If there was no death (of animals) before the Fall, then why would animals need to eat?

[AV1611VET]

What's that you say? Lamarkism, whereby characteristics which are acquired during a lifetime can be passed on to offspring (which isn't the theory of evolution) was contrasted with Darwin's theory of passing on characteristics by natural selection (which is the theory of evolution).

I've noticed that you have a tendancy that when it's been pointed out that you are in error in regard to some aspect of evolutionary theory, you cut and link to something in a manner which at first glance supports your position, but which, in actual fact, detracts from it.

Saves admitting that you were wrong, I guess.

You might want to let the Encyclopedia Britannica know about this, since they say:

Lamarckism, a theory of evolution ...

 

[Bradskii]

You might want to let the Encyclopedia Britannica know about this, since they say:

We weren't talking about various theories concerned with how animals evolve. If you check then you'll find the question was about different versions of THE theory. The one that explains the concept of natural selection.

 

[coffee4u]

Please do note that this thread is about science.
When I post on a thread about mythology and religion, I will use the terms of mythology and religion. In a science thread, speak science.

There is no rule about not posting scripture in science threads and I will do so if I see biblical inaccuracy.
Have a nice day.

 

[Bradskii]

There is no rule about not posting scripture in science threads and I will do so if I see biblical inaccuracy.
Have a nice day.

Luckily there's no rule that says we have to read it. Phew!

 

[coffee4u]

Luckily there's no rule that says we have to read it. Phew!

That is true - Guess you dodged a bullet.

 

[Mr Laurier]

There is no rule about not posting scripture in science threads and I will do so if I see biblical inaccuracy.
Have a nice day.

And when I make a post containing a "biblical inaccuracy", I'll let you know.
We are not discussing "biblical inaccuracy". We are discussing scientific facts.
The Ediacaran fauna was carnivorous. Herbivorous animals were a later development.

 

[FredVB]

We are not discussing "biblical inaccuracy". We are discussing scientific facts.
The Ediacaran fauna was carnivorous. Herbivorous animals were a later development.

How am I supposed to believe that is possible? Photosynthesizing organisms which produce food, which plants are, and which animals of themselves are not, are needed for there to be an ongoing provision of the nutrients of food. If there are only carnivorous animals while none of the animals are eating what plants provide for food, that really can't last at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How am I supposed to believe that is possible? Photosynthesizing organisms which produce food, which plants are, and which animals of themselves are not, are needed for there to be an ongoing provision of the nutrients of food. If there are only carnivorous animals while none of the animals are eating what plants provide for food, that really can't last at all.

The problem is that the term "herbivore" is a modern one. Plants may not have existed at that time, but algae did. And there would have been lifeforms that consumed algae and other single celled life that qualifies as neither plants nor animals.

EDIT: And I should have checked first since plants not only existed during the Ediacaran, they existed both on the land and of course in the sea. Sea plants first arose 1 to 1.5 billion years ago:

Plant Evolution

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How am I supposed to believe that is possible? Photosynthesizing organisms which produce food, which plants are, and which animals of themselves are not, are needed for there to be an ongoing provision of the nutrients of food. If there are only carnivorous animals while none of the animals are eating what plants provide for food, that really can't last at all.

Yes, the bottom of the oceanic food chain would be phytoplankton and bacteria, many of which are photosynthetic, and many of which are unicellular plants. So, strictly speaking, their predators could be called herbivorous, but I suspect (I'm no expert) that predators are not that discriminating, so might be better described as omnivorous.

 

[FredVB]

How am I supposed to believe that is possible? Photosynthesizing organisms which produce food, which plants are, and which animals of themselves are not, are needed for there to be an ongoing provision of the nutrients of food. If there are only carnivorous animals while none of the animals are eating what plants provide for food, that really can't last at all.

The problem is that the term "herbivore" is a modern one. Plants may not have existed at that time, but algae did. And there would have been lifeforms that consumed algae and other single celled life that qualifies as neither plants nor animals.

EDIT: And I should have checked first since plants not only existed during the Ediacaran, they existed both on the land and of course in the sea. Sea plants first arose 1 to 1.5 billion years ago:

Plant Evolution

Yes, the bottom of the oceanic food chain would be phytoplankton and bacteria, many of which are photosynthetic, and many of which are unicellular plants. So, strictly speaking, their predators could be called herbivorous, but I suspect (I'm no expert) that predators are not that discriminating, so might be better described as omnivorous.

I chose to carefully say photosynthesizing organisms rather than simply say plants, and yet animals are not in themselves photosynthesizing organisms. So it was not wrong to point out that all the animals could not be carnivorous, that would be completely unstable and not last at all. What plants provide does not itself mean plants are there, I know there could be things like cyanobacteria providing what is needed which plants would. Pointing this out did not depend on the use of the word herbivore. Yet green algae are plants.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I chose to carefully say photosynthesizing organisms rather than simply say plants, and yet animals are not in themselves photosynthesizing organisms. So it was not wrong to point out that all the animals could not be carnivorous, that would be completely unstable and not last at all. What plants provide does not itself mean plants are there, I know there could be things like cyanobacteria providing what is needed which plants would. Pointing this out did not depend on the use of the word herbivore. Yet green algae are plants.

OK. Not sure this is relevant to the discussion (which, IIRC, was about whether animals long-predated Jesus)...

 

[Ophiolite]

You might want to let the Encyclopedia Britannica know about this, since they say:

1. One might more properly say that Lamarkism was an operational, i.e. active, theory for a time. However, following broad acceptance of the work of Darwin and Wallace it was rejected. That left their theory, and the subsequent developments of it, as the theory, not just a theory. So, today, when we talk about the theory of evolution, we generally mean(and can only really accurately mean) Darwin-Wallace and its derivatives.

2. I had not seen you on the forum for a very long time and feared you were dead. I see I simply had you on Ignore. Very pleased to see you are still alive. The world benefits from a measure of certain types or contrariness.

 

[Estrid]

How am I supposed to believe that is possible? Photosynthesizing organisms which produce food, which plants are, and which animals of themselves are not, are needed for there to be an ongoing provision of the nutrients of food. If there are only carnivorous animals while none of the animals are eating what plants provide for food, that really can't last at all.

Chicken and egg, huh?

But no.

Microbes were eating eachother before there were plants.

 

[Estrid]

There is no rule about not posting scripture in science threads and I will do so if I see biblical inaccuracy.
Have a nice day.

You figure that measurements of things.in cubits is accurate?

 

[durangodawood]

You figure that measurements of things.in cubits is accurate?

What about picocubits?

 

[Estrid]

What about picocubits?

Not sposed to add to scrip

 

[coffee4u]

You figure that measurements of things.in cubits is accurate?

There could be a misunderstanding of which cubit is being used, but that misunderstanding is on us. Obviously the people involved knew exactly which cubit they were using.

 

[FredVB]

How am I supposed to believe that is possible? Photosynthesizing organisms which produce food, which plants are, and which animals of themselves are not, are needed for there to be an ongoing provision of the nutrients of food. If there are only carnivorous animals while none of the animals are eating what plants provide for food, that really can't last at all.

I chose to carefully say photosynthesizing organisms rather than simply say plants, and yet animals are not in themselves photosynthesizing organisms. So it was not wrong to point out that all the animals could not be carnivorous, that would be completely unstable and not last at all. What plants provide does not itself mean plants are there, I know there could be things like cyanobacteria providing what is needed which plants would. Pointing this out did not depend on the use of the word herbivore. Yet green algae are plants.

OK. Not sure this is relevant to the discussion (which, IIRC, was about whether animals long-predated Jesus)...

It is relevant. I had to check carefully through the string of this discussion in this thread, and found it started at this post for If there was no death (of animals) before the Fall, then why would animals need to eat?, it is a part of discussion if animals ate other animals at the start. Certainly the animals at the start were not all carnivorous, meaning they were all eating other animals. That can't be sustained, logically. There had to be animals eating photosynthesizing organisms at the start, as I was clear enough in saying at the start of my posting here, logically, it is regardless of what I myself believe.

 

[Estrid]

It is relevant. I had to check carefully through the string of this discussion in this thread, and found it started at this post for If there was no death (of animals) before the Fall, then why would animals need to eat?, it is a part of discussion if animals ate other animals at the start. Certainly the animals at the start were not all carnivorous, meaning they were all eating other animals. That can't be sustained, logically. There had to be animals eating photosynthesizing organisms at the start, as I was clear enough in saying at the start of my posting here, logically, it is regardless of what I myself believe.

Believing outta be based on info, not just thought.
The first living things were not photosynthetic.

 

[FredVB]

Animals eat for the purpose of providing nutrients for the replenishment of energy stores, cellular rejuvenation, and so on. If an animal stops eating, metabolic processes no longer have the 'fuel' required to function and the animal eventually dies.

According to creationists there was no death before the Fall. If animals were no longer in danger of starving to death then why would there be a need to eat?

Why not eat? Even if we don't get any of what we choose to eat, we would survive with other stuff. But the way we are made we choose specific things to eat even without it needed for surviving that we have those specific things. The food we would like should be there for us.