Simply Noor

This conversation is closed.

My question is how and why Trees were evolved? what were the circumstances that immovable trees evolved from a moving single cell.

I have read that for the survival single cells evolved to the best suitable object.
i want to know, how and why trees came into existence?

they cant move, there are tress of various heights, even one can find many varieties of trees at same locality and environment. one tree is always different from the other variety of trees. they also have different colour of leaves...even shades of green.

some vegetation are like grass.

i dint understand why any cell became tree?

  • thumb
    Mar 18 2012: Very intriguing question Simply.

    Trees/plants produce oxygen for us, and they take in our CO2 emissions. They were an evolutions of cells, which means that they clumped together and they stayed in one place to begin forming trees/plants. The first organizms similar to trees/plants were (read this) http://life3.beyondgenes.com/ and oxygen first came from came from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=origin-of-oxygen-in-atmosphere. Then you have to think of this, if trees/and plants moved they probably would create compounded gases like CO2, instead of releasing O2, so maybe the possiblity is that they survive off of the CO2 we produce and they in turn help us survive from them giving us O2, hence our symbiotic relationship. Trees/plants do move though, if you realize that their roots extend and there are plants such as the shy plant or mimosa pudica that closes when you touch it. In a sense, trees/plants are actually better evolved in the fact that they can be cut but still exist underground and before humans they only had to worry about plant related diseases, fires, droughts, and maybe prehistoric equivalents to the beaver or herbivores. They get recycled through their seeds that animals usually can't digest. I don't know if I can give a conclusive answer, but I think trees/plants were the early building blocks that slowly got enough diversity in their DNA to evolve into moving creatures.

    Who knows, maybe trees are mobile, but only when we aren't looking. =)
    • thumb
      Mar 18 2012: Thanks Derek.

      nicely explained, but from your explanation it seems to me that many number of cells actually decided to become supporter of each other. like plant kingdom is very necessary for the survival of animal kingdom and vice verse. both are providing each other the fuel to survive. But the theory of evolution talks about natural selection and this never satisfies me that how come so many varieties of plants were naturally selected?

      trees can be the actual parents of animals? dont you think its weired? it is said that there was outburst of Qxygen that made life to happen. may be the percentage of some cells programmed themselves to take CO2 from the O2 user cells. but still...why only the cells those who take CO2 become trees/plants?

      their roots extend inside and their branches extend in the upside. but my main problem to understand is...like any terrain in same atmospheric conditions, you are going to find so many types of trees...why? there could have been only one type.

      well, they dont move, i have looked at them day and night and that made me to ask this question that why this exquisite building of cells decided to not too move and snat still :)
      • Mar 20 2012: I think one thing you're not considering or understanding is that life itself changes the environment for other life. Also biological things on Earth create an impact on one another due to our interactions with the environment and directly with each other. There's a large variance in the sources for energy supply depending on a life forms very particular environment (this is particularly true of creatures with limited or no mobility). Energy can come in the form of geothermal (product of gravitational forces, plate tectonics, friction, solar heat etc.), sun-light (infrared, visible, and ultraviolet frequency photons), wind (though I've yet to hear of a creature that utilizes this source aside from some recent humans, also in part a bi-product of the first two), chemical energy storage (such as sugar), or any other potential energy or energy differentials that I can't think of right now.

        So basically what I'm getting at is there are lots of options, and if you read through or read about Darwin's on the origin of species, he outlines where these ideas come from. Lucky for us this is now a free resource and easy to obtain:
        http://www.amazon.com/On-origin-species-ebook/dp/B002RKSV2U/ref=sr_1_3?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1332202494&sr=1-3

        Furthermore our newly developed capability to sequence DNA (species wise not me personally) has allowed us to better understand the evolutionary connection between species since DNA mutation itself happens pretty regular rate even though the resulting physical attributes only seem to make a large impact during catastrophic periods in history where evolution itself seems to be more expansive.

        Basically what it comes down to though is the circumstances, being the environment including all existing life within it as part of the environment which either allows something to live and it is capable of reproducing and therefore passing down it's genetic code to another generation, or else it dies and along with it's death goes it's lineage of genetic code.
        • thumb
          Mar 21 2012: my problem is i am unable to find out the answer of 'why'?

          standing in one place for whole life, leting others to kill you and let using as much as others can, does not sound me a perfect choice of existence.

          and what does this theory say about the mutation further? are we [humans] the best kind and final level of mutation?
  • Mar 18 2012: All those moving cells just got lazy. Just kidding. A bunch of moving tree cells were having a philosophical discussion about life in general, the ups, the downs, the ins, the outs. One of them said, "Why move?" They all looked at each other, gave some thought to the concept of equilibrium, then decided simultaneously to just remain in one location and see what happened. They are still waiting in sweet stillness.
    • thumb
      Mar 18 2012: oh they might not be having any life related problem.
  • thumb
    Mar 17 2012: First, this doesn't apply only to trees but to all plants.
    Secondly, animals are usually moving because they have to actively procure food. Plants don't need movement because they rely on photosynthesis, hence there is no evolutionary need for movement.
    • thumb
      Mar 18 2012: That would explain the absence, in the botanical kingdom, of evidence supporting natural selection by genetic mutation over billions of years from a common ancestor.
    • thumb
      Mar 18 2012: Thts the question, why all dint evolve to become trees?

      what kind of natural selection was actually working over trees?
      • thumb
        Mar 19 2012: To properly address your question I need to speak for an hour or more.
        To make a long story short, organisms that feed on light don't need to move they need to protect themselves from being eaten.
        As plantlike organisms got on land they were followed by those animals that fed on them. Without support of the water, plants developed a stiff stem. To grow high was a way to stay out of reach of herbivores. After that it was competition for sun and rain that shaped all existing shapes.
        • thumb
          Mar 19 2012: Thanks a lot for responding.

          so the basic purpose was actually the food. but here lies my question that why some organisms developed to feed on Sun? there is a complimentary existence between animal kingdom and plant kingdom.

          so do cell programmed their DNA for complimentary existence?
      • thumb
        Mar 19 2012: No cell programs its DNA but the environment does. The cell needs energy, chemical energy fueled first by the heat of the earth and later on by sunlight. Cyano bacteria were the pioneers that were and are animal like creatures with an organ for photosynthesis.
        From these algae evolved as well as algae eating one cellular animals. Then clusters of different specialized cells shared expertise to increase the absorption and effective use of energy, the first organisms. From this point competition for the best weaponry or strategy progressed ever more fast into all forms of flora and fauna we know of.

        Cyano bacteria produced oxygen what made animal life possible.

        This only is the outline of a much more complex story. To know the whole story you need to study the cycles of carbon, nitrogen, phosphor and sulfur. Those cycles are driven by rain cycles, ocean streams caused by the movements of the earth and moon that distribute the sun energy.
  • thumb
    Mar 23 2012: evolution works according to the "why not" principle. it does not seek good solutions at all. it just tries the wildest things, and see how it goes. if it does not work, abandons the idea. if it works on an acceptable level, keeps it.

    why the giraffe has long neck? because it can easily reach leaves? WRONG! if it is so beneficiary, why other animals don't have long neck? the correct answer is: because they can. giraffes tried the long neck strategy, and it turned out to be okay. other strategies are also okay. that's why animals are different. long neck is not bad, so they can have it. but other methods are not bad either, so we have those too.

    why trees stand still? because they can. because being a tree works. why one tree is high, other is short? because they can be. why there are no trees in the desert, or at least why not big ones with large leaves? because they can't be. there is not enough water and it is too hot, so such trees can not survive there. why we don't have palm trees in sweden? because they have too small leaves, and there is not enough sunshine to support them.

    this is the "why not" principle in action. if you get away with it, you can have it.
  • thumb
    Mar 22 2012: Yep pretty much all the carbon and oxygen on earth has been here the whole time. It is still mostly in rocks in the form of minerals like carbonates. The sand on a beach is silica which is more than half oxygen by weight. The earliest known life forms got their energy from breaking down minerals liberating carbon oxygen sulfer etc from the rocks.
  • Mar 21 2012: Why is always a pretty difficult question. My answer is basically "just because". A slightly more elaborated explanation would be that over the course of a very, very long period of time life evolved from single cell organisms into multi-cellular organisms anything that could survive given it's environment did and this just continued on from around 4 billion years ago to now. Keep in mind the extremely large timescale that life has been evolving over. Also there are many widely varied environments across the Earth, both at a large scale and at a small scale. On the large scale take for example deserts, plains, mountains. On the small scale in the Amazon, above the treeline or below the treeline or somewhere in the middle. Check out mechanisms on this page (and other parts) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

    To your second point I don't think any creature on Earth has achieved or will ever achieve a "perfect existence." The ability to continue existing is as good as it gets. If a creature is able to survive long enough and reproduce somehow then it's species will continue to exist. It's not a matter of being the best it's just a matter of not being so bad relative to current conditions that you can't survive.

    To start off with regard to mutation this page explains what I was trying to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#Beneficial_mutations

    We are not the best kind or final level of mutation. Why I think this is everything that currently exists as a species on Earth is as good at surviving as we are given the current conditions. One day nature or mankind may eliminate the human species and some species of trees might live on (even larger branches of species could be severed as time goes on). If that scenario occurred I would have to give it to the trees (and other survivors) in terms of being better evolved for the time, but it's all about environment and circumstances.

    Sorry couldn't post as another reply.
    • thumb
      Mar 22 2012: thanks Shaun for such lucid reply.

      i would go through the links and reply you back. :)

      we cant say that the present world is at the stable form. it can be or can not be. but about the terrain on planet, i kind of disagree because the desert, ocean or things like that may be or may not be present from starting.

      if evolution is continued then i dont think trees would go long but human would take all the things that they need, like wings, the gills etc.

      and then we must not cry over climate changes and increasing temperature as this is continuous since centuries. one who learn to survive would survive, the one who dont would extinct.
  • thumb
    Mar 19 2012: Hi Simply,

    I do not have much to offer to your post being that I am not an expert on trees nor am I a scientist and being that there are many intelligent people here on TED I know you'll get good responses.

    But

    I think your asking two different questions here in which one can be answered and one cannot.

    Just about anyone one here can answer your first question about how trees evolved from single cells (if they do enough research of course) but your second question is what interested me the most and it is "WHY trees evolved from single cells"..

    I think your second question cannot be answered given that no one knows why anything exist. We can state that the reasons why trees evolved the way they did was to create H2O so humans and animals can live in a healthy eco-system but I'm sure this is not the answer because I think tree's have been around long before humans and they will be here long after we are gone (if that does indeed happen and if we stop using them as resources for economic purposes)

    I think its a great question but I think the "why" part to your question is one of those questions we'll never know the answer to.
    • thumb
      Mar 21 2012: Orlando, that is the best thing that i liked in your answer and that is...the answer of 'why' can not possibly be given. while i have encountered some people who wrongly say that answer of 'why' can be found in 'how'...and there is dont agree.

      but again, if any theory claims to be answer of all the questions then then it must answer the why part of it. as they say that evolution was done by the environment for the survival of the organism. i still am not able to how cyanobacteria came first? and from where they got the chlorophyll?
  • thumb
    Mar 19 2012: Hi Simply..
    It seems very convenient that plants 'evolved' exactly on q to produce the oxygen requirements of the planet at the same time as the oxygen consumers. Not only that, but they use the exhaust gas of these consumers.
    This is only one of many coincidences that we are asked to accept in the evolution scenario.
    Almost looks planned, doesn't it. ?

    :-)
    • thumb
      Mar 19 2012: Hi Peter, it's quite some time we don't chat.
      You got some details wrong here.
      The first oxygen producers were some kind of cyanobacterium. They existed long before any oxygen consuming creatures popped up.
      I'm a bit disappointed to see that you still didn't do a little bit of self education when it comes to evolution ;-)
      Try it, it really might change your young earth proponent views.........or then, maybe it wont.
      • thumb
        Mar 21 2012: Hi Harald.
        My; how you need to swot up on YEC theology. Fossils. What makes a fossil? A creature must be buried RAPIDLY to prevent rotting. This cannot happen in a long slow process it must take the body quickly from an oxygenated environment. Over the next while; hundreds, or maybe thousands, of years the body tissue is replaced with minerals. This is not happening to any degree today. So at some point in the past millions of creatures were rapidly buried in water Bourne silt & fossilised. Does that ring any bells with you ?

        :-)
        • thumb
          Mar 21 2012: Not really Pete, got better things to do than delving deeply into YEC delusions ;-)
          Fossils can form today as they did in the past. It just takes a while to make a fossil, hence you might not see how your dog gets fossilized within your life time, even if you bury him deep and oxygen free.
          I understand that you need to compress the earth's history from a few billion years into just a few thousand, in order to be in compliance with YEC, but, you'll have a hard time doing so without violating every law of nature. But then, what does a YEC care about laws of nature, right ?
      • thumb
        Mar 21 2012: Well Harald.
        Folks were quite happy with a 6k year old earth until Darwin & his cronies came along. They are the ones who need big time. What law of nature in particular are you thinking of that requires log ages?
        I'm assuming evolution has not reached 'Law' status yet, but I may be wrong.

        :-)
        • thumb
          Mar 21 2012: You are right, folks were also happy with a flat earth until somebody showed them that it is actually not flat ;-)
        • thumb
          Mar 22 2012: YEC.... if it says that heaven and earth were created some what 6000 years old and human were just existed.

          similar kind of view i have gone through, where they have theorize that there is no starting of universe, it is ever existing and only the poles of everything change. when pole changes, that day is Day of Judgment. and that is what going to happen at Dec 2012.

          yet not claimed.... but such alternate theories are interesting sometimes.

          there are some people who claims that the myths in religious books are actually metaphor stories and theories of creation of universe...

          anyways.... let me know in detail about the evolution of trees. thanks again for responding.
      • thumb
        Mar 21 2012: What is YEC?
        • thumb
          Mar 21 2012: Young Earth Creationist
        • thumb
          Mar 21 2012: Didn't know it either but Google gives this.
          Young Earth creationism

          Some people think heaven and earth were created according to their bible book somewhat before the Jewish era started. If this was true the first humans were put on the earth already singing and writing and possibly fighting. Now those believers already wait 2000 years for the ultimate destruction of the world.
    • thumb
      Mar 19 2012: Hi Peter, as Harold mentioned before me, long time no talk to.

      I sort of knew someone was going to mentioned intelligent design here (although you did it in a clever way)

      What you say is indeed interesting but I do not think it explains the "why" part of Simply's question.

      we can make references to the bible and talk about evolution but this only explains the how.....

      I think anyone who asserts the "why" part of the question is being intellectually dishonest....but then again you are entitled to believe in what you want and say what you want....

      To get to my point, I think if one is to touch up on the "why" part of Simply question they would also have to answer why does anything exist in the first place and I do not think this is something that can be answered, even by God himself.

      just something to think about
    • Mar 19 2012: In the book "Remaining Christian in a world of 'Science'" only the Bible is used as a source to construct the conclusion that Creationism can not possibly work logically. You really can't argue against it.

      But then again, you can ask yourself, "Did plants that fart oxygen come into existance because we would like to use it, or did we come into existance using oxygen because it already existed?".
      • thumb
        Mar 21 2012: Hi Pontus
        Can't really comment on a book I haven't read. I do know most of the arguments from debating & sites like TalkOrigins etc. Not convinced though, maybe you've found something I missed..

        If the plants came first as you suggest, there would need to be co2 around for them. The oxygen they produced would be detrimental to other evolving organisms, so they would be unlikely to absorb it & produce co2 which the plants require. So just before the plants ran out of co2, & oxygen reached dangerous levels, other organisms learned how to absorb it & produce much needed co2. There's always a story, but I don't always believe it.

        :-)
        • thumb
          Mar 21 2012: The vast majority of atmospheric CO2 originally came out of volcanos. That's what all that gas is that whooshes out of them. Even if there were only plants on Earth the carbon cycle would still find equilibrium. In forrested regions naturally occuring bush fires would periodically return CO2 to the atmosphere removing O2 at the same time. In Australia we have massive bush fires in uninhabited regions every year.
        • Mar 22 2012: The book provides the real truth thought, you should pick it up.

          But this discussion quickly went astray, as most of these discussions do. Now it's about finding a small part of a fairly comprehensive, real theory about the world which randomly educated people can't quickly fit into a 2000 character box and make it completely comprehensible. But even if, would it serve any purpose? Won't your counter-question always be "yes, but that doesnt work without..., you have to do better than that" until there's nothing left to explain, and then you'll choose to discard everything as rubbish because the vague belief of "beginning" and "existance" is not clearly defined, proved and well-argued for?

          Could you please argue for your standpoint, instead of immediately going over to argue in a way where your belief can never be criticised?
          I can start you off. If you think everything started to exist "a while ago" and always was what it ever will be, what allows the billion-year-earth theroies to seeminly work as a theory of the age of the earth and the universe, etc.?
          How would your "everything always was and will be" belief useful for anyone, at any time? How would it help humans to expand on the knowledge that exists today?
        • thumb
          Mar 22 2012: peter....

          11 hours ago: The vast majority of atmospheric CO2 originally came out of volcanos. That's what all that gas is that whooshes out of them. Even if there were only plants on Earth the carbon cycle would still find equilibrium.
          ~~~
          volcano got CO2? it means oxygen and carbon were present already?
      • thumb
        Mar 22 2012: Hi Pontus.
        I am happy to discuss anything you want, but admin will quickly shut us down if we go off-topic in a biblical direction.

        The reason millions of years survives as a valid theory is because it is compatible with the theory of evolution. The mechanism which cements it in place is radio metric dating. This gives us an explanation for existence without god together with scientific backing. This works fine if that's what you want to believe.

        I have to believe too. I have to believe that the geologic column was deposited quickly by Hoah's flood. I have to believe such things as. The earth's spin has always been slowing at the present rate; putting limits on the habitable timeframe . Ditto the 1400yr half life of the magnetic field. Ditto the rate that the moon is moving away from us etc. etc.....
        Yes I also have to believe the bible.. So we both believe, just not the same thing; but it all comes from the same data.

        :-)
        • thumb
          Mar 22 2012: The belief is evolution theory is based on the evidences. the fossils and clear explanation about every questions. though still... i am not getting how everything evolved to have a perfect harmony. and that this present is actually the best form and humans are going to evolve further to become some super human kind of thing?

          but these questions are separate... and it is wide era of discussions.
        • Mar 22 2012: Not off topic yet thought, since it's still about an answer to the question "... why Trees were evolved?"

          But I find it odd that a theory that seemingly works well and compatible with other scientific theories is waved off first as a belief and then as an equally well-thorised belief as the book you wrote that's supposedly speaks for god.

          What would make the old earth part subject to belief, compared to say gravity and how we can send up satellites in orbit around a non-flat earth. Or why don't you say that the earth is flat by the same reason that a round earth theory is just a belief?

          I read up on the flood, turns out there is not enough water on this planet, if there was enough vapour, we would die, the flood would not be able to cause the natural phenomenals we see around the world. Then there's some other problems, like why did kangaroos go to australia and not scandinavia and russia?

          I also wonder why you are forced to believe?
          And these questions still remain; how is your "everything always was and will be" belief useful for anyone, at any time? How would it help humans to expand on the knowledge that exists today? What would qualify it as a valid scientific theory? Where's, for example, the falsifiability or predictability?
      • thumb
        Mar 22 2012: Hi Pontus.
        "What would make the old earth part subject to belief..."
        It is not testable in the same way that gravity is. So far empirical evidence of macro evolution remains elusive. Radio metric dating is reliant on many assumptions about the past, which are not testable. C14 dating can be calibrated using artefacts, but that only helps for recorded history. So really we need faith that the theorists are correct. I am in the same position with the bible, but as my belief system is within recorded history, there is written evidence. Still need faith that it's right.

        "I read up on the flood, turns out there is not enough water on this planet,"
        Where did you read that? Might I suggest a couple of resources . For my side "answersingenesis", for a contra view (evolution) " TalkOrigins ". If you bob back & forth you will get both sides.
        The flood was as much to do with earth movements as water. Think for a moment; if the earth was billiard ball smooth, a couple of gallons would cover the whole planet. The water currently above land (there is more below), would cover a smooth earth to a depth of some 1.5 km deep. As a matter of interest, there are marine fossils on Mt. Everett.

        Maybe kangaroos did go to Russia & got wiped out.

        "And these questions still remain; how is your "everything always was and will be" belief useful for anyone, at any time? "
        The bible is quite categoric; the universe had a beginning & it will have an end. "Everything always was & will be" was a evolutionary belief until the last couple of hundred years ."The present is the key to the past" was an evolutionary saying, & gave them faith to assume that today's conditions could be relied upon to extrapolate back in time.

        I get the feeling this is new territory for you. It is a really interesting subject, check out the websites with an open mind & have fun.

        :-)
        • Mar 22 2012: Ha!

          The same answersingenesis where if anything contradicts the bible it has to be wrong?

          Empirical evidence for macro-evolution remains elusive? Really? Tens of fossils of hominids are not empirical evidence? Fossils showing transitions between land-living mammals and whales are not empirical evidence? Fossils occurring where they should occur are not empirical evidence? The patterns in the fossil record showing changes in floras and faunas are not empirical evidence? The biogeographical patterns of species distributions that make sense in both classification and evolutionary expectations are not empirical evidence? Inserted viruses are not empirical evidence? Cross validation of radiometric dating is not empirical evidence? The coincidence among various evidences are not empirical evidence?

          Come on Pete. You should say "I rather ignore the mountains of empirical evidence for macro-evolution because I don't want it to be true, in the meantime I accept everything answersingenesis says despite they openly, explicitly, and proudly start with their conclusion and reject everything that contradicts it."

          Edit: Please stop coming up with that authoritative tone just before writing nonsense: "Everything was and will be" has never been an evolutionary anything. Since when has the present not being a key to the past? This is not just about extrapolations, you know? Such a simplistic view shows that creationists rather trust quacks who have taught this to them, than learn about science proper.
        • thumb
          Mar 22 2012: The fact there are fossils of marine organisms on Mt Everest just confirms tectonic theory which requires geologic time scales. You said yourself Peter that a smooth Earth could flood to a depth of 1.5km. As Mt Everest is almost 9km tall I still don't see how the flood gets the fossils up there, unless Mt Everest has grown since the flood. YEC won't allow any explanation. Geology tells us that limestone forms under the ocean and tectonic movement buckles the crust to form mountains over million of years. If you doubt tectonics I sugest you go to Iceland. You can actually watch it happen there. BTW there are several good books on plant evolution available through Amazon.com
      • thumb
        Mar 22 2012: Well Gabo.
        You know my answers by now.
        Maybe you can help young Simply with her question. Tree evolution isn't exactly easy to get info on. I'm not much help to her; she seems convinced they did evolve. Maybe you could fill her in with some detail.

        :-)
      • thumb
        Mar 23 2012: Hi Peter.
        How do we know How long it takes tectonic plates to move? They are moving slowly today; maybe they are just grinding to a halt having been faster in the past.

        This is the verse that spawned the Pangea theory. If all the water was in one place, then the land must also have been in one place. (I don't personally endorse Pangea, but it's interesting.
        Genesis 1:9 (NIV)
        And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.

        Most flood models have lower hills on the original earth, with the seabed rising, & subterranean water opening up the tectonic cracks, causing major tectonic movement.
        Psalm 46:2-3 (NIV)
        Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea, [3] though its waters roar and foam and the mountains quake with their surging.

        After a while the land rose up & the seabed sank down. The water ran off the land causing great valleys & canyons to be cut in the newly deposited mud & silt.
        Psalm 104:6-8 (NIV)
        You covered it with the watery depths as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. [7] But at your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of your thunder they took to flight; [8] they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place you assigned for them.

        This is necessarily a very incomplete explanation, but there are lots out there. Many smart geologists have spent many years studying this very thing.

        I put this in just for fun. I read a theory recently which agreed with sea floor spreading, but was very sceptical about subduction. So the earth started with very little sea, & much smaller in diameter. As the sea floor spread, the land split into the continents & the planet grew in size. Don't believe it, but it shows folks are thinking.
        This has nothing to do with tree evolution.

        :-)
    • Mar 20 2012: Pete,

      Your comment is awfully wrong (and ignorant, sorry, you really need to work on that undeserving authoritative tone). There is no evidence whatsoever that plants evolved "in q" for oxygen needing organisms. Quite the contrary, there is lots of evidence that oxygen levels elevated before we could see any forms that would be obviously oxygen needing organisms. Oxygen was first a poison. So, survival depended on having adaptations, first to resist, later for using the oxygen. After all, it became quite abundant. Further, oxygen levels were higher and later the evolution of consumers levelled it down until some equilibrium has been reached (which we are breaking now). Lots of evidence. Oxygen increased in q for nothing but with the presence and success of photosynthesizes. Then decreased as oxygen duelling and using organisms evolved too. The whole thing aligns all right with an evolutionary scenario. Just like many other things. One big evolutionary item changes the environment, then others things evolve as a consequence, and the thing equilibrates. All quite understandable if you understand evolution.

      Best.

      P.S. There is no "coincidence" that photosynthesis captures CO2 into carbohydrates and releases oxygen and then you capture oxygen to go from carbohydrates to CO2 (see the "O2" in "CO2"? Where do you think the "O2" comes from?). After all, one goes in one direction (helped by the energy of the sun), while the other extracts the stored energy from the carbohydrates going all the way back. Simple chemistry. What goes in goes out. I understand why you use that kind of rhetoric. But being yourself an engineer (if I remember correctly), this should be obvious, and you should be able to spot the rhetorical trick and avoid it.
    • thumb
      Mar 20 2012: The "plants" did wait around for a billion years or so before animals managed to use their waste for something. It only looks like it happened conveniently if you ignore the time scale. You could just as easily say that it was a good thing plants moved onto the land just in time for terrestrial animals to evolve but again you would be ignoring the hundred million years between these two events.
      • thumb
        Mar 20 2012: Hi Guys.
        It's like a firing squad reunion, me versus the world. I love it. These guys are like you Simply, they believed trees evolved, & no doubt will answer your question. I don't think they evolved at all; but hey, what do I know ?

        Harald.
        "The first oxygen producers were some kind of cyanobacterium. They existed long before any oxygen consuming creatures popped up."
        How can you possibly know that, you weren't even a twinkle in your Dad's eye.

        Orlando.
        "we can make references to the bible and talk about evolution but this only explains the how....."
        Did someone mention the bible ?
        "To get to my point, I think if one is to touch up on the "why" part of Simply question they would also have to answer why does anything exist in the first place and I do not think this is something that can be answered, even by God himself."
        He answered it already, He wants children, just like we do.

        Pontus.
        "....source to construct the conclusion that Creationism can not possibly work logically. You really can't argue against it. "
        Oh yes I can........tell him Gabo..

        Gabo.
        Glad you're still speaking to me, I know I'm a pain. That's my job :)
        ".....whole thing aligns all right with an evolutionary scenario."
        I would expect nothing less from you, but we weren't there; so we don't know. If we need to cut god out of the equation then you are very logical. To my eyes there is no way this show could get on the road without a very smart guy indeed in control.
        "P.S. There is no "coincidence" that photosynthesis captures CO2 into carbohydrates and....." I agree; I don't believe in coincidence either. The very fact that we understand it tells me we have a similar logic to the guy who thought it up.

        Peter.
        I don't ignore the timescale, I am on a totally different one. The oxy is in balance. If it wasn't we'd be dead, & chances are so would the plants. 2-choices, plan or coincidence. Like I said above; I don't believe in coincidences.

        :-)
        • Mar 20 2012: Gabo is not an argument. Please try again!
        • thumb
          Mar 20 2012: The plants were perfectly happy for a billion years before we started eating them and we know this because you can accurately date fossils by measuring the balance of long lived radioisotopes. Had animals never come along the plants would be very different but would still be here. Anyway its the funguses that return the majority of plant matter back into the cycle.
        • thumb
          Mar 20 2012: Peter, sometimes, when I have to point you into the right direction, I feel actually bad. It's a bit like telling a kid that Santa doesn't exist, knowing exactly how much the belief in Santa means to him.
          But at least you are a sport. You take it usually with humor. I also appreciate your perseverance against all odds. It's only unfortunate that this energy is misdirected.
          As to the cyanobacterium. Ever heard about fossils ? I know, I know, fossils don't fit your young earth views.
        • Mar 21 2012: Pete,

          If we were not there how can you possibly say that these things happened "exactly on q"? You should try and be consistent. If you think you know that, how come we should not know it was not so? Unless of course it is all rhetoric on your side. Then being inconsistent has no consequence as long as nobody notices and you get away with the rhetoric.

          That we were not there does not mean we can't know. Only creationists try to escape by that route. But, let us not forget, you were not there to see any god(s) creating anything either. So, at least we look at the evidence then conclude. You look at that book, reject any evidence, and there is no way to take you out of your "conclusion" which is actually your unmovable premise. That makes no sense whatsoever. So, we are much better off. We try to understand what the evidence tells us. You reject anything that would contradict what you rather believe.

          Edit: That atoms would balance is nothing requiring supernatural intervention. Nor something requiring any intelligence. It is obvious. Come on. You tried the rhetoric first ("how convenient we breath what they produce, they use the gasses we excrete"), now you don't hesitate to backpedal without acknowledging your, ahem, mistake? (Adding another layer of rhetoric in the process.)

          Best as always.
  • thumb
    Mar 18 2012: Plants of all types use energy just like animals. The difference is that plants get this energy from a source that comes to them. Moving around is just a waste of energy if you don't need to do it. Therefore plants that are stationary have more energy resources left to put into reproduction. Trees in particular grew ever larger to get thier leaves away from large herbivores. There are plenty of animals that have evolved a stationary lifestyle for the same reasons. Barnacles, tube worms, corals etc all let the water bring food to them as they have found a niche where being stationary is more efficient.
  • Mar 18 2012: You have a point Simply Noor. Maybe they are playing games with us or maybe they are smarter than we are. Perhaps they just sit around waiting for interesting people and animala to come to them and then they eavesdrop on the conversations as people rest against their bark or as birds chirp while sitting on their branches. Yeah, when I look at trees, I get the impression they know exactly what they are doing.