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

[FearGod]

Some might. But most don't. Evolution has historically never been an argument against god but an argument against some of the teachings of the churches. It does throw into question the claim that the world was made in 7 days and that all humans and animals were created as they are now 6000 years ago. That is simply false. But if people believe in god and believe he is behind the processes then at least they accept that those processes are valid and this is a huge step. Despite popular belief I don't want you to stop believing in god. I don't want you to continue believing in god either. I honestly don't care either way and this applies to the vast majority of people. I do feel the need to fight religion and irrational thinning when it becomes an issue however.

No one can deny facts which is based on solid evidences and it proved with no doubt that life existed in simpler form and evolved to a more complex one, but the problem that some used it to argue that God doesn't exist.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No one can deny facts which is based on solid evidences and it proved with no doubt that life existed in simpler form and evolved to a more complex one, but the problem that some used it to argue that God doesn't exist.

And I state it again. I agree that whomever makes that argument would be faulty in their logic. So on this we can agree it is wrong.

 

[Ouroboros]

I haven't seen much of that myself. Evolution clearly removes the need for God though, which is why theists find it so challenging.

Unless we realize that God and Nature is one, which would mean that Evolution only confirms God's nature of being. (Some pantheist preaching right there. )

 

[McBell]

No one can deny facts which is based on solid evidences and it proved with no doubt that life existed in simpler form and evolved to a more complex one, but the problem that some used it to argue that God doesn't exist.

like who?
Who has claimed that evolution proves god does not exist?

 

[shawn001]

I have no problem to be in that direction but some used it as an evidence that God doesn't exist and in a fanatic way i may say.

"I have no problem to be in that direction"

That is good. Micro and Macro evolution are facts and have nothing to do with a belief in God. They are just facts that are so well supported they won't be overturned. Anymore then the Earth orbits the Sun.

and some people use God "in a fanatic way i may say" Not all but quite a few.

 

[shawn001]

Unless we realize that God and Nature is one, which would mean that Evolution only confirms God's nature of being. (Some pantheist preaching right there. )

You solved a thought/problem I was thinking about in regards to pantheism and multiverses.

Nature.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Unless we realize that God and Nature is one, which would mean that Evolution only confirms God's nature of being. (Some pantheist preaching right there. )

If God is the same as Nature then we're just relabelling Nature and calling it something else. I'm not sure I see the point.

 

[Ouroboros]

If God is the same as Nature then we're just relabelling Nature and calling it something else. I'm not sure I see the point.

It means we don't have to look any further.

 

[Akingu]

One only needs to look at it from a biological perspective. The fruits from the tree, which are NOT predisposed genetically to be eaten by some herbivore, will inevitably drop the seeds close to its self BECAUSE the tree has found a suitable environment to reproduce via soil, moisture, elevation, etc... If some animal finds the seeds tasty and drops them off a mile away, it is only by random chance (50/50) that the new location will be as suitable for optimum growth.
Obviously the tree came first as if the animal came first, what would it eat if not the trees fruit?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

One only needs to look at it from a biological perspective. The fruits from the tree, which are NOT predisposed genetically to be eaten by some herbivore, will inevitably drop the seeds close to its self BECAUSE the tree has found a suitable environment to reproduce via soil, moisture, elevation, etc... If some animal finds the seeds tasty and drops them off a mile away, it is only by random chance (50/50) that the new location will be as suitable for optimum growth.
Obviously the tree came first as if the animal came first, what would it eat if not the trees fruit?

Its not that the tree came first but that the fruit came first. The tree did pre-date the animal but the animal pre-dates the development of fruit.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Its not that the tree came first but that the fruit came first. The tree did pre-date the animal but the animal pre-dates the development of fruit.

I don't agree. A tree hasn't got the awareness to know that an animal would eat the fruit. Fruit is just how some trees reproduce.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It means we don't have to look any further.

That's a relief.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I don't agree. A tree hasn't got the awareness to know that an animal would eat the fruit. Fruit is just how some trees reproduce.

The concept of fruit has evolved specifically to attract animals to eat it. Otherwise it would have only made "seeds". Prior to "fruit" bearing trees there were trees that had seeds and I am willing to bet those seeds were eaten by animals. Over time tree's that developed the mutation that caused far more glucose and water in what contained the seeds attracted more animals to eat it. The first would have been very slight and over time it would develop more.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The concept of fruit has evolved specifically to attract animals to eat it. Otherwise it would have only made "seeds". Prior to "fruit" bearing trees there were trees that had seeds and I am willing to bet those seeds were eaten by animals. Over time tree's that developed the mutation that caused far more glucose and water in what contained the seeds attracted more animals to eat it. The first would have been very slight and over time it would develop more.

But how would a tree know that it's seed or fruit is being eaten by animals? I don't get it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

But how would a tree know that it's seed or fruit is being eaten by animals? I don't get it.

It doesn't. We didn't know that we needed to get smarter to develop. It is simply whatever mutation is most successful. Tree's with seeds that were not appealing to animals would have stayed in the same vicinity where its chances were lower of growing as it is already inhabited by that type of tree while a tree that develops a more favorable seed will have their seeds transported which gives them a better chance at survival.

 

[dust1n]

It doesn't. We didn't know that we needed to get smarter to develop. It is simply whatever mutation is most successful. Tree's with seeds that were not appealing to animals would have stayed in the same vicinity where its chances were lower of growing as it is already inhabited by that type of tree while a tree that develops a more favorable seed will have their seeds transported which gives them a better chance at survival.

This is correct. Just for funsies, it's not hard to imagine plants which make seeds, the cells for them, then endosperm (which is a weirder addition to sperm and egg), have two complete life cycles, already established millions of years of pollination relationships with animals, wind propagation techniques, etc. would have advantages over those that didn't.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It doesn't. We didn't know that we needed to get smarter to develop. It is simply whatever mutation is most successful. Tree's with seeds that were not appealing to animals would have stayed in the same vicinity where its chances were lower of growing as it is already inhabited by that type of tree while a tree that develops a more favorable seed will have their seeds transported which gives them a better chance at survival.

So trees with edible seeds/fruits ended up growing in a wider area?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So trees with edible seeds/fruits ended up growing in a wider area?

Not just a wider area but better areas. If a tree has its seeds drop near the parent tree then those sprouts will get less sun than if they were taken to a better more open location. Also the nutrients in the soil will be depeleted if too many roots grow in the same area. Lastly if they grown in such a tight area then there will be no room for more tree's and the new sprouts will die off. However if seeds are spread out they have a much better chance of landing on a better plot of land and spreading out wide.

 

[Etritonakin]

I think we can sum it up by saying that things which are complementary generally evolve together -whether by design or otherwise.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Not just a wider area but better areas. If a tree has its seeds drop near the parent tree then those sprouts will get less sun than if they were taken to a better more open location. Also the nutrients in the soil will be depeleted if too many roots grow in the same area. Lastly if they grown in such a tight area then there will be no room for more tree's and the new sprouts will die off. However if seeds are spread out they have a much better chance of landing on a better plot of land and spreading out wide.

Yes, I see what you're saying. It's a case of following through the basic principles of evolution.