I tried to think of a provocative title to draw the masses

I read in another topic that someone mentioned that according to the fossil record some animals evolved before plants. The problem with that is: what did those animals who evolved before plants eat? Other animals? It is not all possible that all animals were carnivores first. Think about it.

The following to me is REALLY gonna be a sticky one for evolutionists (pun not intended ). Many if not most plants need insects for pollination. ALL insects need plants. They either eat plants or they eat things that eat plants. The problem is how did plants which need insects for pollination evolve before insects or other animals? The first plants would necessarily be those which did not need animals/insects for pollination. Would a plant which did not need outside help evolve into a plant which needed outside help? That would be impossible. It would be deevolution (devolution?) not evolution.

I have never heard that any animal evolved before plants.

Links to a source?

Or is it just some random musing by some random person?

This is on the same level as people who think they're clever asking which sex evolved first, male or female.

"Plants" (Plantae) are a kingdom which evolved way down the line from the first photosynthetic organisms. Cyanobacteria is somewhere near the beginning.

Why does actually finding out the answers disturb you so much?

Originally posted by Lannock
Many if not most plants need insects for pollination.

Nope, only flowering plants need insects for pollination, and flowering plants are the last to have appeared (in Jurassic), well after insects had conquered the world.

As for who was at the bottom of the food chain before plants appeared, I'm guessing bacteria and algae, who had figured out photosynthesis before plants did.

[edit on 22-10-2009 by Wallachian]

just think (for yourself)

how can a animal survive when there are no plants around.

euh..... NOT i would say....

agree, when you see the question you think present time..got me there..

but if i imagen no plants i see life in the grond...they would need the roots off the plants right...

these are ongoing endless discussions if you ask me.


ow and ...400 M+ years....says who...

[edit on 22-10-2009 by whatshenneping]

Plants came first, they are simple organisms that were the first use photosynthesis to create energy. It should be obvious, no moving parts, no brain and no expressible intelligence. If you think about it all animals also gain energy from the sun indirectly.
The entire food chain ultimately depends upon the energy made by plant life converting sun energy, so it should be obvious. However it seems this is a gotcha thread, so I doubt information is the OP's goal. The human race is now able to explain a great deal of reality, but you choose.... the lord

and so your world view is locked,,,, sad thing

Originally posted by whatshenneping
but if i imagen no plants i see life in the grond...they would need the roots off the plants right...

Ok, I'm no scientist, but the way I understand it, first animals to leave the water did so to escape predators and competitors, and in the beginning their food sources were still in the water. Gradually, as other animals followed, prey and predator, food sources moved on land too and land animals became more and more independent from the ocean and more adapted to an autonomous life on land.

Same path was followed by plants too, algae trying to escape competition and following light (their food source), gradually adapted to life on land. They were followed of course by their predators too and other already existing land animals adapted to a plant eating life style.

It may be a little oversimplifying, but that's my understanding of it.

Originally posted by whatshenneping
ow and ...400 M+ years....says who...

Says science. You may not agree with that, and that's ok, but the OP asked for a scientific explanation or point of view, not a creationist one.

1)The first evolution of animals are not what you think of as animals today. They were very basic organisms, that fed off of single celled organisms and basic plant life.

2)It is impossible to date the oldest plant. They deteriorate completely, and dont fossilize nearly as much as animal matter.

3)If you all are going to keep making these silly threads, can you please quit titling them as though you have proven evolution false? I mean, honestly, how do these titles not land most of these threads in the hoax bin?

Originally posted by jawsismyfish

Why do you consider using a resource a devolution of not using a resource?

You are thinking "modern". Eons ago (I don't know how old Earth is, it certainly ain't 6000 and I don't trust those dating methods either so I say "Eons") there were not as many animals and insects around as there are now so would you still say evolving from something which is self-sufficient into something which needed rare animals and insects to procreate is a step up?

I love it when some evolutionists automatically assume someone is Christian/religious when they are anti-evolution. Shows how ignorant some of them are . I am anti-macro-evolution and anti-religion. I don't know enough to settle on any theory as to how the universe and life came about. I know enough to know that the Bible is not the "Word of God" and macro-evolution is wrong. I do believe in "natural selection" however, since it can be proven.

I think I'll repeat myself again in case someone does not get what I'm getting at: The first plants spread across the world without the need of animals or insects. Later some of them evolved into pollen-bearing plants which NEEDED ANIMALS OR INSECTS to procreate. Why would a self-sufficient plant evolve into a plant dependent on (RARE back then) animals and insects? If those animals/insects moved away or died out those plants would die out. Survival of the fittest. A self-sufficient plant is fitter than a plant needing animals/insects, right?

Some possible theories:
1) Macro-evolution without intervention of an intelligent entity. Not enough proof to satisfy me.
2) The Biblical explanation (The Bible is about aliens, not God, so it is suspect).
3) Macro-evolution with the intervention of an "intelligent" entity, i.e. living organisms changed to adapt to their environment and this entity jumped in to "push" an organism to evolve into something else.
4) Creation spread out over a time-period (almost certainly not in the order depicted in the Bible).

Unfortunately none of those really sit right with me. There must be an alternative.

Originally posted by Lannock
Why would a self-sufficient plant evolve into a plant dependent on (RARE back then) animals and insects? If those animals/insects moved away or died out those plants would die out. Survival of the fittest. A self-sufficient plant is fitter than a plant needing animals/insects, right?

Insects were anything but rare at the time flowering plants evolved. In fact they were extremely successful, as they've always been. And some animals adapted to eating fruits, thus helping plants to spread their seeds. Co-evolution at its finest for all those involved.

Originally posted by Lannock
If those animals/insects moved away or died out those plants would die out. Survival of the fittest. A self-sufficient plant is fitter than a plant needing animals/insects, right?

Evolution does not plan in advance. Evolving flowers that attracted insects and fruit that attracted animals was a response to the conditions at that time. And in the end it proved to be a very good idea for plants, no?

Besides, if there's a niche in an ecosystem, somebody will eventually evolve to fill it. Think humming birds.

Some flowering plants pollinate primarily by wind. They don't all necessarily require insects.

Just thought I'd throw that into the discussion.

[edit on 23-10-2009 by PieKeeper]