Tree Evolution

[pgp_protector]

Ok Maybe I can find the info here

On a recent sermon our pastor had, they were talking about a hortoculturist that stated that all trees evolved from 9 types of trees in the garden of eden.

This was supposed to show how the Tithe was the actual cause of the fall of man (the 10th tree being the tree of knowledge that we're not supposed to touch), I.E. we didn't let God keep his 1/10 of the Trees.


Though this would be a problem as it also ignores the "tree of life" in the garden.


Now has anyone else heard about this "theory" of all trees evolving from 9 types of trees ?

 

[juvenissun]

Ok Maybe I can find the info here

On a recent sermon our pastor had, they were talking about a hortoculturist that stated that all trees evolved from 9 types of trees in the garden of eden.

This was supposed to show how the Tithe was the actual cause of the fall of man (the 10th tree being the tree of knowledge that we're not supposed to touch), I.E. we didn't let God keep his 1/10 of the Trees.


Though this would be a problem as it also ignores the "tree of life" in the garden.


Now has anyone else heard about this "theory" of all trees evolving from 9 types of trees ?

I have no answer and no idea on the question, even I think it is an excellent one.

I just want to add question to it: Why does evolutionist say so little about the evolution of vegetation? There are probably more species of plant than that of animal (?), so, the evolution of plant should be more revealing and exciting, shouldn't it be? In my little fossil digging experience, I think I hit more plant fossils than animal fossils (just cleave open any shale, you probably would find some). But it seems that much fewer people studied the plant fossils. Why?

In one of my early field trip when a Cambrian shale formation was examined, I saw the (marine) shale is unusually pale in color and was reminded that there were no plant on earth at that time. I kind of accepted the explanation, but had a big question mark in my mind. I still have that question mark today about this issue (no progress at all, shame on me.)

 

[gluadys]

Now has anyone else heard about this "theory" of all trees evolving from 9 types of trees ?

I think this is the kind of silliness one gets when non-scientists try to put science into the bible.

One would certainly not find it in a science text. "Trees" as such are not considered a single plant group. There are flowering trees (angiosperms) which are more closely related to other flowering plants than to other trees. There are seed-bearing trees that are not flowering trees (e.g. conifers), and there were once tree-size mosses. These were the giants of the Carboniferous age and it is their remains that developed into massive coal deposits.

There are other plants as well in each of these categories.

I have no answer and no idea on the question, even I think it is an excellent one.

I just want to add question to it: Why does evolutionist say so little about the evolution of vegetation? There are probably more species of plant than that of animal (?), so, the evolution of plant should be more revealing and exciting, shouldn't it be? In my little fossil digging experience, I think I hit more plant fossils than animal fossils (just cleave open any shale, you probably would find some). But it seems that much fewer people studied the plant fossils. Why?

In one of my early field trip when a Cambrian shale formation was examined, I saw the (marine) shale is unusually pale in color and was reminded that there were no plant on earth at that time. I kind of accepted the explanation, but had a big question mark in my mind. I still have that question mark today about this issue (no progress at all, shame on me.)

This might get you started, juvie.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/IB181/VPL/Pres/PresTitle.html

A little google browsing indicated that the oldest plant fossils (not trees) found were about 420 million years old. Old, but not Cambrian.

 

[Mallon]

On a recent sermon our pastor had, they were talking about a hortoculturist that stated that all trees evolved from 9 types of trees in the garden of eden.

This was supposed to show how the Tithe was the actual cause of the fall of man (the 10th tree being the tree of knowledge that we're not supposed to touch), I.E. we didn't let God keep his 1/10 of the Trees.

Goodness, FSTDT. I can't believe a pastor would pass this kind of silliness off as science! You might try asking him where he got his information, because you've piqued my interest, too.

And there has been much work done on plant evolution, juvie. You just don't hear a lot about it because the public doesn't find plants as "sexy" as, say, dinosaurs. But just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This kind of research is going on behind the scenes every day.

 

[juvenissun]

Goodness, FSTDT. I can't believe a pastor would pass this kind of silliness off as science! You might try asking him where he got his information, because you've piqued my interest, too.

And there has been much work done on plant evolution, juvie. You just don't hear a lot about it because the public doesn't find plants as "sexy" as, say, dinosaurs. But just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This kind of research is going on behind the scenes every day.

My question is: should plant fossil provide better evidence of evolution than animal fossil? If it does, why don't I hear any evolutionist boast on it? If not, why not? Don't we have MORE plant fossils than animal fossils? Could we see more details of morphology transition on plant fossils?

I think just like you said, the plant fossils are much less flashy. So even they are more abundant, much fewer people like to study them.

 

[Mallon]

My question is: should plant fossil provide better evidence of evolution than animal fossil?

Not necessarily. There is good evidence for plant evolution in the form of transitional fossils, but given that most plants have nothing in the way of a rigid, mineralized skeleton, they don't preserve quite as well in the fossil record (save for phytoliths and pollen, of course). I would argue that the fossil evidence for evolution, at least, is better for animals than plants.

 

[juvenissun]

Ok Maybe I can find the info here

On a recent sermon our pastor had, they were talking about a hortoculturist that stated that all trees evolved from 9 types of trees in the garden of eden.

This was supposed to show how the Tithe was the actual cause of the fall of man (the 10th tree being the tree of knowledge that we're not supposed to touch), I.E. we didn't let God keep his 1/10 of the Trees.


Though this would be a problem as it also ignores the "tree of life" in the garden.


Now has anyone else heard about this "theory" of all trees evolving from 9 types of trees ?

Again, I am not trying to answer your question, but to throw out a related one.

God tells Adam to manage the Garden. I would assume the job includes the care of all the plants. The question is: what to take care about? Did Adam need to cut, to plant, or to plumb? or he has to prevent certain animal to eat certain plant? What was the job description for Adam?

 

[USincognito]

On a recent sermon our pastor had, they were talking about a hortoculturist that stated that all trees evolved from 9 types of trees in the garden of eden.

My question is why do so many anecdotes like this in sermons refer to "an horticulturalist" or "a zoologist" instead of Phil Jones of Monsanto Corp. or Dr. Wendy Jones of UCLA?

I just want to add question to it: Why does evolutionist say so little about the evolution of vegetation? There are probably more species of plant than that of animal (?), so, the evolution of plant should be more revealing and exciting, shouldn't it be?

Not even close. 350,000 species of plants, possibly 30,000,000 species of insects alone.

And keeping with that theme, Mallon's right about the sexy factor when it comes to the public. Humans have an affinity to our fellow mammals so we're more interested in them than in insects or plants.

 

[juvenissun]

My question is why do so many anecdotes like this in sermons refer to "an horticulturalist" or "a zoologist" instead of Phil Jones of Monsanto Corp. or Dr. Wendy Jones of UCLA?



Not even close. 350,000 species of plants, possibly 30,000,000 species of insects alone.

And keeping with that theme, Mallon's right about the sexy factor when it comes to the public. Humans have an affinity to our fellow mammals so we're more interested in them than in insects or plants.

OK, that would also presents a problem. Why is there so few plant species on earth? Don't they also respond to environmental (niche) changes?

 

[Mallon]

There are over 350,000 species of plants living today. Is that really so few, juvie?

 

[Assyrian]

Not doing too badly given Noah didn't take them on the ark.

 

[juvenissun]

Not doing too badly given Noah didn't take them on the ark.

That is a very interesting thought.

 

[juvenissun]

There are over 350,000 species of plants living today. Is that really so few, juvie?

I don't know. USincognito said it is very few compared to animals. May be most of them died during the Flood since Noah did not try to save them. Could this be an evidence for the Flood?

 

[Mallon]

I don't know. USincognito said it is very few compared to animals. May be most of them died during the Flood since Noah did not try to save them. Could this be an evidence for the Flood?

I don't see how it possibly could be. The only animals that were on the ark were vertebrates, which are much fewer in number than the plants. So evidently, these numbers do not correlate with the Flood at all.
Maybe next time...

 

[troodon]

But it seems that much fewer people studied the plant fossils. Why?

I only took one class in it but paleobotany is terribly boring. Looking at phloem evolving over time is about as thrilling as it sounds. The botanical biodiversity aspect was more interesting, seeing how plant populations moved and adapted as tectonics changed continental environments, but it just wasn't enough to keep my attention.