How Did a Blade of grass evolve from a tree, or vice versa??

I can't explain it, you tell me.

If you want to understand evolution, you could start by reading this: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Or are you just trying to prove evolution is wrong because there are no evolutionary scientists on this forum capable of explaining detailed and complex concepts in five simple paragraphs?

No that is not it at all. I am trying to find out what the evolution of plants is, the most I have ever read on evolution tried to explain how animals evolved etc. I would like for someone who has read the materials on plants evolution to point me in the right direction to the source of this theory with plants.

more info at plants

As far as I know, plant evolution is exactly the same as animal evolution - every now and then a genetic mutation occurs which, if favourable, leads to subtle changes.....

We speed the process up to create new varieties of plants just as we speed animal evolution up to create new breeds of dogs etc.

Over much greater periods of time, some variants go through so many changes that they no longer have the ability to cross-pollinate with their ancestors and thus a new plant is formed (remember, just because a type of plant in one part of the word changes through natural mutations, doesn't mean that elsewhere the same plant won't change in a different way or even not change at all) Over even greater periods of time, one off-shoot of a simple moss, for example, might become a giant redwood whilst another is bamboo and a third is grass....

Out of interest, I never studied biology at school - is evolution covered in normal biology syllabuses?

Only briefly in the books I have. But I only took the minimum required courses. They don't get into detail about the exact interconnectives.

Lapi'che

High school level biology? No, not really...I suppose it really depends on the school you're at, but generally speaking at a high school/secondary school level of education evolution will simply be glanced at. Very little about it will actually be explained, and kids will probably just be told "it's something that happens."

That pretty much explains the shocking lack of understanding creationists have of evolution...in order to properly educate yourself on the details of it, you'll probably have to do just that: educate yourself, unless you can find your way into a university course.

I am a believer in this theory.... BUT we still needed a "spark" to get started and I can not tell you what creature/god/other made that happen.

I believe that evolution IS intelligent design. It certainly shows a guiding hand urging it along.

Lapi'che

I AAAM, grass didnt evolve from a tree, or vice versa, they eveolved from a COMMON ANCESTOR.

I think he wants more knowledge of that "common ancestor".
Talking about plant evolution, why do plants evolve so slow. I mean they were the first living things i would presume (because animals would then evolve to to harness the chemical energy produced by the early plants).
If a plant is the common ancestor of animals, why did plants not evolve as fast as animals. Punctuated equilibrium you say? Cant the same thing be said for animal cells?
Photosynthesis is immensely complex, and that process shouldve evolved first in order to produce chemical energy.
Here is the thing. dont you think plants would be more likely to evolve into moving beings with senses like sight.
Animals that dont need to eat mmmm..... Space travel would've been so much easier.

The thing that stumps me with evolution is this: If one plant started the whole shabang, so to speak, how could we have balanced ecologys for different continents and climates?

In any plants in the ecological circle that depend on one another to survive eg. Ferns need shade from tall trees, and mosses and orchids all require special conditions to survive, how could all of this balanced system have produced itself by accident?

Thing is you have to BELIEVE in the theory and then interprit nature to fit that theory. If it doesnt fit, change the original theory to fit the interpretations.
And they say this part of evolution is a science. Philosophical evolution sounds better. Might as well teach Philosophical Intelligent Design and say it is science.

Close but no cigar.

A theory is derived as a result of careful observation (in this case of nature). If, in time, fresh observations lead to new information then the theory may be adjusted accordingly. That's science. As opposed to Faith which is where people believe in something even when observation clearly shows the belief to be wrong.




Over timescales impossible for most people to imagine.

And remember, there might be a thousand billion other balanced systems that would work just as well or better, it's just that by accident the one we see today is the one we got...

Hold on, you are telling me that a theory is based on carefull observation (i agree), but do you think the evolution of all species from a single common ancestor is a valid scientific theory??
If so how so?

Faith, belief... Mmm so there are is observational evidence that God doesnt exist... interesting

Because if it wasn't balanced, it wouldn't exist. The reason everything fits so well into its niche is because it's spent millions upon millions of years adapting to fit into it...evolution isn't a blink and you'll miss is process.

Let's not forget that we're not the only planet in the universe Every other planet in our solar system is a barren wasteland...if that's the norm, then all of this occuring by chance isn't actually so surprising...even if it is a billion to one, earth is only one among billions of planets.



All species only evolved from a single common ancestor in the strictest possible sense of the world...the fact is that evolution has branches off so many times that any commonalities are very much lost. Generally speaking, we don't (and probably can't) trace that far back. Usually we can determine the common ancestor of any given family of animals however (primates for example).

However, since you asked...yes, it is a valid scientific theory. One that has withstood the test of time, and countless attempts to bebunk it. The fact is that evolution is pretty much rock solid, and just because you either don't understand it, or refuse to accept it, doesn't change the fact that at the moment it's certainly the closest thing we have to hard truth.

Lemme see if this helps...All plants common ancestor was the single-celled algae..as evolution occured, differnet and more specialized plantes evolved...that is how we have trees and grass...some wanted to harness the ground, while others wanted to gather more sunlight when it had competition. As plants evolved, they got more specialized and adapted to their environments....The environments didnt create themselves for the plants, the plants evolved to fit the environment.

Yes yes i get that part but thanx. Why cant plants evolve into animals that utilize the sun. That way they dont have to grow tall to utilize sun but move around?

because once they evolved into the early "plant stage", they canot devolve back to their ancestor, and evolve into animals...they cannot evolve a nervous system, a circulatory system, or anything else to make it an "animal"...it is possible, but it would take Billions of years...did that help?

Im talking about the time during which the plants evolved themselves, when animals werent even on the scene. Couldnt plants have evolved nervous systems together with animals. That would be a great evolutionary advantage.

Yeah, look... the eco-system of any given area is going through a constant "give and take" adapting process with its inhabitants. There is a little room for variance and in that small room organisms are able to change. Those changes thus allow the eco-system as a whole to slightly change because all the eco-system is is a collection of ITS organisms. If something is not able to survive within that allowable area of change allowed by the eco-system, it won't. If I was born without lungs, I'd die. That simple. If I was born with one less finger, I could manage.

The arguments over evolution again! Sigh!
The fact that you inherit your traits from your parents is the very basis of evolution!

Exactly...or you could point at selective breeding in dogs, wherein various characteristics are seen to become more and more pronounced as they are selected for by the environment (in this case: man selecting instead of nature, but the principle is the same). This, over the course of only a few generations, has led to an incredible variety of breeds....imagine what would occur over the course of millions of years?

But the fact is, they just don't want to see it *shrugs*



Probably because they didn't have to. Motility is another result of natural selection, where organisms had to move in order to survive given pre-existing organisms had already taken up so many of the available niches. A tree doesn't need to evolve towards motility because it's already perfectly at home in its current niche.

Before there where trees. The first photosynthesizing organisms. Probably would have formed layers on the floor/rock/waterbed. Those at the bottom would probably die or phogacotize the surviving cells and develope into animals. But what if there was a mutation that lead to the production of mobile cells that could utilize sunlight and move?. Eventually these organisms would dominate over non-mobile organisms. Natural selection will remove the least mobile cells and eventually these cells might develope nervous systems. Did i miss anything?

Evolotion no solution its catchy dont ya think

Evolution is not a theory I can subscribe to in total becasue of one thing about about it that sticks in my craw...Gradual changes over time of species adaptations to their environment. This was the key premise of Darwin's theory, which evolutionist seem to ignore whenever resistence is met with what they say.

Now while it sounds all fine and good in theory, it is still theory as there exists no shred of empirical evidence in fossil record to exhibit this "gradual change". There is however, tons of evidence showing sudden extinction & out of nowhere appearences of new species with no available link between the so labeled "old" and "new", and even though they are similar, they are still VERY different. Show me the evolutionary path between a cheetah & a lion...If the change was gradual from where they branched off a common ancestor, wouldn't there be an ancestor somewhere down each branch of the 2 that are more similar to each other than they are today?

Adaptations & changes in controlled or isolated environments can indeed produce gradual change through mutation, and science can prove it without a doubt...But it still has yet to produce a new species without directly & unnaturally altering DNA...Let that thought sink in and bounce around a bit. If anything, science has proven natural selection cannot produce a "new" species as is exhibited in fossil record trhough gradual adaptation, but one can be produced with radical change to the DNA structure.

The problem is proving the large leaps, which evolutionists still can't explain in anyway other than, "We haven't found the evidence, but it's there somewhere and we'll find it!" Which is just like a religious zealot telling me "God is real, I don't have proof, but someday soon he'll show us all!". Both seem pretty much driven by faith. Makes me think prehaps evolutionism is becoming the new "religion" of the masses.

The theory is riddled with missing links when it comes to tying it all together with common ancestors. Period, dot, end of story. Some of it is plausible, and even makes sense...But there is still to much of it that doesn't make alot of sense when it comes to actual fossil record exhibiting this gradual change over time drum evolutionist continue to beat on.

Of course I understand that it is possible, and very likely, a segment of a particular species may very well be exposed to something that radically changes their offsrping...Thereby creating a new species, but it has yet to be identified, and that wouldn't fit into the theory of gradual adaptive change due to environment. Personally this is the tree science should be barking up, not that old tree Darwin led them to, that dog doesn't hunt & there is no racoon up that tree IMHO.

Do I believe evolution is fact not theory? No. Do I believe it is a piece of the puzzle? Yes. Do I believe a big part of explaining it is still missing? Yes.

And why would they do that? They sound like they'd end up as a prey item...they don't eat, so they're not really going to be consuming the same resources as an animal would. They probably just end up moving targets.



I'll try saying it again - evolution isn't a blink and you'll miss it process. Of course science mankind hasn't managed to produce a new species through selectrive breeding, simply because to do so would take far more time than we've been doing it for. We're not talking a matter of hundreds of years, we're talking tens of thousands at the very least.

And I'll try and say it again...It is a blink and you'll miss it process. Fossil record doesn't support it being gradual, but it certainly does have thousands of examples of species seeming popping up out of thin air with no gradual link to a common ancestor of their genus. Proponents of evolutionism certainly aren't willing to recognize the possibility that perhaps they are wrong, just as creationist aren't will to accept evolution.

btw - Science HAS managed to produce new speicies through gene splicing...Petroleum eating bacterium are produced in a lab with nothing similar to it in the wild unless we put it there. I said nothing of selective breeding, you did. I'm talking of an as of yet unidentified cause for rapid & obviously sporatic changes that create new species...And you're doggedly hanging onto century old theory that after a century still is theory.

I think perhaps an expansion of scope is in order by now.

It depends on how "gradual" you want it to be. Fossil records do support and exhibit changes over any select period of time. Sometimes the mutations in an organism combined with the unpredictable nature of the environment in which it lives (curse the weather!) will force all but those that are able to readily adapt to die, thus causing the changes to be quick. There are so many factors at play that that is why they teach this stuff not just in one or two posts on the internet, but in multiple terms spread over years. The world is complex... believe it or not.

You can either learn it or say "God did it." One is easier, I admit.

Sorry, but gradual means what it does and really isn't subjective in it's interpetation when you look at some or the radical changes fossil record does support. And once again, I'm not talking about selective breeding or adaptation, I'm talking large leaps in differences between species in a matter of a couple generations.

Oh, and i don't think the concepts of evolution I'm advocating are those of a simpleton, but those that require a little more thought. Never once implied the world wasn't complex. Matter of fact, I think it's complex enough to have conditions that we aren't even remotely aware concerning evolution and have yet to be discovered. Of course it's alot easier to just say that is what Darwin said.

Yeah true, but the non-mobile targets would be eaten first as they are the easiest, so therefore the "moving targets" will have a greater chance of survival than the non-mobile targets. Remeber the "animals" need the photosynthetic active organisms to survive. So the moving photosynthetic animals will still prevail... unless we have to start over again because of the damn "animals" that consumed all the photosynthetic organisms.

actually, the grass came first. I think the world of established paleantology got it wrong.

Soz double post. Admin please remove. Thanx

You need to ask the right questions to atheists/humanists/evolusionists so that they can be kept busy with their theories, otherwise their life will be pointless.

Okay, you sparked my interest in how much you can actually support your claims... support or link for some of the "thousands" of examples you speak of.

Everyone understands mutations and the variants that occur, correct? This is why kids inherit traits from their parents but aren't a 50-50 split. Think about it: if you have 3 kids, two boys and a girl, why do the two boys not look exactly the same?

That is just it...I don't have to support it, you have to support there are gradual changes as the theory of evolution states there are.

But I'll humor you.

We can agree Loins & Jaguar are of the same family right? Ok, now point the the ancestor they both came from...We ok so far? Now show me the evolutionary path of each from that common ancestor that proves a gradual change into what they are today. Or was the change abrupt? I have no burden of proof, my proof is the lack of evidence...You however are saying there is proof...So, provide evidence & prove it. There are thousands of examples in families and sub-families.

Individual difference have little bearing on what I'm talking about...If you're saying all members of felidae family & sub-families are comparable to the individual differences in our offspring...Well, I think were most certainly on different pages & not even reading the same book.

Edit - One other thing, please explain why when 2 species of the same family interbreed the offspring is always sterile if they are capable of even producing offspring from the union. They are after all in the same family, and not all that different from each other than appearence in their gradual evolution...Matter of fact, according to theory they have recently offshot onto different evolutionary paths and should only have minor differences.

I think you'll find trees predate grass by several millions years Grass is a ralative newcomer to the world



Actually, that's not really true...Ligers, for example, are often fertile. But anyway...the reason being because they're a different species. Even if they're from the same family, that doesn't make them genetically identical....the similarities in DNA between a chimpanzee and a human are staggering, but that doesn't mean we could breed to have a child (and I certainly hope that nobody has ever attempted to test out that theory).

Just because a difference on the genetic level is subtle, doesn't mean it isn't important.

I'm sorry, but you in fact are making a claim here. Give me one example of a species "popping up out of thin air." Your statement obviously implies that you are aware of "thousands" so I am simply asking you to supply one. If you can't then I will take that as lack of proof for your claim.

And why, when you make a claim and I ask you to support it, is the burden of proof on me?

I gave you 2...Now please provide the proof of gradual evolution of either.

Same family, not same sub-family...Though there are also many instances when species of the same sub-family cannot produce viable offspring either...It can happen but it is not common and doesn't happen naturally.

Okay, so you are claiming the fossil record points to lions and jaguars "popping up out of thin air"... got it. I'll get back to you on that, honestly.

Look my knowledge in the sciences is more attuned to physics as that was what my major was, but if you want I can spend some serious time on this. However, I would like to know in more depth what you are implying by this:

You do that...Please refer to my original request of identifying the common ancestor, then showing the fossil record (evidence) that proves the progression into what they are today. And if you can't see the large gaps where there isn't much choice but to conclude there was a rapid changes at some point instead of gradual ones...Well I doubt any amount of pointing them out to you will convince you they are there, and you'll more than likely either tell me they just haven't found it yet, or deny it. Just like any religious zealot would do if you told them there is no God.

I'd like to see evolutionary theory evolve instead of remain theory myself.

First off, it will always be a theory. Sorry to tell you. If you do not understand that concept then you don't probably understand the sciences.

Second, there is an explanition for those gaps, as I somewhat alluded to. Instead of trying to do it in my own words (because I'm tired) I'll go and track down a more in-depth description. Somehow, though, I feel you won't accept it.

Third, I have a feeling that "common ancestor" is not going to fit your definition or criteria.

And please be aware that there is gradual change and there can be rapid change.

It means what it says.

I guess what I really mean by that statement is, given the lack of emiprical evidence in gradual evolution of species, what things could cause rapid change? We know there have been some major global catastrophies that damn near killed off all life on this planet...Who says smaller events & other things may not have a significant impact?

What are those other things? Dunno, are we positive our periodic table is really complete? Do we really know what is below the crust of the earth? What if lets just say for instance there was a volcanic eruption that contained some element we don't know about that decomposes when exposed to light, air, water? What changes in life might that cause? How about foriegn bodies impacting the earth? What could they bring with them?

Somewhere in all this I'm certain chemistry & physics would play a major role...But I think the first step is to never stop questioning what we think we know & settle on a theory being fact. Perhaps I'm wrong, good, prove it! I don't like not knowing anymore than anyone else, but I'm damn sure not going to settle because it sounds good.

Ahhh, that's it, condecendingly dismiss me as not capable of understanding science...That always works in a pinch.

Well, I said "probably". And to be honest, if you did understand then we probably wouldn't have to go through an entire process, right? There are certain things called "theories" and "laws". You stated you wished evolution could be more than a "theory". To be such is to not really understand the fundamental concept behind science because science is constantly reworking itself to better explain its world. People seem to want a complete answer from science, when in fact it doesn't always work that way. Many times, especially in higher physics, one question gets answered and two (or more) come up. And to explain all the details associated with the sciences is something that is not especially suitable for this sort of setting. I will try, but the format makes everything stilted. It defiantly is not a "one post solves all" affair. That is why people in these fields go to school for long periods of time. If people think it's easy to just jump into all this then they should go to school for it... they could make some good money. Of course, I am speaking in general terms, here. I have no background knowledge on you, Knothere, but I am developing one.

I didn't mean for the earlier post to be condescending, so I apologize. And your jab back really did not add anything. Have you taken an anthropology class? It might explain a lot for you. There is emperical evidence. And yes, I am still looking at the "lions and jaguars out of thin air" claim.

*Edited for spelling.

That is EXACTLY the point. I'm see alot of belief in the answers the theory provides as if they are fact...But I'm not seeing many questions, or better yet questioning of the answers.

I fully understand the principles behind a theory, and basically they are a possible explaination of the facts or, laws if you prefer.

And I hate to tell you, there is not empirical evidence that provides conclusive proof, big difference between evidence and proof...You may very well have the knife, the body of the victim, & even a suspect, now all you have to do is prove they commited the murder...That is the hard part btw.

Would it insult you if I said you need someone to explain a book and what the author really said because you wouldn't understand it otherwise? To apologize only means something if it's sincere, and you're obviously not, so don't bother.

Yeeeaaa, Im still looking for the answer to why plants evolve so slow. Someone please help.
Read posts 11. 20, 24 and 31. Thanks

Here is one web site: www.adonline.id.au/plantevol/

Or you can take your pick of web sites from Google search engine: Google search

Because they weren't in need of one!