A nail in the evolution coffin: plants first or animals?, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times


reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 03:19 AM by oozyism
reply to post by Lannock



The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?

Fossil evidence suggests that plants began to populate the land long before animals: in fact, it wasn't until there were enough plants (food) to make it worthwhile that the first arthropods began to venture out of the water. The insects evolved from some of these first amphibious arthropods. Pollen-bearing plants don't appear in the fossil record until much, much later.


www.madsci.org...

All the Questions you are thinking about are answered, sorry...



reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 03:42 AM by Lannock
Originally posted by oozyism
reply to
post by Lannock



The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?

Fossil evidence suggests that plants began to populate the land long before animals: in fact, it wasn't until there were enough plants (food) to make it worthwhile that the first arthropods began to venture out of the water. The insects evolved from some of these first amphibious arthropods. Pollen-bearing plants don't appear in the fossil record until much, much later.


www.madsci.org...

All the Questions you are thinking about are answered, sorry...


You are wrong. Sorry. If pollen bearing plants appear later in the fossil record that would mean that plants devolved into something needing outside help to survive. You did not read or comprehend that part of my post.


reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 04:06 AM by jawsismyfish
Originally posted by Lannock
Originally posted by oozyism
reply to
post by Lannock



The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?

Fossil evidence suggests that plants began to populate the land long before animals: in fact, it wasn't until there were enough plants (food) to make it worthwhile that the first arthropods began to venture out of the water. The insects evolved from some of these first amphibious arthropods. Pollen-bearing plants don't appear in the fossil record until much, much later.


www.madsci.org...

All the Questions you are thinking about are answered, sorry...


You are wrong. Sorry. If pollen bearing plants appear later in the fossil record that would mean that plants devolved into something needing outside help to survive. You did not read or comprehend that part of my post.


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


reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 04:36 AM by ItsallCrazy
reply to post by Lannock



I would have said that plants have evolved to include pollination so that they could spread and grow more effectively, hell if plants will even move toward a light source its pretty fair to say they would try to spread out across the undergrowth and we'd have to know what the method was for plants to breed before pollination so that you could see if it really was a step up or down.

Everything exists pretty much just to further its own existance, except humans.. we still think there's a divine reason to our meaty behinds



reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 04:47 AM by oozyism
reply to post by Lannock



I guess I didn't comprehend that part of your post, I still don't get it.

Let me try to make myself understand cause I'm recovering from KAVA right now so hang with me..

The problem is how did plants which need insects for pollination evolve before insects or other animals?


then

Would a plant which did not need outside help evolve into a plant which needed outside help?


After 5 minutes of staring in to the screen I figured it out lol

OK you are saying those plants were more fit due to its adjustment to the environment, at least it adjusted better than plants which did need insects or other animals.

Now I see where you mis understood evolution, I think?

Evolution keeps going, it doesn't stop because it feels the animal is perfect, why? Because it is not conscious, so evolution keeps occurring, even when the animal is seen fit for the environment. The plants kept evolving therefore causing the creation of a new specie which happen to work very well along side insects or other animals. But that is a simplistic view of how it could have happened. But if we take the steps into consideration that might prove your point of impossibility.

correct me if I'm wrong cause I'm not a professor at this


reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 05:27 AM by Wallachian
reply to post by whatshenneping



You're absolutely correct. No animal today can survive without plants. But the ecosystem 400+ million years ago was totally different than today's ecosystem. Different species, different relations between species.


reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 04:27 PM by sirnex
reply to post by Lannock



While I don't personally know the early conditions of life on our planet and nor do yourself know, to exclaim that early life *must* have lived and eaten *exactly* the same way as modern species is just a bit of a stretch. I would surmise that it is completely possible that early fish fed off bacteria and each other. That insects could have just eaten each other. Regardless, from everything I've read including through searching before I posted this, plants evolved first.


reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 01:06 AM by Lannock
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.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 16 days ago with 24 member flags
"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 6 days ago with 6 member flags
Evolution. Not a theory, but a fact!
  Posted 18 days ago with 4 member flags
Evolutionary theory: Gaps and not yet understood phenonemon
  Posted 17 days ago with 3 member flags