Hi guys,

Can science please explain the seed and how it came into being? Any seed will do.

Good luck

c20

This is an idiots guide to plant evolution c20. Just for you.

The Quiet Evlolution of Trees (http://www.ecology.com/feature-stories/quiet-evolution-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.

Hi guys,

Can science please explain the seed and how it came into being? Any seed will do.

Good luck

c20

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

Hans

Hi Hans,

Thanks for answering a thicko patiently :)

But just a different phenotype of a lemon tree? Still a lemon tree? It's gene sequence is very different from that of an orange tree for example.

peace

c20

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

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?

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 . I cannot see how evolution would not give rise to cannabalism?

Answers most welcome.

Thanks for your patience.
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

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?

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.

I think the first seeds came from the combination of water and earth by the help of the wind and sun.

Of course if your hypothesis is correct there would be no more common algae today because it would have evolved already.

This statement clearly shows how little you understand of the subject matter. I would advise and urge you to perhaps buy a book regarding the topic from your local retailer.

But just a different phenotype of a lemon tree? Still a lemon tree? It's gene sequence is very different from that of an orange tree for example.

And after all that, still part of the same family.

I promise you I am just trying to be objective.

:eek:

If there is a God..

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
c20, have you ever seen blooms of blue-green algae? They still exist today. When the conditions are right, blue-green algae can and does bloom and if left unchecked, they don't stop spreading. And they spread very very quickly.

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.

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.

Agreed. This is why Jesus said "I AM THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA"

All in All

peace

c20

Yo c20,

Quote c20 quoting Jesus:
" This is why Jesus said "I AM THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA"

Where did Jesus say this?

Ahem.

Yo c20,

Quote c20 quoting Jesus:
" This is why Jesus said "I AM THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA"

Where did Jesus say this?

Ahem.

The words of John

Revelations Chapter 1 vs 8-11 - Holy Bible of The Christian Faith

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.
I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

peace

c20

Hey c20 dude,

That is what John said Jesus said, that you said. Thats hearsay. John was in the spirit (in his cups I presume), he heard a voice behind him say this stuff. He did not see Jesus. It could have been god.

Ahem.

Hey c20 dude,

That is what John said Jesus said, that you said. Thats hearsay. John was in the spirit (in his cups I presume), he heard a voice behind him say this stuff. He did not see Jesus. It could have been god.

Ahem.

A better question is why would anyone write it in the first place :eek:

peace

c20

c20,

The evolution theory offers a incremental development of seeds.
If I ask you the origin of seeds, your answer will probably be "God created it".
So, can you explain your view on how God created it in full details?

c20,

The evolution theory offers a incremental development of seeds.
If I ask you the origin of seeds, your answer will probably be "God created it".
So, can you explain your view on how God created it in full details?

He said "Let there be..."

At least that's my understanding of it. I am afraid I have no other explanation.

peace

c20

He said "Let there be..."

At least that's my understanding of it. I am afraid I have no other explanation.

peace

c20

And that is considered an "explanation"?

How do you know He said "Let there be..."? Because that was the written opinion of someone?

c20,

No, you should need a more concrete explanation for others and YOURSELF.
You can explain that God guided the evolution path, then this explanation is at least plausible and the science-oriented community can stop bugging you.
You can say you believe in Genesis. So, at which stage (day) were seeds created?
From what material? Did they just come into existence and suddenly appeared out of thin air? Is it like you turn on the TV and the world scene immediately came into existence?

When you are challeging others, better be equipped with an convincing answer.

c20,

No, you should need a more concrete explanation for others and YOURSELF.
You can explain that God guided the evolution path, then this explanation is at least plausible and the science-oriented community can stop bugging you.
You can say you believe in Genesis. So, at which stage (day) were seeds created?
From what material? Did they just come into existence and suddenly appeared out of thin air? Is it like you turn on the TV and the world scene immediately came into existence?

When you are challeging others, better be equipped with an convincing answer.

I can only answer with the faith I have. I am not particulary interested in how things were created, just who created them. The Creator seems to be much more worthwhile to seek answers from than the creation itself given that we die.
So I asked him how it was made and He said "I made them for you. This is sufficient for you."
I cannot given you anymore than that.

peace

c20

At the beginning, there was a giant known as Pan gu. After his death, his eyes became the sun and the moon, his flesh became the land and his blood seas and rivers, his hair the plants and seeds.
I am afraid I have no other explanation.

Do you consider I pass your challenge or not?

At the beginning, there was a giant known as Pan gu. After his death, his eyes became the sun and the moon, his flesh became the land and his blood seas and rivers, his hair the plants and seeds.
I am afraid I have no other explanation.

Do you consider I pass your challenge or not?

You are saying that these things derived their existence from God. I agree. The bit I would perhaps challenge is the death of God. God would need to be eternal and all-powerful in order to grant eternal life to other living beings.
You see if God exists and we exist, we have a battle of wills given that we know we cannot prevent out own deaths. We should be like baby birds crying out to their mother. Our deaths mock us. We should stand up for our rights and demand eternal life. The thing is that if we did live forever in our current state, we would always have our own battle of wills, refusing to submit to one another especially given that we are now immortal in this hypothetical situation.
If we are bold before God on an individual basis and submit to him and ask Him for eternal life then we all find ourselves on an even footing. There can be no more battle of wills because we all have to give up our personal sovreignty and humbly ask for life eternal from the One who can grant it. This is the only way to live in peace with eachother forever. This was Jesus' message. It's a narrow gate but it is open. God wants us to ask but we just keep going our own way to our deaths and if you dont ask you dont get.
The thing is that when you ask Him, you have to believe "It is done" and the only way you can know if that is true is by looking at the life, death and ressurection of Jesus Christ from the Bible. If you read the bible with faith and believe that it is what it is, the mysteries of Christ become quite apparent. This is why it is written "For those who have ears to hear..." in other words, if you are prepared to submit to God, He is instantly faithful to you and you are saved. The blood of Jesus poured out was the final covenant between God and man. "This is how much I love you, just so you know." - this was what the blood of Jesus said. The blood is the covenant. All man has to do is claim that blood and "It is done".

peace

c20
peace

c20

Well, I respect your belief but this simply is not an adequate answer to your posed challenge (at least for many atheists). Also, I don't see how Jesus came into the picture for the creation of seeds. If I believe Genesis, Genesis accounts for the existence of seeds. Jesus? Final Covenant? I am really confused, I am just looking for an answer for the existence of seeds.

Well, I respect your belief but this simply is not an adequate answer to your posed challenge (at least for many atheists). Also, I don't see how Jesus came into the picture for the creation of seeds. If I believe Genesis, Genesis accounts for the existence of seeds. Jesus? Final Covenant? I am really confused, I am just looking for an answer for the existence of seeds.

Lol, this was my challenge to you guys.
I say God made them. Your challenge is to prove He didn't ;)

peace

c20

Lol, this was my challenge to you guys.
I say God made them. Your challenge is to prove He didn't ;)

peace

c20

I say it was aliens. You prove it wasn't. How about faeries? No, it was spirits.

Your challenge is ridiculous.

Seeds came to be because if they wouldn't have, there'd be no trees. Since there are trees, we can infer that once the requirement of survival found its way into our universe in the most simple form like bacteria, it couldn't have survived without offspring. Errors in those offspring found themselves both more fit to survive and less. Those that were less, died. Those that were more, didn't and went on to do it again.

In essence, the need for survival can be viewed as a desire to stop time, or to project this moment onto all of time. IMO, that indicates that survival itself is actually indicative of conditions with our physical dimensionality creating a means by which forces from higher dimensionality interface with them.

Bah, it's hard to explain.

Your challenge is ridiculous.

I know.

He said "Let there be..."

At least that's my understanding of it. I am afraid I have no other explanation.

peace

c20

C2O have you ever read the true hebrew translations of the old testament, or at least tried to really understand what it is saying? Most of the things that God created were actually metaphors in the Hebrew language....for instance Adam, in hebrew translates closest to the word 'dust', and Eve means 'living' which could change the interpretation of the creation story. There are many examples of this, so you may want to do your research, and you may find that the bible actually does leave a lot of room for evolution to make sense, even the in scripture. Since your faith is based on the scripture of the old and new testament, maybe you should actually study it the way it was meant to be studied: in Hebrew.

I would also reccoment reading some modern sources on evolutionary theory. If you want an easy read check out "A brief history of nearly everything" by Bill Bryson....but if you want a little more depth, just go look at the Biology section in your local Barnes and Nobel.

All scripture points to the Lord. You could burn every bible in the world and He would remain in me.

peace

c20

What? You make no sense. If you want to base faith on a book, you have to understand what the book truly means, and in order to do that, you must go to the original translation.....thats common sense. I am truly sorry that you are so ignorant in your King James or NIV translation.....open your eyes a bit, it may cure the blindness.

Faith is not rational. It's practical. One's circumstance decrees the requirements of practicality. For many people, the notion of god is quite practical. I believe the topic poster's intent was to communicate that his faith is indepedent of the continued existence of scripture.

But the thing that he is 'faithful' to is completely dependent on what scripture tells him. Therefore he must truly know and study the scripture to understand what his faith is based in...no? Doesnt it also somewhere say that the christain should love the lord, his god, with all of his heart, mind, and soul? Doesn't that imply that the one who loves his lord should truly know what he is devoting himself to?

But the thing that he is 'faithful' to is completely dependent on what scripture tells him. Therefore he must truly know and study the scripture to understand what his faith is based in...no? Doesnt it also somewhere say that the christain should love the lord, his god, with all of his heart, mind, and soul? Doesn't that imply that the one who loves his lord should truly know what he is devoting himself to?

Please try to understand that God Is.

If you want to understand me or communicate with me where I am, you must try and at least accept that I at least believe God Is. If we can start communication from that basis it will be easier for both of us.

Thanks

c20

Burn all the bibles and the impression they left upon his psyche remains. The details of the belief as in "what one should do" are basically irrelevant, as any person is constrained at any time by their circumstance. I don't know exactly what he thinks the scriptures tell him to do. I only know that regardless, take all the bibles away and he still has the impression they left upon him.

People adapt. Take away the word of god, and watch the task of worship change from reading to writing. Instead of divining through the word, they'd see if they can divine and share the word. Eventually a council would get together and determine who was most divine and should be included in the new holy scriptures, etc.

If you accept the circular logic of religion or god, you accept it. There's no way out unless you reject it.

Please try to understand that God Is.

If you want to understand me or communicate with me where I am, you must try and at least accept that I at least believe God Is. If we can start communication from that basis it will be easier for both of us.

Thanks

c20

Why do you believe that "God is"?

Note that I will constantly refute any explanation you give. Over to you.

If you're inside the circle, refutations are simply rebounded by it.

I present exhibit A:

I Am Who Is << That is His Name. It's a name that speaks for itself. It is a Holy name. Innocent. Everlasting. Prince of Peace. King of Kings. Lord of Lords.

Deny it if you will. As for me and mine we will serve the Lord.

peace

c20

Why do you believe that "God is"?

Note that I will constantly refute any explanation you give. Over to you.

I Am Who Is << That is His Name. It's a name that speaks for itself. It is a Holy name. Innocent. Everlasting. Prince of Peace. King of Kings. Lord of Lords.

Deny it if you will. As for me and mine we will serve the Lord.

peace

c20

Tell me, how do you know His name is "I Am Who Is".

I Am Who Is << That is His Name. It's a name that speaks for itself. It is a Holy name. Innocent. Everlasting. Prince of Peace. King of Kings. Lord of Lords.

Deny it if you will. As for me and mine we will serve the Lord.

peace

c20

Here are some other "I am" type statements from a "book from Satan himself":

http://college.hmco.com/history/west/mosaic/chapter1/source115.html

I seem to recall other deities besides the "God of the book of Exodus" being called similar names to "I am who I am" or "I shall be what I shall be" or however one renders it exactly.

I accept the fact that you believe that God is. But you also accept the fact that the Bible is infallible. To understand the inerrancy of the Bible, you must understand the that the Bible is written as a poetical book, and in itself, poetry is not meant to be taken literally. There is lots of metaphor in the Bible, and in order to truly comprehend what the Bible is saying, you must understand the metaphor.

He said "Let there be..."Now we know the truth... the Beatles are the alpha and omega. The Beatles are god. Yoko Ono is actually the devil.

Seeds were born when the Beatles traveled back in time and one of them got sick. Evidently he had too many sunflower seeds.

THE END.

Hi Hans,

Thanks for answering a thicko patiently :)

But just a different phenotype of a lemon tree? Still a lemon tree? It's gene sequence is very different from that of an orange tree for example.

peace

c20If a sufficient number of generations of slightly different lemon trees happen, then it is entirely different. But the gene sequence may not be that different, for example Chimpanzees and humans share over 95% of the gene sequence.

Hans