Friendly Challenge to Atheists
- Thread starter c20H25N3o
- Start date
Bells
Staff member
This is an idiots guide to plant evolution c20. Just for you.
The Quiet Evlolution of Trees
Here is another link for you.
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1980/5/80.05.01.x.html#f
I'm sure that even you can appreciate that plants evolved to develop seeds as a method of propagation and reproduction. The second link is a bit of a lengthy read, but if you right to the top of the page and work your way down, you should get a general idea.
Enjoy.
The Quiet Evlolution of Trees
Here is another link for you.
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1980/5/80.05.01.x.html#f
I'm sure that even you can appreciate that plants evolved to develop seeds as a method of propagation and reproduction. The second link is a bit of a lengthy read, but if you right to the top of the page and work your way down, you should get a general idea.
Enjoy.
Last edited:
anonymous2
Registered Senior Member
c20H25N3o said:
Can you explain how an infinite invisible being can exist? And think? And feel? And be the most intelligent existent? And how a spirit can exist, let alone an infinite spirit?
"God" doesn't really answer the "question". It just makes us ask questions about God instead of the physical universe.
evolutionary just like you.
just like you seeds have gone from one thing to what they are today.
having a parent or parents, to first bring them in to existence, till they in turn become the parent, and continue the process.
Seed structure
A seed contains the embryo from (it's mother/father plant "asexual reproduction") which a new plant will grow under proper conditions. It also contains a supply of stored food and is wrapped in a seed coat. The stored food begins as a tissue called endosperm derived from the parent plant. Endosperm becomes rich in oil or starch, and protein. In some species, the embryo is imbedded in the endosperm, which the seedling will use upon germination. In others, the endosperm is absorbed by the embryo as the latter grows within the developing seed, and the cotyledons of the embryo become filled with this stored food. At maturity, seeds of these species have no endosperm. Some common plant seeds that lack an endosperm are bean, pea, oak, walnut, squash, sunflower, and radish. Plant seeds with an endosperm include all conifers and most monocotyledons (e.g. grasses and palms), and also e.g. brazil nut, castor bean.
The seed coat develops from tissues (called integument) originally surrounding the ovule. The seed coat in the mature seed can be a paper thin layer (for example, peanut) or something more substantial.
The seeds of angiosperms are contained in a hard or fleshy (or with layers of both) structure called a fruit. Gymnosperm seeds begin their development "naked" on the bracts of cones, although the seeds do become covered by the cone scales as they develop. An example of a hard fruit layer surrounding the actual seed is that of the so-called stone fruits (such as the peach).
Seed functions
Unlike animals, plants are limited in their ability to seek out favorable conditions for life and growth. Consequently, plants have evolved many ways to disperse and spread the population through their seeds (see also vegetative reproduction). A seed must somehow "arrive" at a location and be there at a time favorable for germination and growth. Those properties or attributes that promote the movement of the next generation away from the parent plant may involve the fruit more so than the seeds themselves. The function of a seed typically is one of serving as a delaying mechanism: a way for the new generation to suspend its growth and allow time for dispersal to occur or to survive harsh, unfavorable conditions of cold or dryness or both. In many if not most cases each plant species achieves success in finding ideal locations for placement of its seeds through the basic approach of producing numerous seeds. This is certainly the approach used by plants, such as ferns, that disperse by spores. However, seeds involve a considerably greater investment in energy and resources than do spores, and the payoff must come in achieving similar or greater success with fewer dispersal units.
but if you want to know what came first the seed or the plant then you need to asks gods parents/parent or even his grandparents or his greatgrandparents ad infinitum.
just like you seeds have gone from one thing to what they are today.
having a parent or parents, to first bring them in to existence, till they in turn become the parent, and continue the process.
Seed structure
A seed contains the embryo from (it's mother/father plant "asexual reproduction") which a new plant will grow under proper conditions. It also contains a supply of stored food and is wrapped in a seed coat. The stored food begins as a tissue called endosperm derived from the parent plant. Endosperm becomes rich in oil or starch, and protein. In some species, the embryo is imbedded in the endosperm, which the seedling will use upon germination. In others, the endosperm is absorbed by the embryo as the latter grows within the developing seed, and the cotyledons of the embryo become filled with this stored food. At maturity, seeds of these species have no endosperm. Some common plant seeds that lack an endosperm are bean, pea, oak, walnut, squash, sunflower, and radish. Plant seeds with an endosperm include all conifers and most monocotyledons (e.g. grasses and palms), and also e.g. brazil nut, castor bean.
The seed coat develops from tissues (called integument) originally surrounding the ovule. The seed coat in the mature seed can be a paper thin layer (for example, peanut) or something more substantial.
The seeds of angiosperms are contained in a hard or fleshy (or with layers of both) structure called a fruit. Gymnosperm seeds begin their development "naked" on the bracts of cones, although the seeds do become covered by the cone scales as they develop. An example of a hard fruit layer surrounding the actual seed is that of the so-called stone fruits (such as the peach).
Seed functions
Unlike animals, plants are limited in their ability to seek out favorable conditions for life and growth. Consequently, plants have evolved many ways to disperse and spread the population through their seeds (see also vegetative reproduction). A seed must somehow "arrive" at a location and be there at a time favorable for germination and growth. Those properties or attributes that promote the movement of the next generation away from the parent plant may involve the fruit more so than the seeds themselves. The function of a seed typically is one of serving as a delaying mechanism: a way for the new generation to suspend its growth and allow time for dispersal to occur or to survive harsh, unfavorable conditions of cold or dryness or both. In many if not most cases each plant species achieves success in finding ideal locations for placement of its seeds through the basic approach of producing numerous seeds. This is certainly the approach used by plants, such as ferns, that disperse by spores. However, seeds involve a considerably greater investment in energy and resources than do spores, and the payoff must come in achieving similar or greater success with fewer dispersal units.
but if you want to know what came first the seed or the plant then you need to asks gods parents/parent or even his grandparents or his greatgrandparents ad infinitum.
From Ecology.com
Way before trees appeared on Earth, animals and other land plants were scattered among the land masses. And way before land plants came the land animals. How did it all happen, and where did they all come from?
According to this guy, animals appeared before plants and trees. What did the animals have for food? And what species were the animals? I say this with an open mind of course. I am prepared to be convinced.
Also the second link that Bells provided says this:
The 3.5 billion year old cells are near-identical in appearance to some present day bacteria.
Why didn't they evolve if a natural evolutionary pattern was supposed to emerge?
Surely like gives rise to like? An orange pip to an orange tree, a lemon pip to a lemon tree? Algae is still prominent today but we do not see it developing legs and a brain or anything like it.
Do you see why I might be amused at being called an amoeba-man given that you say that you originated from similiar single celled life forms? You say that your ancestors were amoebas. That's pretty funny no?
peace
c20
Way before trees appeared on Earth, animals and other land plants were scattered among the land masses. And way before land plants came the land animals. How did it all happen, and where did they all come from?
According to this guy, animals appeared before plants and trees. What did the animals have for food? And what species were the animals? I say this with an open mind of course. I am prepared to be convinced.
Also the second link that Bells provided says this:
The 3.5 billion year old cells are near-identical in appearance to some present day bacteria.
Why didn't they evolve if a natural evolutionary pattern was supposed to emerge?
Surely like gives rise to like? An orange pip to an orange tree, a lemon pip to a lemon tree? Algae is still prominent today but we do not see it developing legs and a brain or anything like it.
Do you see why I might be amused at being called an amoeba-man given that you say that you originated from similiar single celled life forms? You say that your ancestors were amoebas. That's pretty funny no?
peace
c20
Or, in another way:
Just like many other anti-evolution questions, this can be answered using entirely extant references. No need to call on the fossil record.
Even today, we can observe all or most of the stages on the the evolutionary path to seeds.
1) Simple algae just divide.
2) Many plants can proliferate by sending out pods that take root beside the "parent".
3) Others can regrow from broken-off parts.
4) Some have pods or buds that are meant t obreak off and be carried off to other places by wind, water or passing animals.
5) Some of the pods under #5 are sexual, and can be pollinated before being severed from hte plant.
6) Finally, some (many) have gone the full way and the pod had become a true seed.
....Next question?
Hans
Just like many other anti-evolution questions, this can be answered using entirely extant references. No need to call on the fossil record.
Even today, we can observe all or most of the stages on the the evolutionary path to seeds.
1) Simple algae just divide.
2) Many plants can proliferate by sending out pods that take root beside the "parent".
3) Others can regrow from broken-off parts.
4) Some have pods or buds that are meant t obreak off and be carried off to other places by wind, water or passing animals.
5) Some of the pods under #5 are sexual, and can be pollinated before being severed from hte plant.
6) Finally, some (many) have gone the full way and the pod had become a true seed.
....Next question?
Hans
I'm sorry, I'm still missing the cross over between the orange tree genes and the genes of common algae given that the dna structure of both is vastly different and does not even contain the same bits as eachother. How could algae divide and in the process of that division become anything other than algae? Of course if your hypothesis is correct there would be no more common algae today because it would have evolved already. Stupid as I am I still do not feel that this has been described properly. Can someone show me the sequence so that I can see your truth?
Like how did algae form in the sea through to algae developing into every mammal, bird, insect and living creature that moves on the face of the earth.
Thanks
c20
Like how did algae form in the sea through to algae developing into every mammal, bird, insect and living creature that moves on the face of the earth.
Thanks
c20
From Ecology.com
Way before trees appeared on Earth, animals and other land plants were scattered among the land masses. And way before land plants came the land animals. How did it all happen, and where did they all come from?
They came from the sea. Starting in tidal zones, plants and animals colonized the empty land areas.
According to this guy, animals appeared before plants and trees. What did the animals have for food? And what species were the animals? I say this with an open mind of course. I am prepared to be convinced.
According the the general concensus, plants made landfall before (but not much before) animals. What did the animals eat? Plants, flotsam, other animals. What species? First, amphibians probably mainly foraging still in the sea, but perhaps using the temporarily safe land for nesting.
Also the second link that Bells provided says this:
The 3.5 billion year old cells are near-identical in appearance to some present day bacteria.
And?
Why didn't they evolve if a natural evolutionary pattern was supposed to emerge?
This is a common misunderstanding. Life does not HAVE to evolve. If it fits it niche well, it won't; the fittest will be those that have not changed, so they will survive.
Surely like gives rise to like? An orange pip to an orange tree, a lemon pip to a lemon tree?
But perhaps a slightly different lemon tree.
Algae is still prominent today but we do not see it developing legs and a brain or anything like it.
Because algae are quite successful in their niche. SOME of them did evolve, however, because they were in places where the ideal form was not the algae.
Do you see why I might be amused at being called an amoeba-man given that you say that you originated from similiar single celled life forms? You say that your ancestors were amoebas. That's pretty funny no?
Why is it funny?
Hans
Way before trees appeared on Earth, animals and other land plants were scattered among the land masses. And way before land plants came the land animals. How did it all happen, and where did they all come from?
They came from the sea. Starting in tidal zones, plants and animals colonized the empty land areas.
According to this guy, animals appeared before plants and trees. What did the animals have for food? And what species were the animals? I say this with an open mind of course. I am prepared to be convinced.
According the the general concensus, plants made landfall before (but not much before) animals. What did the animals eat? Plants, flotsam, other animals. What species? First, amphibians probably mainly foraging still in the sea, but perhaps using the temporarily safe land for nesting.
Also the second link that Bells provided says this:
The 3.5 billion year old cells are near-identical in appearance to some present day bacteria.
And?
Why didn't they evolve if a natural evolutionary pattern was supposed to emerge?
This is a common misunderstanding. Life does not HAVE to evolve. If it fits it niche well, it won't; the fittest will be those that have not changed, so they will survive.
Surely like gives rise to like? An orange pip to an orange tree, a lemon pip to a lemon tree?
But perhaps a slightly different lemon tree.
Algae is still prominent today but we do not see it developing legs and a brain or anything like it.
Because algae are quite successful in their niche. SOME of them did evolve, however, because they were in places where the ideal form was not the algae.
Do you see why I might be amused at being called an amoeba-man given that you say that you originated from similiar single celled life forms? You say that your ancestors were amoebas. That's pretty funny no?
Why is it funny?
Hans
Given the nature of the food chain and the absolute dependance of one species on the other, what order would have things formed in? Surely the creature that developed from algae would have consumed the algae and out run it's food source almost immediatly that it started to proliferate? I'm confused :bugeye:. I cannot see how evolution would not give rise to cannabalism?
Answers most welcome.
Thanks for your patience.
c20
Answers most welcome.
Thanks for your patience.
c20
c20H25N3o: Hi guys, Can science please explain the seed and how it came into being? Any seed will do.
*************
M*W: I asked YOU to answer this question. Why is it that you don't research it yourself? Are you really that stupid?
*************
M*W: I asked YOU to answer this question. Why is it that you don't research it yourself? Are you really that stupid?
Ha... Given the nature of a religious fool and the absolute dependance of the short dogmatic view on nature,with what order of practical experience can you explain your knowledge. Surly a lover of god would not have to argue the reality of life. I'm perplexed. I can not see how religion can give rise to knowledge.
Stuff your answers
Stop your scorn..
n|m
Medicine Woman said:
Hi M*W,
I have tried to research it but I keep coming up with different explanations. It seems like there is a lot of theory. One site says algae, another site says fungi is totally different to algae and we are more likely to have derived our beings from fungi etc etc.
I promise you I am just trying to be objective. I realise I have been annoying you so I thought I would put God to one side for a moment and listen to your views. I want to be convinced.
I need to know how algae or whatever develops into homosapien primarily.
Like an idiots guide but involving actual processes, not just 'over a period of 3.5 billion years' as I read on most sites - actual processes from algae to homosapiens and the reasons for the changes, what environmental conditions promote algae to form homosapiens etc?
I am actually interested and am trying to offer the olive branch so to speak. Hopefully you will take it in the spirit that it's meant.
Thanks
c20
Please be as scientific as you like. I am sure I will pick it up.
c20H25N3o: Hi M*W, I have tried to research it but I keep coming up with different explanations. It seems like there is a lot of theory. One site says algae, another site says fungi is totally different to algae and we are more likely to have derived our beings from fungi etc etc.
*************
M*W: The sites I've posted below come from experts in the field. I don't know for sure if our ancestor was blue-green algae or fungi. I suspect fungi played a major role in our evolution, because we are still hosts for fungi.
*************
c20: I promise you I am just trying to be objective. I realise I have been annoying you so I thought I would put God to one side for a moment and listen to your views. I want to be convinced.
*************
M*W: You don't need to put God aside to be objective nor do you need to put God aside to listen to other's views. I feel that you chose to be blind to other's posts. The atheists of sciforums don't set out to deconvert the religious folk. It's when the religious folk become obsessively arrogant Jesus freaks, then we feel the need to step-in. You will not be convinced of anything unless you open your eyes, and read everything you can OUTSIDE the bible.
*************
c20: I need to know how algae or whatever develops into homosapien primarily. Like an idiots guide but involving actual processes, not just 'over a period of 3.5 billion years' as I read on most sites - actual processes from algae to homosapiens and the reasons for the changes, what environmental conditions promote algae to form homosapiens etc?
*************
M*W: I think you will find these websites educational. They have charts, graphs and pictures, so it's more interesting than boring, I would say.
*************
c20: I am actually interested and am trying to offer the olive branch so to speak. Hopefully you will take it in the spirit that it's meant. Please be as scientific as you like. I am sure I will pick it up.
*************
M*W: I am posting some sites that you may want to read. They are:
http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol1531.htm
http://dieoff.org/page137.htm
http://www.see.org/e-ct-2.htm#24
It's easier for you to read these than me trying to explain them. I hope you find the answers you are looking for.
*************
M*W: The sites I've posted below come from experts in the field. I don't know for sure if our ancestor was blue-green algae or fungi. I suspect fungi played a major role in our evolution, because we are still hosts for fungi.
*************
c20: I promise you I am just trying to be objective. I realise I have been annoying you so I thought I would put God to one side for a moment and listen to your views. I want to be convinced.
*************
M*W: You don't need to put God aside to be objective nor do you need to put God aside to listen to other's views. I feel that you chose to be blind to other's posts. The atheists of sciforums don't set out to deconvert the religious folk. It's when the religious folk become obsessively arrogant Jesus freaks, then we feel the need to step-in. You will not be convinced of anything unless you open your eyes, and read everything you can OUTSIDE the bible.
*************
c20: I need to know how algae or whatever develops into homosapien primarily. Like an idiots guide but involving actual processes, not just 'over a period of 3.5 billion years' as I read on most sites - actual processes from algae to homosapiens and the reasons for the changes, what environmental conditions promote algae to form homosapiens etc?
*************
M*W: I think you will find these websites educational. They have charts, graphs and pictures, so it's more interesting than boring, I would say.
*************
c20: I am actually interested and am trying to offer the olive branch so to speak. Hopefully you will take it in the spirit that it's meant. Please be as scientific as you like. I am sure I will pick it up.
*************
M*W: I am posting some sites that you may want to read. They are:
http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol1531.htm
http://dieoff.org/page137.htm
http://www.see.org/e-ct-2.htm#24
It's easier for you to read these than me trying to explain them. I hope you find the answers you are looking for.
W
what768
Guest
I think the first seeds came from the combination of water and earth by the help of the wind and sun.
Anyone can explain how seeds came to be. The question is more about the accuracy of the assertion. Religion bases cause and effect on folk tales from millenia past. If I ask "How did a seed come to be?" and you answer "God did it!", what pertinent information have you conveyed regarding cause and effect? By my standard, nothing. Why? Because you can't demonstrate it or even rationally defend it. To argue god, you must argue it pointless circles.