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


reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 04:12 PM by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by PieKeeper



In fact the majority of flowering plants do - grasses and most trees are wind-pollinated. Most of the plants commonly pollinated by insects are also capable of self-pollination. That is, they can breed with themselves, within the same flower. There are of course exceptions to that (fruit trees generally require insects, for instance) but for the most part, plants would go just fine without pollinating bugs.

So why evolve towards that direction? Because insect delivery is more efficient. A wind-blown breeder has a perfectly random chance of passing its genes on through pollen. Insect-born pollen is delivered much more certainly. Those plants whose flowers attracted insects thus simply had a higher rate of reproduction, and the insect-attracting genes were the ones to spread. Plants that delivered the most pollen to the most insects and did so in an efficient manner - such as those plants that react to the bee by whacking it in the head with a wad of pollen - would also have hteir genes spread better.

As for whether plants or animals evolved first... Depends on where you start counting them as "plants" and "animals"


reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 04:25 PM by spy66
reply to post by Lannock



You could also ask the evolutionists if they know if the male monkey and female monkey crawled out of the water at the same beach in Africa at approximately the same time. And figured out that they belong together.

Or if any of the male monkeys managed to produce a offspring without a female within its short life span.

And you can ask them why has evolution suddenly stopped. We dont see things crawling out of the water anymore. Actually we have never seen any of the things scientists preach about evolution.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]


reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 04:47 PM by sirnex
reply to post by spy66



You could also ask the evolutionists if they know if the male monkey and female monkey crawled out of the water at the same beach in Africa at approximately the same time. And figured out that they belong together.


Seeing as how Evolutionary Theory does not postulate anything of the sort, wouldn't that question seem a little retarded and unfounded?

Or if any of the male monkeys managed to produce a offspring without a female within its short life span.


Given your above question, define short life span. Would these primal monkeys have a life span of two hours or would they consist of the more normal life span of today's monkeys in which there is ample time to reproduce?


And you can ask them why has evolution suddenly stopped. We dont see things crawling out of the water anymore. Actually we have never seen any of the things scientists preach about evolution.


Evolution has not stopped, I would more accurately say you don't keep up with current news and discoveries. While I could hand over a hundred links showing current evolutionary evidences and observations, I do not personally think you would learn anything. I will leave it upon yourself to look up the pertinent information and discover for yourself that you are either knowledgeable in what your arguing or just to full of pride to accept the instances of evolution shown.

Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



How Are Plants Aware of the World Around Them?
  Posted 2 days ago with 5 member flags
The Genesis Code
  Posted 9 days ago with 4 member flags
Explain Diversity Reloaded
  Posted 10 days ago with 3 member flags
Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge
  Posted 5 days ago with 3 member flags
The carrot (chicken or egg , vegetable version)
  Posted 4 days ago with 3 member flags
A theory of proof of a God
  Posted 10 days ago with 2 member flags
Eden: The Double Sided Coin
  Posted 4 days ago with 2 member flags
We are all connected with nature and The Universe IMO
  Posted 4 days ago with 2 member flags