How do fruit trees fit into evolution?

[CabVet]

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

Perhaps they didn't have humans feeding them apples for millions of years...

 

[RickG]

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

I have seen nothing presented with any scientific bases that contradicts ToE nor does your OP address it.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

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

In Christ, GB

Except your claim of evolution not keeping up with horses digestive needs.

 

[RickG]

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 relationship is absurd. All life has predators. Perhaps you should ask why does Genesis 1 create fruit trees before the sun is created?

 

[CabVet]

Except your claim of evolution not keeping up with horses digestive needs.

This is one of the great misunderstanding about evolution, people assume that animals have to keep up with environmental changes at the individual level, when what really happens is selection acting at the genetic variation present at the population level.

Let's use a real example (the horse one is too hypothetical). One that is close so people can understand it. Human diets. Most mammals (including humans) become lactose intolerant after a certain age. But at some point in the past 8,000 years a mutation in our genome started allowing a small proportion of the population to consume lactose as adults. Obviously, if you associate this with the fact that we actually raise cattle and make dairy products, you would think this is a very advantageous mutation. So much so, that it's frequency is much higher in cultures that historically were more dependent in milk products:

Gene-culture coevolution between cattle milk protein genes and human lactase genes

The increase in this gene's frequency is not due to "purpose", or "awareness", but it is due to the simple fact that families carrying this gene had better diets, and their offspring survived better (and had more and healthier offspring than families that did not carry the gene).

So, going back to the horse case, if you think of a horse as an individual, yes, a lot of them will have problems with apples (which again are not part of their natural diet), but if at some point a mutation allows them to digest apples easily, that mutation will probably spread if we select for it (since natural selection does not happen in horses anymore, only artificial selection).

 

[RickG]

This is one of the great misunderstanding about evolution, people assume that animals have to keep up with environmental changes at the individual level, when what really happens is selection acting at the genetic variation present at the population level.

I think that is one of the most basic facts about evolution that GB either does not understand or perhaps, does not want to understand.

Populations evolve, not individuals.

 

[CabVet]

I think that is one of the most basic facts about evolution that GB either does not understand or perhaps, does not want to understand.

Populations evolve, not individuals.

And he is not alone on that, just another straw man, "this horse dies if I feed him apples therefore there is no evolution", but if they feed 1 million horses apples a few of them will probably survive (and pass on their genes that allow them to eat apples).

 

[good brother]

I think that is one of the most basic facts about evolution that GB either does not understand or perhaps, does not want to understand.

Populations evolve, not individuals.

I think that one thing that you don't understand or don't want to understand is that populations are made up entirely of individuals who must evolve all together at the same time and in the same manner and mutations. So, while you think that you can say "populations evolve, not individuals" remember that every population is made up of a bunch of individuals.

In Christ, GB

 

[Paulos23]

I think that one thing that you don't understand or don't want to understand is that populations are made up entirely of individuals who must evolve all together at the same time and in the same manner and mutations. So, while you think that you can say "populations evolve, not individuals" remember that every population is made up of a bunch of individuals.

In Christ, GB

They don't have to evolve all that the same time, but mutations that are beneficial will be carried by more individuals in each generation.

What you are suggesting, in that all individuals have to have the same mutations at the same time, it that their are no individuals and that the population is clones that are all the same. Clearly this is not the case.

 

[good brother]

That relationship is absurd. All life has predators. Perhaps you should ask why does Genesis 1 create fruit trees before the sun is created?

It's really not a huge deal. Plants were only made one day before the sun was so, unless there was some catastrophe that occurred between the night of the third day and the morning of the fourth, there's not much of an issue there Rick.

In Christ, GB

 

[USincognito]

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.

Do you feel the same way about manatees, penguins, sea turtles, sea snakes, etc.? Or is your incredulity only limited to whales?

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.

/ thread

And yet I'm sure it will continue...

 

[RickG]

I think that one thing that you don't understand or don't want to understand is that populations are made up entirely of individuals who must evolve all together at the same time and in the same manner and mutations. So, while you think that you can say "populations evolve, not individuals" remember that every population is made up of a bunch of individuals.

In Christ, GB

And there lies the problem, you really don't understand.

One individual does not evolve into some other kind of individual. No one individual gives birth to another species. Over many generations, a population gradually changes, each change is further from the original change until eventually somewhere down the line there is a new species...genus...family...etc.

Ex: Theropods -> feathered theropods -> avialae -> metornithes -> orinthrothoraces -> ornithurae -> aves (birds)

 

[driewerf]

And there lies the problem, you really don't understand.

One individual does not evolve into some other kind of individual.

Some here think quite the opposite:

Didn’t frogs evolve from tadpoles?

Probably nothing, since the evolution of tadpoles into frogs is an observed fact and not an imaginary theory.
Humans evolving from apes is an assumption. Frogs evolving from tadpoles is an observed fact. See above.

Originally Posted by CabVet

Tadpoles don't evolve into frogs, tadpoles develop into frogs, huge difference.
​

Is it because it only takes 84 days and not 84 million years?

 

[RickG]

It's really not a huge deal. Plants were only made one day before the sun was so, unless there was some catastrophe that occurred between the night of the third day and the morning of the fourth, there's not much of an issue there Rick.

In Christ, GB

In other words, ignore 4.57 billion years of earth history. I can't do that GB. My understanding of earth history goes beyond just being told what facts are known. I understand how we know those facts to be true. Physics is physics, it can't be changed.

 

[[serious]]

I think that one thing that you don't understand or don't want to understand is that populations are made up entirely of individuals who must evolve all together at the same time and in the same manner and mutations. So, while you think that you can say "populations evolve, not individuals" remember that every population is made up of a bunch of individuals.

In Christ, GB

Individuals never evolve. A horse doesn't change his genes when he's 3 years old. There is a degree of diversity in the population out of which the next generation is selected. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies IN A POPULATION over time. That is the definition.

 

[Split Rock]

I think that one thing that you don't understand or don't want to understand is that populations are made up entirely of individuals who must evolve all together at the same time and in the same manner and mutations. So, while you think that you can say "populations evolve, not individuals" remember that every population is made up of a bunch of individuals.

In Christ, GB

The individual is the point of the point of the spear, so to speak, when it comes to "testing" genotypes. Nevertheless, individuals do NOT evolve, and a particular mutation does not need to occur separately in many individuals in order for it to become dominant in a population. The offspring of any individual who carries the advantageous mutation will spread it through out the population. This is not hypothetical, it is basic population genetics.

 

[good brother]

In other words, ignore 4.57 billion years of earth history. I can't do that GB. My understanding of earth history goes beyond just being told what facts are known. I understand how we know those facts to be true. Physics is physics, it can't be changed.

In other words, you expect me to ignore what God has said to me in favor of what man is telling me? I can't do that Rick. God's understanding of Earth history goes far beyond what theories are the flavor of the month this month. I know my God to be true and to always tell me the truth because He is truth. God word is true, it can't be changed.

In Christ, GB

 

[good brother]

The individual is the point of the point of the spear, so to speak, when it comes to "testing" genotypes. Nevertheless, individuals do NOT evolve, and a particular mutation does not need to occur separately in many individuals in order for it to become dominant in a population.

Which is it?

The offspring of any individual who carries the advantageous mutation will spread it through out the population. This is not hypothetical, it is basic population genetics.

On one hand you say individuals do not evolve, and then you finish the same thought with "offspring of any individual who carries the advantageous mutation will spread it through the entire population". Do you not see that in your statement you have said that ONE individual creature will have this "advantageous mutation" and will pass it on to it's offspring who will spread it through out the whole population.

Which is it? Is the individual evolving like you said, or is the population evolving and not the individual like you also said?


In Christ, GB

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

In other words, you expect me to ignore what God has said to me in favor of what man is telling me? I can't do that Rick. God's understanding of Earth history goes far beyond what theories are the flavor of the month this month. I know my God to be true and to always tell me the truth because He is truth. God word is true, it can't be changed.

In Christ, GB

If your god exists, then there's no fault in using our brains to figure things out, and if those things we figure out happen to not jive with your understanding of an ancient, copied, redacted, edited, translated and misquoted compendium of mostly pseudonymous authors, so be it. We're all free to believe what we need to.

 

[Split Rock]

Which is it?



On one hand you say individuals do not evolve, and then you finish the same thought with "offspring of any individual who carries the advantageous mutation will spread it through the entire population". Do you not see that in your statement you have said that ONE individual creature will have this "advantageous mutation" and will pass it on to it's offspring who will spread it through out the whole population.

Which is it? Is the individual evolving like you said, or is the population evolving and not the individual like you also said?


In Christ, GB

I did not contradict myself. Evolution is carried out by generational descent. No individual evolves. The population evolves over generations. The one individual with a beneficial mutation isn't evolving; rather it serves as the source of the one beneficial gene. Keep in mind that one mutation isn't going to create a new species. In any case, my point was that you do not need most of a population to mutate the same way in order for the population to evolve. Do you at least understand that point?