How do fruit trees fit into evolution?

[Loudmouth]

Which is it? Does the tree "want" (more like need) the seeds to be carried off...

There is no "want" involved. It is beneficial the species, and beneficial adaptations are selected for.

If offspring start growing right next to the parent plant then they are immediately competing with one another for limited resources (e.g. water, soil nutrients, sunlight). If offspring start growing well away from the parent plant then they are both better off. Also, it is beneficial to the species as a whole if they can establish themselves in a new area before other plants.

Did the tree "invest" all that time, food, and energy into a process that it required for it's survival without the benefit of knowing whether or not animals would partake of that kind of diet or not?

Yep. It is a gamble, but the odds are tipped in favor of the plant so the gene for making fruit is passed on at a higher rate. If the odds were against the plant then fruit production would be selected against.

There would need to be more than one of a kind of fruit tree to even get the proverbial ball rolling.

All you need is a series of mutations that make seeds slightly more attractive to herbivores. There would already be selection for a seed covering that protected against digestion in the herbivore gut since the herbivore would probably be eating the seeds anyway without the fruit. By making the fruit more and more attractive while making leaves and twigs less and less attractive the evolution of the plant can push grazing to its advantage.

 

[[serious]]

Which came first, the animals that liked the fruit or the tree that needed animals to disperse it's seeds? On one hand animals that lived mainly off fruit would die if fruit trees weren't around first. On the other hand fruit trees would die off because of over crowding one area if there weren't animals to spread the seeds around.

In Christ, GB

fruit/nut trees can certainly survive without dispersers. Lots of trees do. Many animals that disperse seeds and nuts can survive without them as well.

If I had to take a guess, I'd say that animal consumption of seeds came first, partial resistance to digestion of the seeds came second (at this point you have a dispersal mechanism in place) then an increase in the nutritional value of the fruit, the resistance of the seed to digestion, and the seeking of fruit by animals could all increase concurrently.

 

[good brother]

Why would organisms destroy a tree that they are happy eating the fruit from?

Ever heard of the principle of overgrazing? Animals do it because there are too many of them or too little resouces. It happens in wild and domesticated animals.

GB

 

[good brother]

In many cases, the tree wants herbivores to eat the fruit.

There is no "want" involved.

I'm sorry. Which is it?

GB

 

[Delphiki]

That there is no "want". I believe Loudmouth was trying to simplify things previously. He already explained this as simply a beneficial change being selected for. If a small genetic change occurs in favor of survival and procreation, then that gene is more likely to be passed on to offspring. Evolution isn't plotted out, it's just the change over time that occurs from passing genes along that were most capable of reproducing.

At one point, some animal started eating fruits or seeds, and this cause more seeds to be scattered about, planted in fertilizer... So the population of the plant would be more likely to grow as a result. The "tastier" descendants of those plants would be more likely to survive than the others, so over time, the plants bearing the juicier fruits than it's close relatives would be more likely to keep the population going and pass it's genes along.

Even the farmers of today take advantage of this, only when it happens in nature it's called natural selection. When a farmer does it, it's selective breeding. Selective breeding is actually what helped to shape bananas as we know them today.

 

[metherion]

The reason a lot of the fruit trees you named (apples, mangoes, pears, et cetera) don't have thorns or other defenses is because they have been bred out of the tree by human farmers. Human farmers can impose artificial selection. What does a human farmer want? Easy access, large fruit, high yields of fruit. And the farmers can drive off herbivores or just prevent access to the trees by herbivores with fences and pesticides and the like, and then breed the fruit trees with fewer thorns, smaller thorns, or whatnot until they disappear, as is the case today.

Also, not all defenses are visible. If you look at this wikipedia page:
Monilinia fructicola - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
it talks about a fungus that causes brown rot in some fruits, and how the plants defend themselves by producing chemicals to fight it. Plants can make chemicals to fight other things too. And, of course, how many plants have poisonous bits? Take a look at tomato plants and leaves and to a degree, unripe fruit. They're toxic.

Metherion

 

[Split Rock]

Ever heard of the principle of overgrazing? Animals do it because there are too many of them or too little resouces. It happens in wild and domesticated animals.

GB

Does this ever happen because a tree produces tasty fruit??

 

[good brother]

It makes you wonder if any of the creationists here ever went to school because they are not even familiar with the basics.

Hi Hintenda. Next time, if you want to say something, maybe you will actually raise a point instead of just insulting those around you when you show up. You see, I may disagree with some of these people here, but I ask questions to get us all talking, not to belittle or insult someone.


Keep it civil.

In Christ, GB

 

[good brother]

Does this ever happen because a tree produces tasty fruit??

It doesn't need to. It happens because the food source is there. If there was more tasty food than the regular food source, I would speculate that the animal would gravitate towards it versus the less appealing food. For example, horses love apples but should not be allowed to have too many of them, which they would eat if given the opportunity. Too many apples can cause colic and lead a horse to founder. If a horse founders it is important to remove all hay and grain from the horse's diet. Isn't that wierd. Apples can cause founder but one should remove grain and hay from a horse's diet if they have it. I guess they never adapted to that in evolution.

In Christ, GB

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm sorry. Which is it?

GB

The latter. Humans and scientists have a tendency to anthropomorphize when it is inappropriate. We tend to give plants and other animals human tendencies to help us better understand what we are talking about.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

It doesn't need to. It happens because the food source is there. If there was more tasty food than the regular food source, I would speculate that the animal would gravitate towards it versus the less appealing food. For example, horses love apples but should not be allowed to have too many of them, which they would eat if given the opportunity. Too many apples can cause colic and lead a horse to founder. If a horse founders it is important to remove all hay and grain from the horse's diet. Isn't that wierd. Apples can cause founder but one should remove grain and hay from a horse's diet if they have it. I guess they never adapted to that in evolution.

In Christ, GB

To your knowledge, has this ever been a problem for an undomesticated species of horse?

 

[RickG]

Originally Posted by CabVet

No observed evidence goes against ToE.

Lots of observations go against mischaracterizations, lies and straw man created about ToE.​

Cab, I expect more than that from you. You normally have such more explicit answers. This is merely saying nothing with words.

In Christ, GB

Actually he made a very well defined factual point which I will restate.

There is absolutely no observed scientific evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution. If you think there is please state it and give a credible citation.

CabVet is also quite correct in stating that implied evidence against ToE is either misrepresented, misunderstood or just plain made up. This is fully backed up when one compares the actual published peer review literature with the misrepresented denialist literature.

 

[good brother]

To your knowledge, has this ever been a problem for an undomesticated species of horse?

I contemplated saying this:

"How should I know? Fossilization happens so very rarely that countless millions of horse species could have died from this very issue without leaving so much as a trace of evidence behind. We know that horses have been evolving for millions and millions of years with fossilization being a very rare recorder of events. There could be potentially countless generations of horses that died out due to this very problem and we would have no idea in the present because most of our horse population is domesticated now and does not suffer from this on the scale that horses that existed outside of human domestication suffered from it."


I decided to say this instead:

Does the scope of my knowledge have any bearing on the truth? What I posted is what is known to be true for horses across the board, whether or not I have any personal knowledge of it occurring within an undomesticated species of horse, has no sway on what I have already said.

In Christ, GB

 

[good brother]

Actually he made a very well defined factual point which I will restate.

There is absolutely no observed scientific evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution. If you think there is please state it and give a credible citation.

CabVet is also quite correct in stating that implied evidence against ToE is either misrepresented, misunderstood or just plain made up. This is fully backed up when one compares the actual published peer review literature with the misrepresented denialist literature.

No... CabVet didn't say anything then and neither did you just now. You both simply dismissed any thought or line of questioning that dares to question the reliability of the ToE. If ToE is so easily defendable, then dismiss my points with facts instead of a wave of the hand. Address the OP instead of scoffing at any point that could potentially shoot a big old hole in the middle of the theory.

Thank you.

In Christ, GB

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I contemplated saying this:

"How should I know? Fossilization happens so very rarely that countless millions of horse species could have died from this very issue without leaving so much as a trace of evidence behind. We know that horses have been evolving for millions and millions of years with fossilization being a very rare recorder of events. There could be potentially countless generations of horses that died out due to this very problem and we would have no idea in the present because most of our horse population is domesticated now and does not suffer from this on the scale that horses that existed outside of human domestication suffered from it."


I decided to say this instead:

Does the scope of my knowledge have any bearing on the truth? What I posted is what is known to be true for horses across the board, whether or not I have any personal knowledge of it occurring within an undomesticated species of horse, has no sway on what I have already said.

In Christ, GB

Has this ever been observed in living wild horse populations? I'm asking becuase you made a comment with a layman's level of understanding, then followed with a snarky comment about ToE not keeping up with, etc. In order for your assertion about ToE not allowing for this, you would need to source this claim. So I'm asking, has your claim of horses eating too many apples ever occurred in a wild horse population?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Did you go to school? because the way you talk I don't think you did.

Come now, let's not get personal here. We can debate the merits of a claim without having to ad hom. Generally speaking, I always assume that creationists do not have a college level degree in the sciences, but there have been exceptions.

 

[good brother]

Has this ever been observed in living wild horse populations? I'm asking becuase you made a comment with a layman's level of understanding, then followed with a snarky comment about ToE not keeping up with, etc. In order for your assetion about ToE not allowing for this, you would need to source this claim. So I'm asking, has your claim of horses eating too many apples ever occurred in a wild horse population?

Not to my personal knowledge, which does not change a single thing about the facts that I have already posted.

In Christ, GB

 

[CabVet]

No... CabVet didn't say anything then and neither did you just now. You both simply dismissed any thought or line of questioning that dares to question the reliability of the ToE. If ToE is so easily defendable, then dismiss my points with facts instead of a wave of the hand. Address the OP instead of scoffing at any point that could potentially shoot a big old hole in the middle of the theory.

Thank you.

In Christ, GB

Actually, I did say quite a lot. I will come back to this, give me a sec.

But to answer your question, what do fruit trees accomplish? Attracting predators is your answer.

Think about millions of rabbits and rats, what do they attract? Mountain lions (and coyotes and other predators).

Think about gigantic schools of sardines, what do they attract? Sharks (and groupers and other predators).

It's called an evolutionary strategy. Some animals (and plants) invest a lot in a few off-spring, others invest a little bit in a lot of offspring, in your example the off-spring are fruits, that is all. If the fruit tree strategy (lots of fruits in the hopes that at least some survive) was not working for them, we wouldn't have any.

 

[keith99]

That's awesome! Would you mind listing a few? Thank you.

Have you ever seen a locus tree or an Osage orange bush? Nasty thorns all over them...great defenses..
You mentioned about bucks rubbing the trees while in rut and killing them..very rare instances.They rub up and down, not around the tree..
Girdling(rubbing all of the way around the tree to the actual wood) is what would kill the tree in that case.

No need to go exotic. My mom's home has between a dozen and a score of citrus trees. Almost all have thorns, some several inches long. Those can be a problem when picking fruit.

Blackberries, Boysenberries and Raspberries all have thorns. The more wild varieties have rather nasty ones.

But I have a thornless blackberry at home. Specifically bred for that trait.

Modern domestic fruit trees and bushes have been bred for hundreds of years to NOT have nasty thorns and nice fruit. The stock men started with were far different.

 

[[serious]]

It doesn't need to. It happens because the food source is there. If there was more tasty food than the regular food source, I would speculate that the animal would gravitate towards it versus the less appealing food. For example, horses love apples but should not be allowed to have too many of them, which they would eat if given the opportunity. Too many apples can cause colic and lead a horse to founder. If a horse founders it is important to remove all hay and grain from the horse's diet. Isn't that wierd. Apples can cause founder but one should remove grain and hay from a horse's diet if they have it. I guess they never adapted to that in evolution.

In Christ, GB

I'm by no means a horse expert, but isn't founder a hoof issue and colic a GI/abdominal issue?