Which evolved first --- FRUIT BEARING TREES or FRUIT EATING CREATURES?

[Awab Navi]

Did the fruit bearing trees evolve first or did the creatures who ate those fruits evolve first? And just how did the trees LEARN that they had to produce fruits so that creatures ate them and thus their seeds were spread far and wide to produce more trees?

 

[Tumah]

I don't know. Sometimes I feel as though you guys listen to a speech from an Imam and then run back to RF to post the question that the Imam used to prove your beliefs. Maybe its just me.

 

[FearGod]

I don't know. Sometimes I feel as though you guys listen to a speech from an Imam and then run back to RF to post the question that the Imam used to prove your beliefs. Maybe its just me.

Imam don't speak about science, they teach only religion.
So, yes it's just you and some atheists.
I advice you to think for awhile before posting stupid things.

 

[Helvetios]

Evolution does not occur in isolation. Plants and their predators interact together in the process of co-evolution, in which two species influence each other's evolution. Given how slowly evolutionary change happens it is difficult to pinpoint accurately when a change occurs (such as plants producing fruit for the first time). Since plants have been a food source for animals for much longer than that, you could say that neither plants nor their predators appeared first. They were already co-evolving together when fruit was introduced as part of the plant, and continued to do so after. As for plants 'learning' to produce fruit as a seed dispersal mechanism, this is untrue. Plants don't learn like we do; at any rate, the biological features that make seed dispersal happen are due to accumulating changes from biological evolution and not any conceivable 'learned' behaviour, which wouldn't be passed to the next generation anyway.

 

[Ouroboros]

Did the fruit bearing trees evolve first or did the creatures who ate those fruits evolve first? And just how did the trees LEARN that they had to produce fruits so that creatures ate them and thus their seeds were spread far and wide to produce more trees?

The creatures who ate them evolved first. Before fruit, there were plants without flowers or fruit. But they had leaves. There were creatures eating those leaves and plants.

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't know. Sometimes I feel as though you guys listen to a speech from an Imam and then run back to RF to post the question that the Imam used to prove your beliefs. Maybe its just me.

Very true. Sometimes it does feel like these questions are just parroted from some anti-scientist person. For Muslims, it's some imam, and for the Christians, there's Ken Ham and those guys. No one really cares to even google these things.

 

[Helvetios]

The creatures who ate them evolved first. Before fruit, there were plants without flowers or fruit. But they had leaves. There were creatures eating those leaves and plants.

If you want to get really pedantic, they weren't fruit-eating before fruit existed. Your point is still valid.

 

[FearGod]

The thread doesn't make sense.

 

[Helvetios]

The thread doesn't make sense.

Why not?

 

[The Hammer]

Did the fruit bearing trees evolve first or did the creatures who ate those fruits evolve first? And just how did the trees LEARN that they had to produce fruits so that creatures ate them and thus their seeds were spread far and wide to produce more trees?

Which came first: The chicken or the egg? Same concept really.

Fruit bearing trees and non-fruit bearing trees have both existed for millennia. Fruit bearing trees use animals to deposit their seeds in droppings, whereas non fruit bearing trees use other methods. Pine (pinecea) trees make cones, cottonwood trees us wind-borne pollination, etc etc etc.

Anyways, they evolved simultaneously. Fruit bearing trees made fruits, some animals realized they could eat the fruits and the cycle began. Some fruits weren't designed or meant to be eaten (cactus fruit), but we have found ways to do so. A lot of times fruits are poisonous to some animals but not others, Like avocados.

 

[The Hammer]

I don't know. Sometimes I feel as though you guys listen to a speech from an Imam and then run back to RF to post the question that the Imam used to prove your beliefs. Maybe its just me.

I thought the same thing, honestly.

It all feels parroted from somewhere. Without any real digging into the processes that are being discussed.

 

[FearGod]

Which was first, human or the air ?
Did you see how stupid it is and even the ones who may entertain such kind of fooling questions ?

 

[Tumah]

Imam don't speak about science, they teach only religion.
So, yes it's just you and some atheists.
I advice you to think for awhile before posting stupid things.

Apparently ...

 

[Helvetios]

Which was first, human or the air ?
Did you see how stupid it is and even the ones who may entertain such kind of fooling questions ?

Air. And I'll entertain any *sincere* question of this type that I can get. Sometimes the insincere ones too (aka the other person isn't interested in really listening)

 

[FearGod]

Air. And I'll entertain any *sincere* question of this type that I can get. Sometimes the insincere ones too (aka the other person isn't interested in really listening)

LOL, good student.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Did the fruit bearing trees evolve first or did the creatures who ate those fruits evolve first? And just how did the trees LEARN that they had to produce fruits so that creatures ate them and thus their seeds were spread far and wide to produce more trees?

Is it more likely that the universe starts out fully formed, or that it starts out from a singularity, a dot?

When there is only a possibility of a universe, then there are no universal laws except those concerned with possibilities. Why then would the universe need to start out as a dot, when there is no law of the universe forcing it?

It seems to me that when the universe is possible, then all possible configurations of the universe are equally likely. When then a first decision is made, then you are stuck with it, and possibilities around what has already been chosen are more likely. You can start out the universe fully formed, and then you are stuck with it.

And we would always see the universe in a state of a dot when we look towards the past with our relative notion of time, much as we always see a horizon when we look across a field.

The common man and woman has no reason to disbelieve freedom is real and relevant, so has no reason to accept evolution theory. Common discourse is full of the reality and relevance of freedom, nor could we manage practically without that discourse.

 

[Helvetios]

Is it more likely that the universe starts out fully formed, or that it starts out from a singularity, a dot?

When there is only a possibility of a universe, then there are no universal laws except those concerned with possibilities. Why then would the universe need to start out as a dot, when there is no law of the universe forcing it?

It seems to me that when the universe is possible, then all possible configurations of the universe are equally likely. When then a first decision is made, then you are stuck with it, and possibilities around what has already been chosen are more likely. You can start out the universe fully formed, and then you are stuck with it.

And we would always see the universe in a state of a dot when we look towards the past with our relative notion of time, much as we always see a horizon when we look across a field.

The common man and woman has no reason to disbelieve freedom is real and relevant, so has no reason to accept evolution theory. Common discourse is full of the reality and relevance of freedom, nor could we manage practically without that discourse.

Do you intend to add anything to the discussion of the original question?

 

[Ouroboros]

If you want to get really pedantic, they weren't fruit-eating before fruit existed. Your point is still valid.

LOL! Very true.

 

[Sapiens]

Did the fruit bearing trees evolve first or did the creatures who ate those fruits evolve first? And just how did the trees LEARN that they had to produce fruits so that creatures ate them and thus their seeds were spread far and wide to produce more trees?

If you think, for a moment, you will quickly see that your question answers itself ... you can not be a fruit eater without there already being fruit in existence. Helvetios gives a proper discussion of co-evolution and such later in the thread, which is more to the point.

Imam don't speak about science, they teach only religion.
So, yes it's just you and some atheists.
I advice you to think for awhile before posting stupid things.

Like the original post?

Evolution does not occur in isolation. Plants and their predators interact together in the process of co-evolution, in which two species influence each other's evolution. Given how slowly evolutionary change happens it is difficult to pinpoint accurately when a change occurs (such as plants producing fruit for the first time). Since plants have been a food source for animals for much longer than that, you could say that neither plants nor their predators appeared first. They were already co-evolving together when fruit was introduced as part of the plant, and continued to do so after. As for plants 'learning' to produce fruit as a seed dispersal mechanism, this is untrue. Plants don't learn like we do; at any rate, the biological features that make seed dispersal happen are due to accumulating changes from biological evolution and not any conceivable 'learned' behaviour, which wouldn't be passed to the next generation anyway.

Well said.

The creatures who ate them evolved first. Before fruit, there were plants without flowers or fruit. But they had leaves. There were creatures eating those leaves and plants.

No. Futiverousness could not evolve before there were fruits.

If you want to get really pedantic, they weren't fruit-eating before fruit existed. Your point is still valid.

That's not pedantic, that's rational.

Which came first: The chicken or the egg? Same concept really.

Fruit bearing trees and non-fruit bearing trees have both existed for millennia. Fruit bearing trees use animals to deposit their seeds in droppings, whereas non fruit bearing trees use other methods. Pine (pinecea) trees make cones, cottonwood trees us wind-borne pollination, etc etc etc.

Anyways, they evolved simultaneously. Fruit bearing trees made fruits, some animals realized they could eat the fruits and the cycle began. Some fruits weren't designed or meant to be eaten (cactus fruit), but we have found ways to do so. A lot of times fruits are poisonous to some animals but not others, Like avocados.

The egg came first.

Fruits evolved first as a way to feed the seed and thus "give it a head start." This is an obvious preadaptation for "bribing" animals to provide seed mobility and thus dispersal that the plant lacked.

Which was first, human or the air ?
Did you see how stupid it is and even the ones who may entertain such kind of fooling questions ?

Not stupid, except to those who are blind to truth. The answer is obvious ... air.

Is it more likely that the universe starts out fully formed, or that it starts out from a singularity, a dot?

When there is only a possibility of a universe, then there are no universal laws except those concerned with possibilities. Why then would the universe need to start out as a dot, when there is no law of the universe forcing it?

It seems to me that when the universe is possible, then all possible configurations of the universe are equally likely. When then a first decision is made, then you are stuck with it, and possibilities around what has already been chosen are more likely. You can start out the universe fully formed, and then you are stuck with it.

And we would always see the universe in a state of a dot when we look towards the past with our relative notion of time, much as we always see a horizon when we look across a field.

The common man and woman has no reason to disbelieve freedom is real and relevant, so has no reason to accept evolution theory. Common discourse is full of the reality and relevance of freedom, nor could we manage practically without that discourse.

Rather a lot of word salad that is completely off topic (or, more's the point, not to any topi what-so-ever).

LOL! Very true.

Yup!

 

[Ouroboros]

No. Futiverousness could not evolve before there were fruits.

Yeah. I was corrected on that one already.

I was thinking about herbivores. I think they came before plants had fruits. Frutivores evolved from the herbivores, or?