How do fruit trees fit into evolution?

good brother · Jul 13, 2012

From an evolutionary standpoint it would almost seem as though fruit and nut trees go against ToE as they would draw insects and animals to them. That is not a defensive mechanism. It is the equivalent of attracting it's own death. Think about it for a moment. What animals would a fruit tree attract? Herbivores obviously. But more than that. Herbivores come and eat the fruit, leaves, and small branches of the tree. This is taking away from the growth of the tree. This can kill a tree if that activity is not stopped.

I know that deer are heavily attracted to fruit trees. Bucks are attracted to does. If does are eating at the fruit trees, they are going to be bringing in bucks. Bucks go through the rub every year. During the rub they rub their antlers up and down on trees. That scrapes off bark. That means that there is exposed inner layers that can kill a tree if too much is exposed.

Another problem are the bugs. Insects are attracted to the sugars found naturally in the fruit and the "meat" of the fruit trees. This means that the tree is "inviting" small organisms to come ind infest the tree with their habitation. This can and will kill a tree.

Why would fruit trees even exist if evolution were true?

In Christ, GB

jpcedotal · Jul 13, 2012

or whales...here is a creature that apparently formed lungs, came out of the water, didn't like it so returned back to the water, and apparently decided to keep its lungs as a memento.

good brother · Jul 13, 2012

Very true JP, and we could go on, but I don't want to derail this thread right away.

GB

Loudmouth · Jul 13, 2012

good brother said:
Herbivores come and eat the fruit, leaves, and small branches of the tree. This is taking away from the growth of the tree. This can kill a tree if that activity is not stopped.

Trees and plants do have defenses against grazing that will kill the plant.

However, you fail to understand the importance of fruit. In many cases, the tree wants herbivores to eat the fruit. When an herbivore eats a fruit they move to another area and then pass the seeds. Not only does this transport the seeds to distant places, they are also "planted" in rich manure. It's a win-win.

jpcedotal · Jul 13, 2012

good brother said:
Very true JP, and we could go on, but I don't want to derail this thread right away.

GB

sorry, just know the atheists are coming to tell you just how ignorant you are.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Jul 13, 2012

Loudmouth said:
Trees and plants do have defenses against grazing that will kill the plant.

However, you fail to understand the importance of fruit. In many cases, the tree wants herbivores to eat the fruit. When an herbivore eats a fruit they move to another area and then pass the seeds. Not only does this transport the seeds to distant places, they are also "planted" in rich manure. It's a win-win.

Or consider how many acorn trees are planted by squirrels that forgot where they buried the nuts. I have them popping up in my yard and garden all the time.

Archaeopteryx · Jul 13, 2012

good brother said:
From an evolutionary standpoint it would almost seem as though fruit and nut trees go against ToE as they would draw insects and animals to them. That is not a defensive mechanism. It is the equivalent of attracting it's own death. Think about it for a moment. What animals would a fruit tree attract? Herbivores obviously. But more than that. Herbivores come and eat the fruit, leaves, and small branches of the tree. This is taking away from the growth of the tree. This can kill a tree if that activity is not stopped.

I know that deer are heavily attracted to fruit trees. Bucks are attracted to does. If does are eating at the fruit trees, they are going to be bringing in bucks. Bucks go through the rub every year. During the rub they rub their antlers up and down on trees. That scrapes off bark. That means that there is exposed inner layers that can kill a tree if too much is exposed.

Another problem are the bugs. Insects are attracted to the sugars found naturally in the fruit and the "meat" of the fruit trees. This means that the tree is "inviting" small organisms to come ind infest the tree with their habitation. This can and will kill a tree.

Why would fruit trees even exist if evolution were true?

In Christ, GB

Drawing animals to them, to eat the fruit, is the whole point.

good brother · Jul 13, 2012

Loudmouth said:
Trees and plants do have defenses against grazing that will kill the plant.

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

However, you fail to understand the importance of fruit. In many cases, the tree wants herbivores to eat the fruit.

That almost looks like a goal. We cannot have goals in evolution. When we have goals in evolution it means that there's a purpose. And where there's a purpose, there is a direction. If there is direction then there is intelligence guiding the process. Where there is intelligence there is an intelligent designer.

When an herbivore eats a fruit they move to another area and then pass the seeds. Not only does this transport the seeds to distant places, they are also "planted" in rich manure. It's a win-win.

So what about the organisms the tree attracts that actually destroy the tree? I am not saying you are not correct about animals eating and distributing the seeds, that we know is true and demonstrates how an all knowing God would design such a process. However, from an evolutionary standpoint, which came first, the animals that liked fruit or the fruit that liked animals?

You have some good points, and I do too. I hope we can have an honest and civil discussion about this.

In Christ, GB

Split Rock · Jul 13, 2012

jpcedotal said:
or whales...here is a creature that apparently formed lungs, came out of the water, didn't like it so returned back to the water, and apparently decided to keep its lungs as a memento.

I guess your god just made the dumb mistake of making whales with lungs in the first place and sticking them in the water. :wave:

jpcedotal said:
sorry, just know the atheists are coming to tell you just how ignorant you are.

No, just you. His question is actually a descent one.

Archaeopteryx · Jul 13, 2012

good brother said:
That almost looks like a goal. We cannot have goals in evolution. When we have goals in evolution it means that there's a purpose. And where there's a purpose, there is a direction. If there is direction then there is intelligence guiding the process. Where there is intelligence there is an intelligent designer.

No, it's an adaptation. One that is particularly advantageous to spreading seeds. No need for the tree to have a "goal" in mind.

So what about the organisms the tree attracts that actually destroy the tree? I am not saying you are not correct about animals eating and distributing the seeds, that we know is true and demonstrates how an all knowing God would design such a process. However, from an evolutionary standpoint, which came first, the animals that liked fruit or the fruit that liked animals?

Why does one have have to come first? You think the first fruit looked anything like what we would consider fruit today? You think the first animals who ate that first fruit had trichromatic vision to tell when it was ripe?

good brother · Jul 13, 2012

Archaeopteryx said:
Drawing animals to them, to eat the fruit, is the whole point.

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

Loudmouth · Jul 13, 2012

good brother said:
That's awesome! Would you mind listing a few? Thank you.

A simple google search turned up this relevant wiki page:

Plant defense against herbivory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That almost looks like a goal. We cannot have goals in evolution. When we have goals in evolution it means that there's a purpose. And where there's a purpose, there is a direction. If there is direction then there is intelligence guiding the process. Where there is intelligence there is an intelligent designer.

It is not a goal. It is an adaptation that is beneficial to the plant, and was selected for.

So what about the organisms the tree attracts that actually destroy the tree? I am not saying you are not correct about animals eating and distributing the seeds, that we know is true and demonstrates how an all knowing God would design such a process. However, from an evolutionary standpoint, which came first, the animals that liked fruit or the fruit that liked animals?

Animals that like concentrated sources of sugars came first.

Also, how do fruits demonstrate that God exists? How does that work?

Split Rock · Jul 13, 2012

good brother said:
That almost looks like a goal. We cannot have goals in evolution. When we have goals in evolution it means that there's a purpose. And where there's a purpose, there is a direction. If there is direction then there is intelligence guiding the process. Where there is intelligence there is an intelligent designer.

Those trees that provide fruit more appetizing to animals will get their seeds dispersed better than those that produce fruit that are less appetizing. The former will thus benefit and their offspring will begin to dominate the population.

good brother said:
So what about the organisms the tree attracts that actually destroy the tree? I am not saying you are not correct about animals eating and distributing the seeds, that we know is true and demonstrates how an all knowing God would design such a process. However, from an evolutionary standpoint, which came first, the animals that liked fruit or the fruit that liked animals?

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

Before animals came to inhabit the land, dispersal was primarily by wind. Many trees still use this technique sucessfully today, in their particular ecological niche. Now, animals will be attracted to fruit only if the fruit is palitable, so the animals that liked fruit came first. That obviously does not mean they could only eat fruit, of course. Those trees that were able to take advantage of animal's tastes benefitted.

CabVet · Jul 13, 2012

No observed evidence goes against ToE.

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

Archaeopteryx · Jul 13, 2012

good brother said:
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

As I said, the first fruit probably wouldn't have been anything like the fruit we have today. It's not as if some tree spontaneously produced a sweet red apple. And why are you assuming that the animals who feed on that fruit relied solely on one particular kind of food for their diet? Do you eat nothing but fruit?

freezerman2000 · Jul 13, 2012

good brother said:
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.

good brother · Jul 13, 2012

Loudmouth said:
In many cases, the tree wants herbivores to eat the fruit. When an herbivore eats a fruit they move to another area and then pass the seeds. Not only does this transport the seeds to distant places, they are also "planted" in rich manure. It's a win-win.

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

Archaeopteryx said:
No, it's an adaptation. One that is particularly advantageous to spreading seeds. No need for the tree to have a "goal" in mind.

Or doesn't it?

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?

There would need to be more than one of a kind of fruit tree to even get the proverbial ball rolling. There has to be more than one for pollination but they can't be too close for water and nutrient consumption competition. So how did those first few start and spread?

Honest questions.

In Christ, GB

good brother · Jul 13, 2012

freezerman2000 said:
Have you ever seen a locus tree or an Osage orange bush? Nasty thorns all over them...great defenses..

And neither of those produce fruit for animals. What you call Osage orange, we call Hedge balls. I have never seen animals munching on them. Honey Lucust trees have some of the nastiest thorns on the planet as far as I am concerned (I have worked with them extensively in the past) and They do not produce fruit. But here is a bunch of fruit trees with actual fruit that have nothing like the thorns of other trees that seemingly have nothing to offer: apples, pears, bananas, peaches, oranges, tangerines, cherries, kiwis, plums, mangos, lemons, and others

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.

You can expose enough "meat" of a tree only on one side to kill it. Also, opening up one side allows all sorts of insects and diseases in to kill it too.

In Christ, GB

Archaeopteryx · Jul 13, 2012

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

Or doesn't it?

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?

It didn't "decide" in the same way an intelligent animal might decide. And it's likely that the first few fruit trees didn't invest all that much of their time and energy into making fruit, as "fruit" at this time was probably nothing like the fruit we have today.

There would need to be more than one of a kind of fruit tree to even get the proverbial ball rolling. There has to be more than one for pollination but they can't be too close for water and nutrient consumption competition. So how did those first few start and spread?

Honest questions.

In Christ, GB

Spilt Rock already answered this question.

good brother · Jul 13, 2012

CabVet said:
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

How do fruit trees fit into evolution?

good brother

Guest

Old School from the Backwoods - Christian Style

good brother

Guest

Contributor

Old School from the Backwoods - Christian Style

Contributor

Wanderer

good brother

Guest

Conflation of Blathers

Wanderer

good brother

Guest

Contributor

Conflation of Blathers

Question everything

Wanderer

Living and dying in 3/4 time

good brother

Guest

good brother

Guest

Wanderer

good brother

Guest

Similar threads