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

[Revoltingest]

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.

This makes the most sense.

 

[Sapiens]

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?

Fruitiverous habits came from both vegetarian (obvious) and carnivorous (e.g. fruit bats and others) stock.

 

[Ouroboros]

Fruitiverous habits came from both vegetarian (obvious) and carnivorous (e.g. fruit bats and others) stock.

Right.

 

[ScottySatan]

There was an omnivore who tried the fruit and got some benefit.

Like the first person who looked at an arthropod and said "I'm going to eat that ****ing thing!" It's easy to imagine evolution came after, not before. Evolution kicks in later to maximize the resource for some. That's basically the oldest idea that there is in evolution, not something new. That's the whole reasoning behind Darwin's galapagos finch beak shapes.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

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.

Yeah but how did the plant KNOW to create leaves so the animals could eat them.

See evolution is stupid.

Praise Odin.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yeah but how did the plant KNOW to create leaves so the animals could eat them.

See evolution is stupid.

Praise Odin.

LOL!

No, the real problem isn't even that, but the problem is how the sun knew how to create light that contains green so the leaves can reflect green light so the animals can think, "Mmmm... green leaves are yummy." Or perhaps it was the leaves that invented green? Not sure.

And how did the chocolate tree invent chocolate beans? It must be because of Chocolu. The Chocolate God!

 

[Sapiens]

There was an omnivore who tried the fruit and got some benefit.

Like the first person who looked at an arthropod and said "I'm going to eat that ****ing thing!" It's easy to imagine evolution came after, not before. Evolution kicks in later to maximize the resource for some. That's basically the oldest idea that there is in evolution, not something new. That's the whole reasoning behind Darwin's galapagos finch beak shapes.

No. Evolution is integral to the process it does not "kick in later."

 

[FearGod]

Like the original post?

Did i say the OP is amazing ?

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

Another good student.
What is air and what it consists of ?

 

[Sapiens]

Did i say the OP is amazing ?



Another good student.
What is air and what it consists of ?

You know, don't play stupid, it's what you use to blow volleyballs up.

 

[FearGod]

You know, don't play stupid, it's what you use to blow volleyballs up.

What is air and what it consists of ?

 

[psychoslice]

Its all evolution, when trees developed they would probably had some form of seeds dropping, the forms of seeds that animals ate would have lived on, the trees with the seeds that animals didn't eat would have faded out of existence. And through evolution whatever trees were being multiplied by the spreading of seeds by the animals would have lived on, producing even more tastier seeds or fruit. A lot of fruits we see today were not the fruits of long ago, as also with many vegetables, man made many fruits and vegetables by manipulating the plants.

So, I feel that they would have developed together, but even before the trees and animals that we know of, there was other life forms, it all happen but it didn't happen over night.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

LOL!

No, the real problem isn't even that, but the problem is how the sun knew how to create light that contains green so the leaves can reflect green light so the animals can think, "Mmmm... green leaves are yummy." Or perhaps it was the leaves that invented green? Not sure.

Yeah but how did the tree know that animals like green leaves. If evolution was true it would have made purple leaves and the animals would have all died.

And how did the chocolate tree invent chocolate beans? It must be because of Chocolu. The Chocolate God!

Chocolu is a false god. Embrace odinism of you shall be struck down by Odins great spear.

P.S. Don't tell Treks about Chocolu, she is already obsessed with chocolate as it is.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yeah but how did the tree know that animals like green leaves. If evolution was true it would have made purple leaves and the animals would have all died.

The fairies told them.

Chocolu is a false god. Embrace odinism of you shall be struck down by Odins great spear.

Is the spear made of chocolate? No. It's not, so it won't work.

P.S. Don't tell Treks about Chocolu, she is already obsessed with chocolate as it is.

A women after my heart then!

 

[Desert Snake]

There was an omnivore who tried the fruit and got some benefit.

Like the first person who looked at an arthropod and said "I'm going to eat that ****ing thing!" It's easy to imagine evolution came after, not before. Evolution kicks in later to maximize the resource for some. That's basically the oldest idea that there is in evolution, not something new. That's the whole reasoning behind Darwin's galapagos finch beak shapes.

I think you might be missing the point of your thread. The idea that things, plants etc, can evolve, is great. It's a great theory, man. But the problem of where all that stuff to evolve came from is not ''solved''. In fact, even if you start at the ''cosmic goop' stage, the odds of that forming into a mudfish, the mudfish running into the jungle, etc, aren't that great. You don't start at the 'beginning', because the odds are really bad for plants etc on earth.
Think of it this way.
said theory is widely accepted; different 'aspects' can be added to said theory, why goof up a good thing with questions that ultimately affect the success of said theory.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think you might be missing the point of your thread. The idea that things, plants etc, can evolve, is great. It's a great theory, man. But the problem of where all that stuff to evolve came from is not ''solved''. In fact, even if you start at the ''cosmic goop' stage, the odds of that forming into a mudfish, the mudfish running into the jungle, etc, aren't that great. You don't start at the 'beginning', because the odds are really bad for plants etc on earth.
Think of it this way.
said theory is widely accepted; different 'aspects' can be added to said theory, why goof up a good thing with questions that ultimately affect the success of said theory.

I am definitely missing the point here. I just don't know what you are talking about.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

The fairies told them.

Yeah but who made the fairies?

Well, who?

You do not know do you.

Silly darwinist.

 

[Helvetios]

What is air and what it consists of ?

If you're incapable of a Google search then make your own thread. This one is about evolution.

I think you might be missing the point of your thread. The idea that things, plants etc, can evolve, is great. It's a great theory, man. But the problem of where all that stuff to evolve came from is not ''solved''. In fact, even if you start at the ''cosmic goop' stage, the odds of that forming into a mudfish, the mudfish running into the jungle, etc, aren't that great. You don't start at the 'beginning', because the odds are really bad for plants etc on earth.
Think of it this way.
said theory is widely accepted; different 'aspects' can be added to said theory, why goof up a good thing with questions that ultimately affect the success of said theory.

I'm with Luis. Please explain what you mean. Asking questions does not affect the 'success' of evolutionary theory because it has a very good foundation already.

 

[FearGod]

If you're incapable of a Google search then make your own thread. This one is about evolution.

I know you're worried to debate me.

 

[Helvetios]

I know you're worried to debate me.

Here, I did it for you.

Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no debate about the composition of the earth's atmosphere. This is not the place to try. I won't be responding to you anymore unless you have some way of adding to the discussion.

 

[FearGod]

Here, I did it for you.

Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no debate about the composition of the earth's atmosphere. This is not the place to try. I won't be responding to you anymore unless you have some way of adding to the discussion.

Don't you think air is needed for plants to grow,eh
Answer the question, we're debating here and not searching for info.
If you don't know how to answer my question for the sake of argument then what are you doing here in this forum.