Theistic Evolution - My Personal Problem with it

[spinner981]

I am new to these forums, this is my first post. I've thought about theistic evolution before, and reading through Genesis this verse gets my attention: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." - Genesis 1:11

Later in Genesis 1:29 it says "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."

My problem then, is if theistic evolution is true, why did fruit trees evolve before animals that would eat the fruits existed? Not only that, but the fruit from the trees were good for eating. Even if the fruit trees somehow evolved seed bearing fruit without animals to eat the fruit, how would the fruit become good as food for animals that didn't yet exist through the process of natural selection?

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

Explaining how predator/prey relationships can evolve isn't a big challenge for Ecology. An herbivore can have one food source, like seeds, and then when a plant develops a more attractive seed holder (like fruit) then the herbivore will switch to the fruit and the fruit tree will be more successful if it uses herbivores to spread its seeds.

So relationships like that aren't a problem for evolution. It sounds like you might have a (to me) odd definition of the term "theistic evolution" though. Could you define your understanding of the term for us?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am new to these forums, this is my first post. I've thought about theistic evolution before, and reading through Genesis this verse gets my attention: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." - Genesis 1:11

Later in Genesis 1:29 it says "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."

My problem then, is if theistic evolution is true, why did fruit trees evolve before animals that would eat the fruits existed? Not only that, but the fruit from the trees were good for eating. Even if the fruit trees somehow evolved seed bearing fruit without animals to eat the fruit, how would the fruit become good as food for animals that didn't yet exist through the process of natural selection?

They did not evolve before they evolved together. Perhaps you should study some biology first, or you could try to ask some question here.

By the way, why theistic evolution? Why not just study the read deal?

 

[spinner981]

Explaining how predator/prey relationships can evolve isn't a big challenge for Ecology. An herbivore can have one food source, like seeds, and then when a plant develops a more attractive seed holder (like fruit) then the herbivore will switch to the fruit and the fruit tree will be more successful if it uses herbivores to spread its seeds.

So relationships like that aren't a problem for evolution. It sounds like you might have a (to me) odd definition of the term "theistic evolution" though. Could you define your understanding of the term for us?

Theistic evolution, that God created the original life form and allowed it to evolve, or something of the sort. I'm no professor in the field. Basically combining the theory of evolution with Genesis.

Under the day age theory, each day in Genesis would be a long period of time (usually millions of years). Genesis 3 is when the Bible says God created these fruits trees. But it wasn't until Genesis 4 where God created the first animals that would be capable of eating these fruits. With my limited knowledge on the subject, a fruit tree without animals to spread its seeds via said fruit wouldn't be very efficient. There exists many alternative ways for trees to seed, so if theistic evolution is true, then after the millions of years during day three these trees would have evolved to seed via methods that were not fruit, because there were no animals to evolve alongside.

They did not evolve before they evolved together. Perhaps you should study some biology first, or you could try to ask some question here.

By the way, why theistic evolution? Why not just study the read deal?

But according to Genesis these fruit trees were bearing fruit on day three, before these animals existed.

I do prefer the real deal, but so many people implant evolution into Genesis, and I just see some problems with that is all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Theistic evolution, that God created the original life form and allowed it to evolve, or something of the sort. I'm no professor in the field. Basically combining the theory of evolution with Genesis.

Under the day age theory, each day in Genesis would be a long period of time (usually millions of years). Genesis 3 is when the Bible says God created these fruits trees. But it wasn't until Genesis 4 where God created the first animals that would be capable of eating these fruits. With my limited knowledge on the subject, a fruit tree without animals to spread its seeds via said fruit wouldn't be very efficient. There exists many alternative ways for trees to seed, so if theistic evolution is true, then after the millions of years during day three these trees would have evolved to seed via methods that were not fruit, because there were no animals to evolve alongside.



But according to Genesis these fruit trees were bearing fruit on day three, before these animals existed.

Yes, we all know that the Bible was wrong. It is not meant to be read literally. At the very best that was an explanation for an ignorant tribe that had no science or technology at all.

 

[spinner981]

Yes, we all know that the Bible was wrong. It is not meant to be read literally. At the very best that was an explanation for an ignorant tribe that had no science or technology at all.

I'm new to this forum, and maybe this is just your thing, but simply telling me the Bible is wrong because reasons doesn't really help answer the question.

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

Theistic evolution, that God created the original life form and allowed it to evolve, or something of the sort. I'm no professor in the field.

Under the day age theory, each day in Genesis would be a long period of time (usually millions of years). Genesis 3 is when the Bible says God created these fruits trees. But it wasn't until Genesis 4 where God created the first animals that would be capable of eating these fruits. With my limited knowledge on the subject, a fruit tree without animals to spread its seeds via said fruit wouldn't be very efficient. There exists many alternative ways for trees to seed, so if theistic evolution is true, then after the millions of years during day three these trees would have evolved to seed via methods that were not fruit, because there were no animals to evolve alongside.

Oh ok, I think I see the confusion. Many theistic evolutionists, like myself, tend to interpret Genesis as a creation myth, where the days don't necessarily correspond to any period of time in reality. If you're interested, Biologos has a website where they do a great job explaining this point of view. I haven't heard of any Day-Age theistic evolutionists, but I guess it's possible as well.

About fruit trees evolving, fruit can give other advantages besides increased seed spread by herbivores. Fruit can also serve to protect and nourish a seed. That fruit can also be immediately or later useful to local herbivores.

 

[spinner981]

Oh ok, I think I see the confusion. Many theistic evolutionists, like myself, tend to interpret Genesis as a creation myth, where the days don't necessarily correspond to any period of time in reality. If you're interested, Biologos has a website where they do a great job explaining this point of view. I haven't heard of any Day-Age theistic evolutionists, but I guess it's possible as well.

About fruit trees evolving, fruit can give other advantages besides increased seed spread by herbivores. Fruit can also serve to protect and nourish a seed. That fruit can also be immediately or later useful to local herbivores.

But the same benefits could be obtained in better, more efficient ways, and being edible at that point would serve no purpose. Concerning the number of fruit trees that are implied in Genesis, it seems like they were more than just a fluke.

Also, Genesis is more than creation. Do you believe the entire book is a myth? That nothing in it ever happened?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm new to this forum, and maybe this is just your thing, but simply telling me the Bible is wrong because reasons doesn't really help answer the question.

I know. You need to learn quite a bit before you can see that. I could link some basic videos on evolution for you. But you need to do more than merely watching a video or two to understand this topic.

 

[spinner981]

I know. You need to learn quite a bit before you can see that. I could link some basic videos on evolution for you. But you need to do more than merely watching a video or two to understand this topic.

Which aspect of the theory of evolution are you referring to? The parts that are also a part of fundamental creationism, or the parts that aren't?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But the same benefits could be obtained in better, more efficient ways, and being edible at that point would serve no purpose. Concerning the number of fruit trees that are implied in Genesis, it seems like they were more than just a fluke.

Also, Genesis is more than creation. Do you believe the entire book is a myth? That nothing in it ever happened?

Again, Genesis is not meant to be read literally even if you are a Christian. Super Hotdog Salesman mention biologos, here is a link to that organization:

http://biologos.org/

You can still accept reality and be a Christian.

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

But the same benefits could be obtained in better, more efficient ways, and being edible at that point would serve no purpose. Concerning the number of fruit trees that are implied in Genesis, it seems like they were more than just a fluke.

Fruit can be edible (good for herbivores) and incidentally protect/nourish seeds, and it can also protect/nourish seeds and incidentally make it more edible. It could evolve for either benefit, or both at the same time.

I'm not sure what you mean by the number of fruit trees Genesis mentions being a fluke. Could you explain what you mean?

 

[spinner981]

Again, Genesis is not meant to be read literally even if you are a Christian. Super Hotdog Salesman mention biologos, here is a link to that organization:

http://biologos.org/

You can still accept reality and be a Christian.

What are you basing the idea that Genesis shouldn't be read literally off of?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which aspect of the theory of evolution are you referring to? The parts that are also a part of fundamental creationism, or the parts that aren't?

Creationism is pure nonsense. Check out the link that I gave you. They are a Christian group that accepts modern day science. They should be able to answer a lot of your questions.

 

[spinner981]

Fruit can be edible (good for herbivores) and incidentally protect/nourish seeds, and it can also protect/nourish seeds and incidentally make it more edible. It could evolve for either benefit, or both at the same time.

I'm not sure what you mean by the number of fruit trees Genesis mentions being a fluke. Could you explain what you mean?

The exact number isn't mentioned, but Genesis 2:8-9 says "Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

It seems to imply that the majority (if not all) of the trees in the garden were fruit trees that were good for eating.

I understand that edibility could evolve alongside protection/nourishment in an environment that favored both, but wouldn't the edibility be inefficient in a world where nothing existed to eat them?

 

[spinner981]

Creationism is pure nonsense. Check out the link that I gave you. They are a Christian group that accepts modern day science. They should be able to answer a lot of your questions.

Uuuh, I don't believe creationism is nonsense. You obviously do, and so do some of those other self-proclaimed Christians, but that still doesn't really answer my question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fruit can be edible (good for herbivores) and incidentally protect/nourish seeds, and it can also protect/nourish seeds and incidentally make it more edible. It could evolve for either benefit, or both at the same time.

I'm not sure what you mean by the number of fruit trees Genesis mentions being a fluke. Could you explain what you mean?

He does not seem to understand how fruits evolved. The outside edible parts of fruit used to be just a protective cover. Some animals would eat the cover but not digest the seeds. The seeds would pass through and have a source of fertilizer.

One key aspect of evolution is variation. The amount of digestible material in the cover would naturally vary. The fruits with a more digestible material in the cover would be eaten by more animals, the seed would be spread better and it would prosper over the fruits with less digestive material. Over the years animals would select the fruits that came from trees with more digestible material. Fruits and animals would have evolved together.

 

[spinner981]

He does not seem to understand how fruits evolved. The outside edible parts of fruit used to be just a protective cover. Some animals would eat the cover but not digest the seeds. The seeds would pass through and have a source of fertilizer.

One key aspect of evolution is variation. The amount of digestible material in the cover would naturally vary. The fruits with a more digestible material in the cover would be eaten by more animals, the seed would be spread better and it would prosper over the fruits with less digestive material. Over the years animals would select the fruits that came from trees with more digestible material. Fruits and animals would have evolved together.

But without animals to evolve alongside, the Bible still suggests that many fruit trees, with fruit good for eating, still existed in that state on day three without the presence of animals.

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

It seems to imply that the majority (if not all) of the trees in the garden were fruit trees that were good for eating.

I understand that edibility could evolve alongside protection/nourishment in an environment that favored both, but wouldn't the edibility be inefficient in a world where nothing existed to eat them?

Edibility is only inefficient if it is an additional cost to the organism without any benefit. If edibility is incidental to nouishment, then there is no inefficiency. On the other hand, if edibility is the primary reason the fruit evolves, then inefficiency also isn't a problem.

As I stated before, Theistic Evolutionists tend to view Genesis as mythic literature. So I don't think there ever was a garden of Eden, which makes your question irrelevant to Theistic Evolution. Do check out Biologos! They do a great job of explaining why we think Genesis is best interpreted as myth, and have lots of resources explaining common evolution questions.

 

[spinner981]

Edibility is only inefficient if it is an additional cost to the organism without any benefit. If edibility is incidental to nouishment, then there is no inefficiency. On the other hand, if edibility is the primary reason the fruit evolves, then inefficiency also isn't a problem.

As I stated before, Theistic Evolutionists tend to view Genesis as mythic literature. So I don't think there ever was a garden of Eden, which makes your question irrelevant to Theistic Evolution. Do check out Biologos! They do a great job of explaining why we think Genesis is best interpreted as myth, and have lots of resources explaining common evolution questions.

So the entirety of Genesis is taken as myth? Chapters 1 through 50? What other parts of the Bible do you take as myth, and why?