Evolution in trees?

[nocturne]

What I meant is, if some plants did become poisonous, why didn't all plants become poisonous? it would be beneficial for their survival because animals wouldn't eat them (due to their bad taste). Why are there still non-poisonous plants that animals can eat? why haven't they become extinct? If evolution were true, shouldn't all plants be poisonous as they would survive while the non-poisonous would have become extinct because they would be the ones that the animals ate?

For plants to survive, reproduction must occur. I might be wrong on this, but plants produce fruits/flowers as a form of reproduction although, they store products of photosynthesis in it as well. Thus, becoming poisonous is counter-productive in most cases.

They are some plants which are poisonous to prevent themselves from being eaten. and others could just be a mistake of evolution.

Why does everything work well together? why do plants get nutrients from soil? why is there soil in the first place? if there were only sand or rocks/pebbles, plants wouldn't be able to grow. Who created the soil?
why is rain beneficial to plants? if rain / water had been harmful (like acid rain) then plants and animals wouldn't survive. Who made the rain/water compatible with plant & animal needs?

Yeah. this is where evolutionist often go wrong. i think its impossible for everything to happen by natural selection. There has to be a hand of god in all this.


my question was, why should poisonous plants taste bad? what makes them taste bad? the bad taste wards off animals so animals don't eat them. That's good for the animals, otherwise animals would end up eating poisonous plants and dying. But why should poisonous plants taste bad while nonpoisonous plants taste good? Why don't all plants taste the same? if evolution had caused it, it would be equally likely for poisonous plants to taste good and nonpoisonous plants to taste bad. But actually, it didn't all happen by itself. God made it happen. God caused poisonous plants to taste bad to keep animals from eating them while nonpoisonous plants don't taste bad in order to make animals eat them, which is necessary for animals' survival.

:thumbs_up:thumbs_up

There still plenty of things for scientist to discover to fill in the missing gaps. End of the day, they still wont be able to answer why we exist.

 

[Hamayun]

Thanks for taking the time to reply

More questions

Of course, plants do not really 'know' anything about this. You can imagine that at a certain point there only existed poisonous plants with non-sticky seeds.

The problem is if their only existed poisonous plants at a certain point, they would not survive more than a generation due to their inability to reproduce properly.

A half baked reproductive system is no better than not having one.

Because of a certain mutation, some plant suddenly got sticky seeds.

What about before the mutation? If they were unable to reproduce successfully before the mutation how did survive long enough to produce a mutated version of the plant? The odds of mutating within one generation are preeeeetty slim.

Because of a certain mutation, some plant suddenly got sticky seeds. From this point on, the plant would benefit from being non-toxic, so non-toxic 'children' would spread over the world faster.

Lets apply the same logic to humans...

If a human was born with six fingers... would all his offsprings also have six fingers?

If this logic doesn't apply to humans please explain why?

Thanks

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you math,

Many plants use animals for their reproduction. Think of bees carrying pollen, or animals carrying sticky seeds in their fur.

This poses a problem, if plants were around before bees, how did they cross pollinate without bees?

Bees need flowers, so which came first the flowers or the bees?

Evolution is not a problem for us, but evolution without God is a problem.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[Trumble]

This poses a problem, if plants were around before bees, how did they cross pollinate without bees?

Bees need flowers, so which came first the flowers or the bees?

Evolution is not a problem for us, but evolution without God is a problem.

Without knowing any of the details, a possible thesis might be that the plants cross pollenated by some other method, maybe by wind transmission. The bees just did the job more efficiently, so it was the plants that - for whatever reason - the bees found most attractive that were more likely to reproduce, and hence the bees became the dominant method of pollenation in the population of the plant concerned.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Trumble;

Without knowing any of the details, a possible thesis might be that

From abiogenesis to the life we see today needs billions or possibly trillions of separate things to happen, mostly building on what went before.

Chemicals always work in the same way, so you would need billions or possibly trillions of ways to adjust chemicals to make the life we see today.

How is this possible without God?

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[math]

Thank you all for your replies! I really appreciate your desire to get to know more about the believes of others. Because so many questions have been posed, I will try to answer briefly, as I am afraid my post will get terribly long anyway. If I have been too brief, don't hesitate to ask for further explanation.

If evolution were true, shouldn't all plants be poisonous as they would survive while the non-poisonous would have become extinct because they would be the ones that the animals ate?

I tried explaining this in my previous post: some plants actually do need animals for their reproduction.

it would be equally likely for poisonous plants to taste good and nonpoisonous plants to taste bad.

Sorry, I am afraid you missed my point, so I will try to explain it more precisely. There is no such thing as 'tasting good' in general. What tastes good for one human, might taste bad for another. Same with animals: what tastes good for one species, will taste bad for another. And of course animals for which healthy species taste best, will survive longer than animals for which poison taste best. Therefore, it would be totally unlikely for poisonous plants to taste good - the taste of 'good' and 'bad' of animals developed in such a way that they would not like poisonous substances. I hope the point is clearer now?

In my opinion, chances are that nothing will happen unless there is a drastic change in environment or any other induced man-made changes.

Yes you are right, that's what I said as well, or at least what I wanted to say (but don't underestimate, for example, the effect of changes in climate that might occur).

The problem is if their only existed poisonous plants at a certain point, they would not survive more than a generation due to their inability to reproduce properly.

To be able to transport in the fur of animals, toxicity is not a problem, of course. For plants that actually would need to be eaten, you can for example imagine that the change in toxicity and stickyness occured at the same time, of that the plant was poisonous, but killed the animal only after some time (and the seeds were transported already).

If they were unable to reproduce successfully before the mutation how did survive long enough to produce a mutated version of the plant?

Of course they could reproduce anyway, just transporting of the seeds was restricted to a small area (for example by the wind), instead of longer distances by animals.

If a human was born with six fingers... would all his offsprings also have six fingers?

Same logic applies to humans. If those six fingers are defined in his genes, his offspring would have six fingers as well.

Bees need flowers, so which came first the flowers or the bees?

Flowers don't need bees, of the first flowers their seeds could be spread by the wind. Flowers were first.

yes, the origin of the universe is something all athiests/agnostics/evolutionists should first try to answer, before believing that evolution caused it all.

Of course it would be nice if we could. But currently, the only things we can somehow understand are the rising and development of life. You believe the word of the Qur'an is the only accurate description, but there are tens (if not more) of other stories about the creation of the world, all with their own people who believe their story is the only right one. See this page on wikipedia for a really interesting overview. You can probably understand that it is not really possibly for me to decide which of those stories are right and which are not. So while you can use excerpts from the Qur'an for illustration, please don't expect me to straightforwardly believe everything you cite.


A number of you (muhaba, nocturne, Eric) raise the same concern, which could be summarized as 'Why does everything work so nicely together? How is it possible that all those steps necessary for nature to exist happened all by itself? How could this be possible without God?'

I think that the point is that we can only ask this question because us humans are there. It is possible to imagine a lots of universes where nature does not work as beautifully together as in our universe. But in those universes, there would be noone to observe the world they live in, simply because no creature complex enough to observe and describe the world could arise. The only worlds where intelligent beings can live, are worlds with a highly developed, stable nature. So the fact that we are intelligent observers, implies that we must live in a complex world where everything works together nicely.

Personally I believe that God might have played a role, but honestly I do not see why this should be necessarily so. If I look at our beautiful world, I really do not see a reason why God must exist.

if anyone thinks with an open mind he/she will realize that God made it happen.

Of course it is hard for anyone to really think with an open mind, because the ideas we are open for, are largely determined by the (sub)culture we live in and the education we received. From my point of view, I would have to disagree with your statement. For me open-mindedness is looking at the world as it is created by God (assuming it is) and listening to what other educated people have to say, rather than just believing the truth from one book. Believing the Qur'an without being able to question it does not appear as an example of open mindedness, though. Sorry if this sound offensive: it is not meant like that.
Don't you believe that God would like us to investigate his creation? Surely the world is much more beautiful if you get to understand more about it. Why then not believe the observations of biologists make about our earth? For me as a non-Muslim it is really hard to imagine that you don't want to accept the facts about evolution we notice in the world (and nearly all biologists agree about). Actually from my viewpoint it even looks like discrediting God's creation: why believe in God's words (which perhaps have been altered in the course of history?) over God's work, which we can directly see?

By the way, also note that many Christians made this change already. Many Christians (at least in Western-Europe, I'm not sure about other places) do believe in God, but do not believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, and have no problems with accepting the evolution theory.

Of course, it is very hard for people and cultures to admit they always have been wrong (and I don't expect anyone in this forum to do so). This holds both for atheists and muslims, of course. Still I wonder if a similar development as has taken place in Christianity will also occur in the Islam at some time.

Again, this post is definately not intended to offend anyone. I just liked trying to show you how non-believers view the world, and meanwhile to learn more about your believes.

Once again thanks all for the replies and have a nice day!

 

[Azy]

OK yeah I'm a bit late with this but... meh

Without knowing any of the details, a possible thesis might be that the plants cross pollenated by some other method, maybe by wind transmission.

That and the fact that cross pollination isn't even a problem because insects were around for 300 million years before flowering plants.

Early plants (similar to modern ferns) didn't need to cross pollinate, reproducing using spores not seeds.

What were people hoping with this thread? That the world would suddenly gasp and say "oh ****, we didn't think about the trees!"?
Evolution happened the same way.

Anyone compared the chlorophyll and haemoglobin molecules?

 

[Hamayun]

What were people hoping with this thread? That the world would suddenly gasp and say "oh ****, we didn't think about the trees!"?
Evolution happened the same way.

Nice! Patronising people will definitely get your point across...

 

[Muhaba]

Once again thanks all for the replies and have a nice day!

You are more than welcome!

 

[Muhaba]

OK yeah I'm a bit late with this but... meh
That and the fact that cross pollination isn't even a problem because insects were around for 300 million years before flowering plants.

Early plants (similar to modern ferns) didn't need to cross pollinate, reproducing using spores not seeds.

What were people hoping with this thread? That the world would suddenly gasp and say "oh ****, we didn't think about the trees!"?
Evolution happened the same way.

Anyone compared the chlorophyll and haemoglobin molecules?

Well, we were sure science would've had something to say about it. But don't you ever wonder how it could be possible for everything to have come from one single cell? Not only the different animals but the many different types of plants, flowers, vegetables & fruits, trees and herbs, evergreens and seasonal plants, etc etc. Could they all have come from a single cell along with bacteria and viruses and the different types of animals?

And where did the first cell come from? Somewhere I read it probably came from a bacteria, but where did that bacteria come from?

What are your thoughts about this?

 

[Woodrow]

This is a question for the Atheists...

What did trees evolve from?

Did an Apple tree evolve from another tree? Will an Apple tree evolve to something else in a million years?

Thanks..

Both theists and atheists make an error in thinking that evolution or the lack of evolution proves or disproves the existence of Allaah(swt)

Us Muslims often make the error of jumping into a debate about evolution without understanding what is meant by evolution.

The concept of evolution in plants is so complex that many botanists get lost. The plant kingdom is so diverse and so many conditions affect plants it is often difficult to recognize what species a single plant is.

The plant family rosales is extremely complex. Rosale takes many forms and yet technically are the same species of plant although it is in many shape this family includes apples, roses, true cacti and most plants with thorns. They readily cross pollinate and hybrids abound. You can intercross nearly all of them with each other. Morphologically they are different plants but genetically they are all the same plant. It is not evolution, it is hybridization and growth according to soil and climate conditions.

So there has always been just one species of apple tree but it bears no resemblance to the apple trees of just a few hundred years ago, although the apples of today are still technically the same species of plant. In my own life time I have seen several new forms of apple trees. About 300 years ago all apples were small and tart like what ew call crab apples today. Less then a 500 years ago they were all like the fruit on hawthorns.

Add to that the word apple has been used for many different fruits over the centuries some other things that have been called apples are Pomegranates, Oranges, tomatoes, and rose hips(which actually are a true apple)

Between the actually definition of evolution and the problems with linguistics, it is best a person not engage in a debate about evolution, unless they have a solid scientific background in the concept of evolution, are knowledgeable in language changes and have enough biology to be able to identify a species of plant or animal.

 

[Azy]

I like it when Woodrow posts, usually interesting and informative.

Well, we were sure science would've had something to say about it. But don't you ever wonder how it could be possible for everything to have come from one single cell? Not only the different animals but the many different types of plants, flowers, vegetables & fruits, trees and herbs, evergreens and seasonal plants, etc etc. Could they all have come from a single cell along with bacteria and viruses and the different types of animals?

And where did the first cell come from? Somewhere I read it probably came from a bacteria, but where did that bacteria come from?

What are your thoughts about this?

There are a couple of misconceptions held about this topic.
One is that the first cell must have been something like a bacterium. The first instance of what we would call a 'cell' would be a thousand times simpler than any modern bacteria.

Another misconception is that there was a barren earth and then BAM a cell assembled by itself. Noone thinks that happened, more like hundreds of millions of years of self-replicating molecules gradually increasing in complexity.

As for how everything came about I don't think that takes much imagination. Think about algae, the single cell organism that photosythesises like plants. A mutation in one cell that led to photosythesis would lead to the ancestors of the plant kingdom, while ones that didn't and developed differently would be ancestors to the animals, bacteria, fungi etc.

 

[nocturne]

I think one of the brother here hit the nail right on the nail with his comments.

Evolution is not a problem, Evolution without god is.

The concept of everything starting off from bacterium and eventually ending up with humans is hard to comprehend. Especially, when we are specifically told that we were created by God.

But, in my personal opinion, the details of the creating of mankind is pretty vague in the Quran and it is open for various interpretation.There is still so much to understand and learn about evolution, shutting it off because it does not comply with what we understand of the Quran is wrong.

Salam

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you math;

Personally I believe that God might have played a role, but honestly I do not see why this should be necessarily so. If I look at our beautiful world, I really do not see a reason why God must exist.

Chemicals always work in the same way, so you would need billions or possibly trillions of ways to adjust chemicals to make the life we see today. So the evolutionary process would need a God like gene to produce all kinds of mutations that would work well together, more so in animals and man.

In other words I cannot see how the life we see today can be created without God.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[glo]

Both theists and atheists make an error in thinking that evolution or the lack of evolution proves or disproves the existence of Allaah(swt)

Us Muslims often make the error of jumping into a debate about evolution without understanding what is meant by evolution.

The concept of evolution in plants is so complex that many botanists get lost. The plant kingdom is so diverse and so many conditions affect plants it is often difficult to recognize what species a single plant is.

Great post, Woodrow.
I reminded me of this article I read today:

Nearly a quarter of Londoners and one in seven people nationwide believe in creationism - the theory that life on earth was created by God and has always existed in its present form.

Almost 150 years after Charles Darwin published his groundbreaking work, On the Origin of Species, just 48 per cent of Londoners agreed there was enough scientific evidence to support his theory of evolution, according to a survey published today.

One in five Londoners had never even heard of Darwin and a similar number of adults in the north of England had no understanding of or had never heard of the term, “evolution”.

Overall, more than half those surveyed, 54 per cent, across Britain said it was possible both to believe in God and to hold the view that life on earth, including human life, evolved over time as a result of natural selection.

[...]

Dr Fern Elsdon-Baker, head of the programme, said: “The most encouraging aspect of the survey shows that whilst there are diverse views on Darwin’s theory of evolution, there appears to a broad acceptance that science and faith do not have to be in conflict.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6610938.ece

 

[Hamayun]

Greetings and peace be with you math;



Chemicals always work in the same way, so you would need billions or possibly trillions of ways to adjust chemicals to make the life we see today. So the evolutionary process would need a God like gene to produce all kinds of mutations that would work well together, more so in animals and man.

In other words I cannot see how the life we see today can be created without God.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

Good post Brother Eric.

I accept evolution and I do believe that modern day organisms may have evolved from simpler forms of life.

I do not believe this was a result of an empty void exploding to cause planets to form with minerals and resources powerful enough to not only form living things but also ingredients that power our laptops, super computers, space ships, sattelites etc.

Coming back to the subject...

Lets say for example the first cell that came into existence was very simple...

Did the cell come into existence armed with a reproductive system (even if it was cell division).

Also when it evolved into more complex forms did it have two reproductive systems? One fully functional and the other partially functional? Wouldn't the partially functional organ be a hinderence rather than a benefit?

These are honest questions

 

[Muhaba]

I like it when Woodrow posts, usually interesting and informative.There are a couple of misconceptions held about this topic.
One is that the first cell must have been something like a bacterium. The first instance of what we would call a 'cell' would be a thousand times simpler than any modern bacteria.

Another misconception is that there was a barren earth and then BAM a cell assembled by itself. Noone thinks that happened, more like hundreds of millions of years of self-replicating molecules gradually increasing in complexity.

As for how everything came about I don't think that takes much imagination. Think about algae, the single cell organism that photosythesises like plants. A mutation in one cell that led to photosythesis would lead to the ancestors of the plant kingdom, while ones that didn't and developed differently would be ancestors to the animals, bacteria, fungi etc.

And you think it all happened by itself?

where did the barren earth come from? Who created it? or do you think that with the big bang everything came into being by itself? don't you ever wonder who caused the big bang with which the universe came into being?

Before the big bang, there was absolutely nothing. Not matter, not energy, nothing. Then the big bang happened and the universe came into being. Doesn't that show that God made it happen? Only God could make something out of nothing, because God can do anything. Or do you think that it's possible for something to be made out of nothing?

Just imagine the time before the big bang, when there was nothing? Is it possible for something to just magically appear without some outside force making it happen?

Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe...

... According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.

Big Bang Theory - What About God?
Any discussion of the Big Bang theory would be incomplete without asking the question, what about God? This is because cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe) is an area where science and theology meet. Creation was a supernatural event. That is, it took place outside of the natural realm. This fact begs the question: is there anything else which exists outside of the natural realm? Specifically, is there a master Architect out there? We know that this universe had a beginning. Was God the "First Cause"?
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

And Allah says in the Holy Quraan (revealed over 1,400 years ago):
Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before We clove them asunder. And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (Surah 21 (Al-Anbiya) Verse 30)

 

[Azy]

And you think it all happened by itself?

I haven't heard a reasonable alternative.

don't you ever wonder who caused the big bang with which the universe came into being?

The question itself is bordering on the ridiculous.

Or do you think that it's possible for something to be made out of nothing?

Yes.
Besides, if there was "nothing" before the universe then where was God? Waiting at the side of nothing to make his grand entrance?
Nothing means nothing, there was no space or time, "before" makes no sense.

There's recently been discussion about it in [this thread].

You might also have noticed that big-bang-theory.com is a website run by the Christian Science Institute, and despite the name it doesn't seem to have much actual science in there.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Azy;

Quote:
Originally Posted by muhaba
Or do you think that it's possible for something to be made out of nothing?
Yes.
Besides, if there was "nothing" before the universe then where was God? Waiting at the side of nothing to make his grand entrance?
Nothing means nothing, there was no space or time, "before" makes no sense.

The universe exists, something had to either have no beginning or come from nothing, how else can the first thing come into existence? There seems to be no logical explanation, unless you have one.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[Woodrow]

Before we go too far off track let us remember the creation of matter and the evolution of life are 2 seperate subjects.

Returning to evolution in particular the evolution of trees we need to understand what evolution is and resolve if it can occur without intelligent guidance.

A very large amount of evolution in plants has taken place because of human intervention. Trees are a good example. Very few examples of original apple trees exist. The apple you buy in the store did not exist in nature and are very recent developments. Here most people accept the evolution of apples as the result of human intervention. Seems odd that the same people who see that evolution of apples could not have happened without the "intelligent" guidance of humans can not accept intelligent guidence for all things called evolution.