How do fruit trees fit into evolution?

[Split Rock]

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

But your god did not write the bible. Until you come to understand the bible was written by men (inspired by God or not), none of this will ever make any sense to you.

 

[good brother]

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?

So let's look at a group of asexual reproducing organisms all living out their peaceful lives. One member of the group gets a beneficial mutation to reproduce sexually and that new mutation gets passed on to it's .... no ... wait... it can't .... have any offspring... because it can't ... reproduce without ... another member ... of the same group ... evolving the complimenting information ... at the same time...


Yup, I see exactly how that works ... or rather doesn't work at all.


In Christ, GB

 

[Split Rock]

So let's look at a group of asexual reproducing organisms all living out their peaceful lives. One member of the group gets a beneficial mutation to reproduce sexually and that new mutation gets passed on to it's .... no ... wait... it can't .... have any offspring... because it can't ... reproduce without ... another member ... of the same group ... evolving the complimenting information ... at the same time...


Yup, I see exactly how that works ... or rather doesn't work at all.


In Christ, GB

I suppose you don't realize that most asexual organisms exchange genetic material. They just don't have specialized genders to carry this out. Also, hermaphrodites, like earthworms, don't need another gender to reproduce, either. And btw, no, sexual reproduction did not evolve with a single mutation.

 

[good brother]

But your god did not write the bible. Until you come to understand the bible was written by men (inspired by God or not), none of this will ever make any sense to you.

All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

In Christ, GB

 

[good brother]

And btw, no, sexual reproduction did not evolve with a single mutation.

How would there ever be such a beast that is only a little bit sexual reproducing?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

good brother, you are asking some interesting questions, but I think they are largely grounded in one particular misconception: that major evolutionary changes occur suddenly and spontaneously. That isn't the case. Trees didn't evolve the fruit you see today in a single step. Sexual reproduction didn't evolve in a single step.

 

[good brother]

good brother, you are asking some interesting questions, but I think they are largely grounded in one particular misconception: that major evolutionary changes occur suddenly and spontaneously. That isn't the case. Trees didn't evolve the fruit you see today in a single step. Sexual reproduction didn't evolve in a single step.

Thanks, Arch, I think I am asking good questions too. And as far as evolutionary changes don't happen suddenly or spontaneously .... why and how did such a concept of "punctuated equilibrium" ever get a foot hold in evolution's door?

In Christ, GB

 

[sfs]

How would there ever be such a beast that is only a little bit sexual reproducing?

The first step might be something like some bacteria, that can take up DNA directly from their environment and incorporate it into themselves. A second step would be that also found in many bacteria, of being able to inject their own DNA into random other bacteria (where it may or may not be incorporated). A third step would be the development of a single gene, like that found in many fungi, that determines mating type; there can be many mating types in a single species. Once you have a species with a pair of mating types, further specialized behavior can evolve in each type that makes them behave and develop differently, which is a pretty clear path to the development of two distinct sexes.

 

[sfs]

Thanks, Arch, I think I am asking good questions too. And as far as evolutionary changes don't happen suddenly or spontaneously .... why and how did such a concept of "punctuated equilibrium" ever get a foot hold in evolution's door?

Punctuated equilibria got a foothold (which is to say, it is viewed as a possible mode of evolution) because it explains fossil evidence and has a plausible mechanism in evolutionary genetics. It also does not involve sudden or spontaneous changes, in the sense meant here. That is, it involves the gradual accumulation of multiple genetics changes, usually of small effect, in a small, peripheral population. If the small population ends up replacing the original population, the transition looks abrupt in geological terms; no one has ever suggested that these transitions are commonly abrupt at the genetic level.

 

[Split Rock]

All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

In Christ, GB

Funny....I thought we were talking about biology.

How would there ever be such a beast that is only a little bit sexual reproducing?

sfs did a good job of answering your question. Basically, there are many ways of exchanging genetic material. Sexual reproduction is just the most specialized way.

 

[good brother]

The first step might be something like some bacteria, that can take up DNA directly from their environment and incorporate it into themselves. A second step would be that also found in many bacteria, of being able to inject their own DNA into random other bacteria (where it may or may not be incorporated). A third step would be the development of a single gene, like that found in many fungi, that determines mating type; there can be many mating types in a single species. Once you have a species with a pair of mating types, further specialized behavior can evolve in each type that makes them behave and develop differently, which is a pretty clear path to the development of two distinct sexes.

Can you pick up DNA from your surrounding environment and apply to your life? Are you not far more advanced than a bacteria?

GB

 

[good brother]

Funny....I thought we were talking about biology.

It says that Scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching....in righteousness. Righteousness. That's the word you have a problem with. One cannot be righteous and be wrong. It means to "be in a rightful state." One cannot be in a rightful state and be wrong. So, yeah, I guess we are still talking biology, one of us is in a rightful state and one is not or we are both wrong.


In Christ, GB

 

[sfs]

Can you pick up DNA from your surrounding environment and apply to your life?

No. What does that have to do with anything? You were asking how sexual reproduction could have evolved gradually, and I gave you a reasonable outline of a path evolution could have taken. Do you have questions or disagreements about that sketch?

Are you not far more advanced than a bacteria?

No, I'm not. I'm more complex, but we're equally "advanced", in that we've been evolving for equal lengths of time. I'm much better at being a mammal than a bacterium is, and much worse at being a bacterium.

 

[Split Rock]

Can you pick up DNA from your surrounding environment and apply to your life? Are you not far more advanced than a bacteria?

GB

Humans cannot, but many microorganisms can. Are we more advanced than them? In some ways, but not others. If there was a nuclear winter tomorrow, mankind may not survive, but bacteria (some species) will.

It says that Scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching....in righteousness. Righteousness. That's the word you have a problem with. One cannot be righteous and be wrong. It means to "be in a rightful state." One cannot be in a rightful state and be wrong. So, yeah, I guess we are still talking biology, one of us is in a rightful state and one is not or we are both wrong.

In Christ, GB

LOL. So, if you are in a "righteous state," you are infallible? I guess that means you are God, then. So... in that case, none of us are "in a state of righteousness." Does that means we are both always wrong about everything??? Or maybe you are wrong about biology and I am not, even though neither of us is God.

 

[Loudmouth]

All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

This, too, was written by a man about other men.

The Koran states that Allah dictated to Mohammed. Do you accept this at face value as well?

 

[rush1169]

I was hoping to learn about the evolution of fruit, but a quick recap of this thread didn't help. It was a good question, it just didn't get answered. Below is a recap of the first 75 posts to this topic:

Off Topic: 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 14, 18, 20, 24, 28, 30-38, 40-43, 45-75
1) How did fruit evolve?
4) Animals eat fruit and disperse seeds
7) Animals eat fruit and disperse seeds
8) Yes, they do.
10) Fruit trees adapted. Neither fruit nor animals that eat fruit necessarily came first.
11) If one came first, which one did come first?
12) Animals that eat fruit came first
13) Better tasting fruit will be eaten more often. Before fruit, seeds were dispersed by wind
15) Fruit probably was different back then. Animals eat other things besides fruit
16) Some plants have thorns
17) How did the tree know to make it's fruit tastey to the relevant animals? Wouldn't there need to be at least two fruit trees to get things going?
19) Fruit was different back then
21) Fruit is beneficial to keep offspring well dispersed. The first appearance of fruit resulted in fruit being selected for as being a better way to reproduce than the non-fruit bearing tree of the same kind. Since animals were already eating the non-fruit encased seeds, the seed was already good at resisting digestion. Through a series of mutations, a delicious covering evolved.
22) Not all trees need fruit/nut dispersal. Animals the eat the seeds of the tree that evolved to produce fruit came first.
23) Animals that overgraze a fruit tree kill it
25) At some point, animals started eating seeds or fruit and dispersed the seeds so the plant reproduced. Better tasting seeds or fruit got eaten and dispersed more often, making the seed or fruit even better tasting.
26) The fruit we buy in the grocery store does not come from thorny trees because farmers bred the thorns out.
27) Are trees overgrazed and killed because the fruit tastes so good?
29) Animals eat the tastiest fruit
38) Fruit trees make lots of fruit to ensure survival
39) Some fruit trees have thorns. Most have been bred out.
44) Fruit trees have predators

 

[metherion]

Here's another thing:

Fruit is mostly simple carbohydrates, like sugars. Simple carbohydrates are FAR EASIER to produce organically than, say, everything in the actual seeds that can grow into another tree/bush/whatever. So, it can be resource-beneficial to the plants to grow fruit, as wrapping seeds in easy-to-make carbohydrates is energetically cheaper than make-so-many-seeds-that-some-HAVE-to-survive idea. And it could easily have started from, say, a mutation that added more carbohydrates/whatever TO the seed to give it fuel for when it starts to grow.

Metherion

 

[Split Rock]

I was hoping to learn about the evolution of fruit, but a quick recap of this thread didn't help. It was a good question, it just didn't get answered. Below is a recap of the first 75 posts to this topic:

Off Topic: 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 14, 18, 20, 24, 28, 30-38, 40-43, 45-75
1) How did fruit evolve?
4) Animals eat fruit and disperse seeds
7) Animals eat fruit and disperse seeds
8) Yes, they do.
10) Fruit trees adapted. Neither fruit nor animals that eat fruit necessarily came first.
11) If one came first, which one did come first?
12) Animals that eat fruit came first
13) Better tasting fruit will be eaten more often. Before fruit, seeds were dispersed by wind
15) Fruit probably was different back then. Animals eat other things besides fruit
16) Some plants have thorns
17) How did the tree know to make it's fruit tastey to the relevant animals? Wouldn't there need to be at least two fruit trees to get things going?
19) Fruit was different back then
21) Fruit is beneficial to keep offspring well dispersed. The first appearance of fruit resulted in fruit being selected for as being a better way to reproduce than the non-fruit bearing tree of the same kind. Since animals were already eating the non-fruit encased seeds, the seed was already good at resisting digestion. Through a series of mutations, a delicious covering evolved.
22) Not all trees need fruit/nut dispersal. Animals the eat the seeds of the tree that evolved to produce fruit came first.
23) Animals that overgraze a fruit tree kill it
25) At some point, animals started eating seeds or fruit and dispersed the seeds so the plant reproduced. Better tasting seeds or fruit got eaten and dispersed more often, making the seed or fruit even better tasting.
26) The fruit we buy in the grocery store does not come from thorny trees because farmers bred the thorns out.
27) Are trees overgrazed and killed because the fruit tastes so good?
29) Animals eat the tastiest fruit
38) Fruit trees make lots of fruit to ensure survival
39) Some fruit trees have thorns. Most have been bred out.
44) Fruit trees have predators

Fruit is an enlarged ovary. The ovary is necessary to produce the seed. Seeds can survive digestion and get dispersed by animals. Those fruits that taste better get eaten more and thus dispersed more. They then begin to dominate the population. Hope that helps.

 

[florida2]

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

Who says that it would only be athiests?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Who says that it would only be athiests?

His statement would seem to indicate that he thinks atheists are generally smarter than theists. However, there have been some very sharp theist posters here at CF.