Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
I AAAM

Evolution No Solution!

53 posts in this topic

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

I can't explain it, you tell me. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The first plants were algae and these still thrive in a range of aquatic habitats today. (Do not fall into the trap of thinking because algae have been around for so long they are "primitive". Look upon them instead as being simple compared to more complex groups. The fact is algae today are themselves highly evolved and well adapted to the niche they occupy

more info at plants :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Edited by Essan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
is evolution covered in normal biology syllabuses?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Hehe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? :blink:

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. :rolleyes: Philosophical evolution sounds better. Might as well teach Philosophical Intelligent Design and say it is science. :w00t:

Edited by Hehe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

how could all of this balanced system have produced itself by accident? blink.gif

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...

Edited by Essan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

Edited by Hehe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how could all of this balanced system have produced itself by accident?

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 :P 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.

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??

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Hehe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The arguments over evolution again! Sigh! :wacko:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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*

Im talking about the time during which the plants evolved themselves, when animals werent even on the scene.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolotion no solution its catchy dont ya think :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.