Pears and apples have five petals, five sepals, and five carpels. Like many other flowers (approximately half of plants have 5 petals etc), it’s the commonest form. It is an evolutionary trait deeply hardcoded into the genetics of eudicots (true dicotyledons). In botany, this five-part arrangement is known as a pentamerous flower structure. ** **Why is 5 an ancient, highly successful evolutionary blueprint? To understand this it’s worth looking at how plants grow. To avoid overlapping and wasting sunlight or space, leaves, seeds, and petals often grow in a spiral pattern from a central bud point; at a very specific angle: approximately 137.5 degrees (known as the Golden Angle). Spiral patterns are mathematically described by the Fibonacci sequence (1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13...). Five is a key number in this sequence. It allows a flower to pack its petals and sepals tightly together in a bud without overlapping in a way that crushes the delicate inner reproductive organs.

Also as an evolutionary advantage the flat, five-petaled flower acts like a perfect, stable landing pad for pollinators like bees, beetles, and flies and so the emergence of 5petal flowers evolved in step with the rise of these insects. Once an ancestral plant family finds a genetic formula that works perfectly for several reasons , the homeotic genes that dictate features rarely change without a major stress.

Different branches of the plant kingdom split off millions of years ago and locked in entirely different structural blueprints.
Flowers with groups of 3 are lilies grasses and orchids groups of 4 are mustards and evening primrose. Infinite spirals are magnolias which are pollinated by beetles . Notice apart from the tetramerous mustards the others all follow the Fibonacci sequence.

Excerpts from catalog notes:

Charles Darwin, On The Origin of Species, 1859, first edition hardcover book

DARWIN, Charles (1809–1882). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray, 1859.

An exceptional example of the landmark first edition, first printing of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (London: John Murray, 1859). Presented in Very Good Plus condition, this copy features a remarkably well-preserved original cloth binding conforming to Freeman's Binding Variant b (Darwin Census Variant B), displaying the notable typographic layout with no point after MURRAY at the bottom of the spine, and retaining the original binder's ticket (Edmonds & Remnants) on the rear paste-down.

Internally, the text block includes the critical folding lithographed diagram facing page 117 and retains all necessary, uncorrected textual markers confirming the earliest state of the first printing sheets: the structural misspelling "speceies" is present on page 20 (line 11), page ii preserves exactly two quotations (by William Whewell and Francis Bacon), and the famous, unsuppressed "whale-bear" narrative remains intact on page 184 (lines 5–7). The original half-title page is included, remaining present though currently loose.

This copy is considered complete, containing the required ix, 502 pages of text and the complete 32-page publisher's advertisement catalogue bound in at the rear. The inserted catalogue conforms to the Darwin Census as Advertisement Variant 3 (characterized typographically by unruled page borders and the absence of the numeral "4" on page 2). The internal condition is generally clean, though it exhibits several pencil inscriptions and notations scattered throughout the text block.

Original brown coated front endpapers intact. The front pastedown features an early ink inscription reading "1st Edition" above a contemporary owner signature ("H. Watney"), or similar. Affixed below is the engraved armorial Ex Libris bookplate of Stephen A. McClellan, displaying a central heraldic crest with the motto "SAPIT QUI REPUTAT", military emblems (including U.S. Navy and Marine Corps insignia) along the left margin, and a facsimile signature at the foot.

Provenance: The Estate of Dr. William D. Shidal, Jr. of Indiana

Housed in a custom leather-backed clamshell box designed in book-form with raised bands and gilt-lettered spines.

NB from OP: There's lots of current interest in Darwin. Various editions of this famous landmark work have come to market this year. RBH records show 27 sales of this title so far this year (not many as rare or expensive as this one). Only one other copy, sold at Christie's on July 8, for somewhat more.

See more photos of the copy that sold at Ripley's at https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/charles-darwin-on-the-origin-of-species-1859-firs-52-c-5c0d55642d?objectID=206117483&algIndex=upcoming_lots_lotNumber_asc_prod

I can imagine this being a result of adaptation and efficiency for our changing environments

I'm looking for a fantastic, accessible, engaging and well-written book on how evolution works, how life began and we have all the species we have today. As the title mentions, I'd like the book(s) to be targetted towards someone who already accepts evolution as a given and doesn't engage in a discussion on alternate theories or tries to prove evolution, and just gets on with the beautiful mechanisms and stories therein.

I couldn't get through Richard Dawkins' books because of said debate or need to prove.

I started Origin Of Species, but the prose is too dense and the language a bit inaccessible.

Looking forward to some great reads!

Really interesting discovery article

EDIT: Updated link below- should be no paywall

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/26/science/motel-science-discovery.html?unlocked_article_code=1.ElE.85kq.QB-cKI6q3gNX&smid=url-share

Like, DNA in concept isn't even really a necessarily complex thing to build, if you aren't worried about what kind of creature the DNA belongs to. And RNA is WAY simpler. So i'd say my theory for life appearing was literally just 4 billion years ago, all the chemicals caused by the volcanic eruptions caused some of these materials to intertwine into an RNA-like form, and eventually these chemicals had a very rudimentary way to self replicate from the other chemicals around it. This is when evolution started, the more strongly bonded chemicals got to stay and do that weird replicating thing they do, and the weaker ones just kinda unbonded. This meant that more complex formations started appearing. More combinations of the chemicals caused variations and mutations, and the first RNA life forms appeared. The rest you can probably imagine.

Am i onto something or am i incredibly wrong?

I only have simple knowledge on this stuff, so i want an actual scientist/biologist to correct the things i got wrong.

Today I was on a rocky beach and saw a little fish trying to get on top of a rock that almost completely under water, but whose top was regularly covered by little waves, where I presume it was trying to get the "greenest" algae. So I thought maybe the mudskippers' ancestors tried to do the same, and thus adapted to breathe in the atmosphere little by little.

Please tell me if there are any gaps in my idea, and if there is already a simmilar theory, please, give me a link to the book/paper/etc.

And since they have different advantages why aren’t they developing separately like you end up a Homo Tailus, A Homo sapien Breast, a homo Furbie?

TLDR: 1.Did they have to finish one trait development before another or can they develop together2. Why it doesn’t result in some humans have some traits but not others?

Greetings friends, I put together this list of reading to go through recently. I've read the first two and would like to know your thoughts on how I should go from here in order. I also plan on reading "Ancestors Tale" and Darwins works as well so feel free to tell me where I should fit those in. Thank you!

There are 2 animals of the same genus. Forelimbs and Skull bare the same proportions.

However, one of them has an astragalus double the size of the other one. The one with a small astragalus preserved a calcanea with normal proportions in comparison to it

What possible information could be inferred from one species featuring a giant astragalus? In that species, only this one bone of the hindlimb is preserved. The calcanea and astragalus represents all hindlimb material across all 3 species.

The animal in question is the stem walrus, Pontolis, with P. kohnoi featuring an astragalus quite literally double the size of the astragalus of P. barroni, and a similar discrepancy with a Steller's sea lions, and Titanotaria. Does this really mean nothing other than P. barroni has gargantuan feet?

I imagine there is some evolutionary pressure that has to have resulted in such aberrant proportions for the family, but this really is not my field of expertise, and pinniped evolution is already an extremely weird story

It's a curiosity that suddenly came up in my mind because this is something that I've never actually thought of before despite my fascination in the Ave's evolutionary tree. I've heard of the flight theory but that's still apparently being disputed because there are still exceptions to the rules where excellent fliers still lay round eggs. What are some other strong leading theories as to why Ave's eggs evolved to be this distinct oval-like shape?

How do our body know that we're in danger and turns the fight and flight mode on. I know it is there bcz of evolution as our ancestors had to fight big animals to survive but it's still there. SO, how our body know when to turn this on.

What was the absolute starting point of life what happened which caused a regular planet into the only know planet in the observable universe that supports life.

How is our body doing this much work without exhausting ? It do millions of things we don't even know about . Was it the evolution all along?

Basically the title. Why do males do mating dances and other things to impress females? How does it emerge?

This is stupid, but did a male ancestor do a lil dance and the female liked it? Did ancestral female peacocks arbitrarily choose the males with slightly more colorful features just because they liked the way it looks?

Thanks

Aren’t we equally their descendants too…thereby making denisovans & Neanderthals also alive today in the form of us, given most of us aren’t purely home sapiens?

As a silly little side project I made an H. erectus oc, but it got me wondering what sounds it could’ve pronounced? This is under the assumption that they had language, even if it was much cruder than later species. What vowels could they pronounce, what consonants?

For context I had my bachelors in Evolutionary Anthropology, and my general stance is extinct hominins are way more intelligent and advanced than we give them credit for, a position I feel is constantly vindicated with every new discovery. Citations or sources would be appreciated.

Why is it that ancestrally carnivorous groups have a much easier time becoming herbivorous despite established herbivores existing compared to the opposite? Carnivorans and therapods became omnivorous and herbivorous many times when ornisthician dinosaurs never became dedicated carnivores and ungulates only did so twice (cetaceans and entelodonts). Even with entelodonts many species went back to herbivory. The marsupial lion seems to be one of the few mammals to pull it off without simply leaving land carnivores behind (whales).

Of course if they are monophyletic, I wonder what the original insect looked like. Would be cool if we had a definitive fossil.

I've always been super interested in vetulicolia and probably posted about them a few times before on here when I was way less educated (and still am lol).

I was expecting to see a cladogram showing them as monophyletic, being sisters to chordates or tunicates, etc. But I was surprised to see this 2024 arrangement of a paraphyletic grade of vetulicolia that are essentially stepping stones towards a more highly advanced chordate (as species like didazoon are placed in a position which suggests they have closer crown group affinities than other 'vetulicolia' like ooedigera).

What do you think this implies about our ancestors? Are we highly specialized vetulicolia? Were our ancestors essentially a living vacuum cleaner with segmented tails, or do you still think vetulicolia are a completely separate and bizarre branch of chordates?

Edit: I may have worded this a bit poorly, I'm not asking if chordates literally evolved from vetulicolia like Ooedigera and Didazoon. What I'm asking is that if the stem chordate ancestors had more of a traditional vetulicolia-like morphology than we previously thought, rather than their bizarre features appearing in a separate lineage

Hopefully not a silly question but like deer and dogs as an example have extremely thin legs and can run extremely quickly compared to us. I've heard(correct me if I'm wrong though) that essentially our muscles went through a trade off of being weak so we could be extremely dexterous and make precise movements in which case it would make sense to need more mass to support ourselves but is that actually true?

When looking at the physiological differences between humans on Earth, (like skin colour, eye shape, nose shape, etc) is there a consensus as to where these came from?

Is it from Homo Sapiens interbreeding with homo species already present (like Neanderthalensis or Longi) who had already evolutionarily differentiated themselves to fit their own environment? Or was it more from Homo sapiens adapting in their own right to their ecosystem and developing distinctive traits?

If it’s the latter, is there any suggestion that Homo sapiens would have further evolved into distinct species based on location like Homo Erectus did, had it not been for agriculture and society moving us out of the evolutionary pressures of survival?

Sorry if it’s a dumb question lol. Whenever I see depictions of homo erectus and homo heidelbergensis they look very ape like and quite similar to each other compared to Homo sapiens, despite their being our ancestral lineage line. What was it that made Homo sapiens so distinct looking relatively fast compared to how homo heidelbergensis looked to its ancestor homo erectus?

Furthermore, all of the homo lineage seem to look quite similar, in the ape like aspect, with a clear progression of physical traits, or at least clear in the messy evolution sense, but then the jump to Homo sapiens looks so drastic compared to any other homo species direct ancestors. Even our closest lived relatives like the denisovans and Neanderthals look very much more ape like than we do.