Why has evolution failed to utilise radio transmission & reception?

[unusualname]

Evolution is the greatest nano-engineer that ever existed. I always assumed that if anything was physically possible at everyday Earth temperatures, forces and velocities then it would have emerged naturally from evolution, since the evolutionary benefits are clearly enormous.

eg that's why room-temperature superconductivity probably can't work with commonly available compounds, if it did, evolution would have used it.

So I'm puzzled that simple radio transmission/reception doesn't appear to be used anywhere, surely the ability to communicate via radio waves (rather than squawking really loudly) offers a huge evolutionary benefit.

Can anyone think of an obvious reason why evolution couldn't make use of radio transmission?

 

[russ_watters]

This is erroneous reasoning. Evolution hasn't generated an internal combusion engine or rocket either.

Harnessing radio requires electronics and antennas, things that a living organism would be hard-pressed to manufacture internally.

 

[Bob S]

Some people have claimed to be able to receive (hear) AM radio signals via metallic objects in their teeth, perhaps utilizing electrochemical (battery) potentials involving saliva and (silver/mercury?) fillings. Somehow the contact potential made a homodyne detector. See

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=367925

Bob S

 

[Studiot]

Whoever said evolution doesn't use electromagnetic effects would be wrong.

Homing pigeons, for instance, have a particular ferrous complex in their brains that allows them to detect the Earth's magnetic field and use it for navigation.

 

[mgb_phys]

Many predator fish species can sense the EM from the muscles in their prey.

Some can generate a field to sense objects around them and a least a few species use them to communicate.

 

[unusualname]

This is erroneous reasoning. Evolution hasn't generated an internal combusion engine or rocket either.

Harnessing radio requires electronics and antennas, things that a living organism would be hard-pressed to manufacture internally.

Sorry, but I think that's erroneous reasoning, combustion engines and rockets require conditions (temperatures) outside those survivable by biological organisms, radio transmission doesn't. Evolution has created pretty good engines at room temperature conditions.

The other replys are useful and interesting, I have heard of the navigation mechanism used by some birds, but that's one-way reception.

I thought the answer might lie in the fact that you need both the receiver and transmitter to evolve simultaneously, which would be very unlikely. But some of those oither examples look interesting I'll check them out :)

 

[Feldoh]

I was googling that information about certain species of fish and came across: http://www.physics.wisc.edu/undergrads/courses/208-f07/HonorsLectures/Biological%20Electric%20Fields%20-%20Meisel.pdf

Hope this helps.

 

[Studiot]

I remember a series of science fiction stories about an engineering core that specialised in establishing bases on unusual planets.

One such planet was subject to continual violent lightning storms.
The story went that over the aeons as the lightning struck the rocks it destroyed those crystals that could not safely dissipate energy so over time semiconductor structures 'evolved' like transistors etc. These evolved further into random radio trnasmitters.

Twas a good yarn.

 

[unusualname]

I was googling that information about certain species of fish and came across: http://www.physics.wisc.edu/undergrads/courses/208-f07/HonorsLectures/Biological%20Electric%20Fields%20-%20Meisel.pdf

Hope this helps.

Those are nice examples, but they are all predominantly one-way mechanisms, there doesn't seem to be clear examples of animals which use radio for two-way communication

All animals produce an em field naturally as a by-product of internal mechanisms, but no animal seems to have developed an organ specifically for communicating via radio. (There aren't enough details in that pdf document for me to be sure)

As I mentioned, I think evolution couldn't manage to solve the problem of simultaneously building the detector and receiver. Or maybe it did develop in earlier stages of evolution but was found not advantageous maybe because predators easily evolved to detect the communications, and you can't hide radio communications so easily :)

 

[Studiot]

Those are nice examples, but they are all predominantly one-way mechanisms

Sorry, but how about you do some research before making these claims?

It has been known since the 1940s that moths communicate with microwaves and that their antenna are just evolved correctly to do this.

 

[mgb_phys]

And bugs use microwaves to confuse bats - interesting article http://steveblank.com/2009/03/23/if...-behind-the-secret-history-of-silicon-valley/

For generally geekery steve blank's articles are a good read.

 

[unusualname]

Sorry, but how about you do some research before making these claims?

It has been known since the 1940s that moths communicate with microwaves and that their antenna are just evolved correctly to do this.

link?

Your response is rude, are you saying why bother having a science discussion forum when everything can probably be googled with enough effort?

 

[unusualname]

And bugs use microwaves to confuse bats - interesting article http://steveblank.com/2009/03/23/if...-behind-the-secret-history-of-silicon-valley/

For generally geekery steve blank's articles are a good read.

Those bugs are cool, but the article says this uses ultrasonics rather than radio waves.

 

[Studiot]

Your response is rude

Not meant to be rude, just pointing out you seem to want to gather evidence to support (prove?) a particular point of view.

Is that the scientific method?

I am not a biologist, I am just remembering instances that I have come across along my way.
Perhaps this belongs in the biology section where a real biologist might provide a better answer.

Finally I do not belong to the generation that believes something to be non existent unless listed by Google.
There are other sources of reference, some considerably more authoritative.

 

[unusualname]

Not meant to be rude, just pointing out you seem to want to gather evidence to support (prove?) a particular point of view.

Is that the scientific method?

I am not a biologist, I am just remembering instances that I have come across along my way.
Perhaps this belongs in the biology section where a real biologist might provide a better answer.

Finally I do not belong to the generation that believes something to be non existent unless listed by Google.
There are other sources of reference, some considerably more authoritative.

I just wondered if I had overlooked something obvious. Evolution is really just an engineering problem solver, but its constructions are ultimately bounded by the Laws of Physics. I posted here since I thought someone would point out some obvious restrictions on transmission range v power or similar.I also hoped some imaginative soles would come up with stimulating or amusing ideas, eg

1. Evolution works on single units, and radio communications work best in multi component networks, where you have powerful central transmitters and repeaters, I don't think evolution could create such a network!

2. When whales spurt water does it have use as a temporary aerial receiver?

3. Perhaps there were obscure species of insects or fish that used such communication, but by the time we had the technology to detect this usage (early 1900s) we had killed them off by filling the Earth with non-natural radio transmissions.

4. The transmitter/receiver need not have evolved simultaneously if you compare to audio transmission/reception. Obviously animals didn't use audio communication before ears had evolved, and ears could evolve because they were evolutionary useful for picking up other environmental noises (footsteps approaching, trees falling, heavy breathing). So if certain fish etc have developed abilities to detect certain em frequencies it seems possible that they could subsequently evolve transmitters on that frequency.

5. The dinosaurs used high powered microwave communications (eg 3G band) and were all killed off when their brains eventually fried

 

[Studiot]

Most species use EM radiation (light) for as much communication as they actually do.

Of course not many species outside SF have big enough brains to do much sophisticated communication.

Just think of the antenna required for communication at Long Wave say 1500 metres? Light requires so much smaller transmitters and receptors.

 

[unusualname]

Most species use EM radiation (light) for as much communication as they actually do.

Of course not many species outside SF have big enough brains to do much sophisticated communication.

Just think of the antenna required for communication at Long Wave say 1500 metres? Light requires so much smaller transmitters and receptors.

Yes, and that's a good indicator of why transmission is not so useful, since I can think of few animals which actively transmit visible light such as fireflys or deep water sea creatures with few predators. Transmission leaves you vulnerable to detection by predators who can detect your transmission.

Although my example about the whale using water spouts as an aerial was in fun, a large animal with no natural predators, like a whale, wouldn't have to worry about having transmissions intercepted.

I guess it's probably down to the transmission range vs power payoff not being evolutionary beneficial, bluetooth works at quite low power but only has a few meters effective range (or maybe ~100m for higher powered devices)

 

[Studiot]

A further comment.
Biological entities rely on chemical reactions for many functions. Chemical reactions produce heat and other forms of energy, light waves and even electricity, but I do not know of any reaction the produces EM waves in the part of the spectrum we use for 'radio'. Perhaps such reactions are sufficiently rare that radio waves are unavailable by this mechanism, so they are not commonly employed.

 

[Dale]

I always assumed that if anything was physically possible at everyday Earth temperatures, forces and velocities then it would have emerged naturally from evolution
...
So I'm puzzled that simple radio transmission/reception doesn't appear to be used anywhere

It seems that the evidence against the conclusion invalidates the premise.

 

[unusualname]

It seems that the evidence against the conclusion invalidates the premise.

Not necessarily, there is the possibility that animals did evolve with radio communications akin to bluetooth etc but didn't survive because the evolutionary benefits weren't great.

Perhaps I should have posed the question "why are there no surviving examples of radio communications in evolution?"

Evolution is an nano-engineer par excellence, although she operates in a dumb way, billions of combinations are submitted for trial and nearly all get rejected. It seems inconceivable that some form of radio communication wasn't "tried" by evolution, evolution just doesn't miss anything obvious like that. Evolution has solved nano-engineering problems that we will still be struggling to replicate for centuries.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Let's start with reception. You can't build a chemical receptor for radio - radio waves have too little energy. So you have a fairly complex system that needs to be constructed. Additionally, until you have a transmitter, the world looks fairly uninteresting in the radio spectrum: at 1 MHz you can see the sun, and perhaps mountains, but nothing much smaller than 300m. What is the advantage?

Note that light - where evolution has evolved sensors - doesn't have this problem.

 

[unusualname]

although obviously the bit where I stated "evolutionary benefits are clearly enormous" wasn't logical

 

[unusualname]

Let's start with reception. You can't build a chemical receptor for radio - radio waves have too little energy. So you have a fairly complex system that needs to be constructed. Additionally, until you have a transmitter, the world looks fairly uninteresting in the radio spectrum: at 1 MHz you can see the sun, and perhaps mountains, but nothing much smaller than 300m. What is the advantage?

Note that light - where evolution has evolved sensors - doesn't have this problem.

Some links were posted pointing out animals that do have receptors for em radiation outside the visible band, even some fish that can detect gender etc using these detectors.

Sensors have definitely evolved, mostly primitive types to make an animal aware of approaching predators or prey.

The puzzle is why transmitters didn't subsequently develop (as in the case of audio receptors developed before audio communciation via the mouth or other body parts).

Heck, some fish species in the Pacific might be developing transmitters as we speak!

 

[unusualname]

Of course, radio transmissions in water are problematic (watch Crimson Tide ;) )

So perhaps the long early evolutionary stage in water ruled out radio communications?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Those are, AFIK, detectors of electric and magnetic fields, not of radio waves.

 

[unusualname]

Those are, AFIK, detectors of electric and magnetic fields, not of radio waves.

Yes, I agree they all seem rather crude examples of em sensors, not requiring fine frequency tuning or modulation detection.

 

[Studiot]

I did post an example of a complete communication system using radio (microwave). This is fully developed between female and male moths.
This is more than just detection of EM fields.

I also pointed out the size problem of the necessary receptors for light and radio frequencies.
I also pointed out the fact that the interaction of EM radiation with chemical reactions, upon which organisms depend, is generally limited to the visible and near visible.

 

[Dale]

Not necessarily, there is the possibility that animals did evolve with radio communications akin to bluetooth etc but didn't survive because the evolutionary benefits weren't great.

That supposition is not consistent with available fossil evidence. RF antennas would be pretty easy to spot. Of course, "you can't prove a negative", but there are no indications whatsoever that there was ever any such creature.

 

[dx]

I wouldn't be surprised if there is some organism that can detect/see/utilize EM waves in the radio range of freqencies. I mean we already have organs that can detect EM waves in the visible spectrum, and some animals can see infrared light and so on, so it doesn't seem that unlikely to me.

 

[unusualname]

That supposition is not consistent with available fossil evidence. RF antennas would be pretty easy to spot. Of course, "you can't prove a negative", but there are no indications whatsoever that there was ever any such creature.

my nokia phone doesn't have an easy to spot rf antenna.

I'm sure Evolution is a better engineer than the Finnish.

 

[unusualname]

I did post an example of a complete communication system using radio (microwave). This is fully developed between female and male moths.
This is more than just detection of EM fields.

I also pointed out the size problem of the necessary receptors for light and radio frequencies.
I also pointed out the fact that the interaction of EM radiation with chemical reactions, upon which organisms depend, is generally limited to the visible and near visible.

You didn't post a link, and I can't find anything about moths communicating via microwaves using the almighty power of google.

I don't think your claims to be able to "out-think" evolution are very plausible, I'm sure She's a lot smarter than you

 

[Dale]

my nokia phone doesn't have an easy to spot rf antenna.

Wrap it in meat and bone, bury it for a few million years, dig it up, and it will be very easy to spot.

Frankly, your premise is silly and your supporting arguments pretty weak.

 

[unusualname]

Wrap it in meat and bone, bury it for a few million years, dig it up, and it will be very easy to spot.

Frankly, your premise is silly and your supporting arguments pretty weak.

What, my premise that evolution ought to have been able to evolve something a simple as a radio detector given that it's evolved the eye separately dozens of times?

I suspect some basic restrictions imposed by physics are at play here, but no one seems to have any ideas to offer, which is disappointing.

I think the last idea I came up with, that most of evolution occurred in water, and radio transmissions in water are difficult is the best explanation.

I'll stick with that, since the alternative is to admit Evolution isn't quite so amazing.

 

[Gannet]

Because it is not required for survival of the species. However, if the atmosphere become permanently smogged that prevents visible light for vision, then maybe in a 1000 generations animals will have built in radar.

 

[Mu naught]

What, my premise that evolution ought to have been able to evolve something a simple as a radio detector given that it's evolved the eye separately dozens of times?

I suspect some basic restrictions imposed by physics are at play here, but no one seems to have any ideas to offer, which is disappointing.

I think the last idea I came up with, that most of evolution occurred in water, and radio transmissions in water are difficult is the best explanation.

I'll stick with that, since the alternative is to admit Evolution isn't quite so amazing.

what advantage do you think being able to see radio waves would give a species? We see visible light because that's what we get the most of from the Sun... this is not a hard concept to understand.

Species develop traits that help them to survive. Radio waves would not help a species survive. Species don't see radio waves. This isn't even worth debating and I suspect a hint of creationism in your posts.