the plant would not have survived for a single generation more. This makes the evolutionary explanation of the rise of plants total nonsense.
The only thing that's "total nonsense" is your empty declaration that there is no evolutionary progression by which such symbiosis could arise. You haven't supported that claim, you've simply declared it, based on nothing more than your "I can't think of how it might happen". That's not good enough, that's an "argument from ignorance" fallacy.
First a bit of background. Today, the Star Orchid of Madagascar has a nectar trap that is 10.5 inches deep at the bottom of a twelve-inch tubular flower well. (Amusing side note: The species name in its latin name, "Angraecum sesquipedale", means "foot-and-a-half"). Orchids of the genus Angraecum are pollinated by moths. Thus, it seems that this particular species would only be visited by, and thus pollinated by, a moth with a tongue at least 10.5 inches long! None were known in Darwin's day, but he predicted that one would be found eventually. And it was found many years later, and named Xanthopan morgani praedicta, because it was the "predicted" moth. Its tongue is 11.75 inches long:
*Here's* how it could easily occur (one way out of several):
1. The orchid began pretty much as most other orchids in the area. But something about it (color, shape, time of bloom, whatever) attracted that particular moth (which at the time had a more ordinary proboscis) more strongly than most other insects which also visited the flower.
2. This set up an evolutionary incentive. Plants pollinate each other (i.e., mate and reproduce) more successfully if they can get a particular kind of insect to visit them often, intead of just attracting any insect that comes along. The reason is that an insect that goes feeding more selectively from Star Orchid to Star Orchid passes along the pollen much more directly and often than will an insect that wanders randomly among dozens of different species of flowers.
3. Thus, since the Predicta moth was already at least a little bit more of a selective feeder on Star Orchids than other insects were, any variation/adaptation which allowed an individual Star Orchid to a) attract the moth more strongly, or b) discourage/block other insects from using up the nectar that could be used to attract the Predicta moth, would increase that individual's reproductive success, since its pollen would be passed along to other Star Orchids more often than those that allowed any damned insect to wander off wit hits pollen, and/or wasn't so successful at getting more Predicta moths to visit.
4. This evolutionary pressure would, quite directly and through the usual well-understood processes of evolution, cause the Star Orchid to shape itself more and more specifically for the Predicta moth over generations.
5. Meanwhile, since the Predicta moth found itself after many generations (of Orchids) with a plant that had nectar reserved for the moth's exclusive use, there was evolutionary pressure for the Predicta moth to become more selective in seeking out Star Orchids.
6. Over time, neither species had any reason to bother with other pollinators/food sources, since both were benefiting so successfully from the arrangement.
[Sidebar: Note that at this point, the Orchid and the moth have already evolved into strict exclusivity (although presumably the moth could feed on other flowers if need be, although it had more incentive not to), *without* ever reaching what Gore3000 naively believes would be some sort of impossible reproductive gap. The orchid has simply tailored itself to the moth, and excluded all other insects, while the moth has simply grown preferential to the orchid which is always full of nectar for it. There's absolutely no "prevention" of reproduction here for either species at any point.]
7. But why such a *ridiculously* long flower/tongue? That's where a little arms race between the two species comes into play. Through variation, some Predicta moths will have longer tongues than others. The problem for the orchid is that extra-long-tongued moths can reach the nectar without having to push far enough into the flower itself to pick up any pollen. So some moth visits will result in the orchid "losing out" on a chance at reproduction. Consequently, over generations the orchids which have extra-deep nectar wells will reproduce more often, since even the longer-tongued moths will need to dive in deeply enough to pick up their pollen, and those orchids will outcompete their shallower brethren. As the flowers slowly deepen on average over generations, the moths need to pick up the pace as well, because the shorter-tongued moths now find themselves starting to lose out more often than their longer-tongued moth brethren. So there's an evolutionary pressure for the moths to evolve longer tongues as well. Over countless generations, there's an ever-rising spiral of deeper flowers and longer tongues, to the point of almost silliness.
Thus, there are perfectly ordinary evolutionary pressures which can, contrary to Gore3000's naive belief, produce co-evolved species without ever causing any sort of evolutionary impasse.
Time, there is no infinite time,
There doesn't need to be.
there is no billions of years for a species to go through the necessary mutations to survive.
What are you babbling about here?
Species have to reproduce, eat and survive on a daily basis, and this gives absolutely no time for the changes required for this 'coevolution' or for many other changes postulated by evolutionists.
See above and get back to us when you've caught on.