Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think plant life developed independently and earlier than animal life, evolving from single celled organisms such as algae. A fish never evolved into a tree.It takes a lot of deductions to further conclude that the sticks and leaves evolved from some marine organism.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think plant life developed independently and earlier than animal life, evolving from single celled organisms such as algae. A fish never evolved into a tree.
I agree natural selection is so not random. Random mutations happen, and that most of them are not adaptive. But too many of them are adaptive for me to accept that all mutations are random. I may be wrong. It wouldn't bother me at all if I were wrong. But that's how things look to me at the present time.There is also positive and negative selection which is not random with respect to fitness.
Excuse me. I never said a fish evolved into a tree.Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think plant life developed independently and earlier than animal life, evolving from single celled organisms such as algae. A fish never evolved into a tree.
I didn't mean to imply that plant evolution stopped when animals evolved. Actually plant evolution is still ongoing, as I think you'll agree. Many of the new species we are seeing today are plants.Depends on the plants. For example, major tetrapod lineages were already well established on land before grasses appeared. Animals were already on land before flowering trees with big leaves evolved.
Sure, so long as you understand that plants evolved from single celled organisms that developed photosynthesis like algae (neither a plant or an animal or a fungi). They did not evolve from marine animals of any sort.Excuse me. I never said a fish evolved into a tree.
I said, "from some marine organism."
This is consistent with the evolutionary view that the origin of all life was in the sea.
I didn't mean to imply that plant evolution stopped when animals evolved. Actually plant evolution is still ongoing, as I think you'll agree. Many of the new species we are seeing today are plants.
I really only was trying to say that the land was full of plants already by the time the first tetrapods walked out of the waters.
When you have a kazillion pieces of evidence supporting something, it doesn't matter if you have a few that don't fit.Pollen is found in Precambrian metamorphic rock from the Roraima formation in South America ‘dated’ at 1.7 Ga old.
.
In the orthodox evolutionary timeline, pollen is supposed to be over 1 Ga younger than these rocks supposedly are. Numerous attempts to explain away the presence of pollen have been made. Contamination from the environment has been cited, but this simply doesn’t fit with the geology of the Roraima formation or its surroundings.
That is correct. I use the term 'organism' meaning exactly what it means.Sure, so long as you understand that plants evolved from single celled organisms that developed photosynthesis like algae (neither a plant or an animal or a fungi). They did not evolve from marine animals of any sort.
You could perhaps recognize that the fossil evidence shows that pollen is older than the marine fossils, and consider the likely possibility that all life evolved from pollen.When you have a kazillion pieces of evidence supporting something, it doesn't matter if you have a few that don't fit.
It's always interesting to me as a Catholic that my allies in these sorts of threads are agnostics and atheists. It's very sad to me that fundamentalists are so behind. Only 42% of Americans accept evolution. But then, only 3/4 of Americans understand that the earth orbits the sun, so that tells us that the major problem isn't religion but ignorance of science.Since the previous post mentioned twigs and leaves I thought it was worth mentioning the ongoing evolution of plants, as you describe quite well.
Strange bedfellows.It's always interesting to me as a Catholic that my allies in these sorts of threads are agnostics and atheists.
Pollen IS older than many forms of marine life. That doesn't mean that marine life evolved from pollen. You need to go back to school. Your understanding of evolution is abysmal.You could perhaps recognize that the fossil evidence shows that pollen is older than the marine fossils, and consider the likely possibility that all life evolved from pollen.
Sorry -- that was a quick comment. I don't believe that all life evolved from 'Pollen' any more than I believe that all life evolved from 'Archaebacteria' or 'Eubacteria.'Pollen IS older than most forms of marine life. That doesn't mean that marine life evolved from pollen. You need to go back to school. Your understanding of evolution is abysmal.
It simply means that those who follow the evidence are not exclusive to any one religion or lack of.Strange bedfellows.
Would you abandon your belief in God if the fact of evolution led you in that direction?It simply means that those who follow the evidence are not exclusive to any one religion or lack of.
Would you abandon your belief in God if the fact of evolution led you in that direction?
There is nothing about Evolution that touches upon the existence of God. It simply would never come up. Science explores God's world. Science cannot explore God and whether or not he exists.Would you abandon your belief in God if the fact of evolution led you in that direction?
The absolute strongest evidence is fairly complicated genetic information. Right now, in every cell of your body, you have genetic information that's identical to animals who don't have a spine. Some of it is information that your cells don't use at all anymore, that isn't there for any logical reason. Some of it is junk DNA (or, at least, DNA that has incredibly limited use in your body) that matches the genetic information of animals so primitive that you wouldn't even think about their relationship to you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?