Do trees evolve?

Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I'm just jealous of your "living like a caveman" lifestyle.
The wife gets mads when I eat stuff that has fallen on the floor. Gets irate when I try to explain that germs are the cornerstone of a healthy immune system.
 
....I was just looking for reference about trees and what an oak tree was way back when.

Technically, an oak tree was not anything way back when - as the story goes, at some point the ancestors ceased being, and the new genus emerged. There are theories about which other (no longer existing) genus may have been ancestors (Dryophyllum), but a hole between those theoretical ancestors and the species as we currently know it. It is also thought that Quercus and Castanea divereged from each other at some point...but again, no species that really links those two together all that well.
 
Macroevolution is a theory. First definitions-Macroevolution-evolving from one genus to another (examples horse to giraffe, oak to maple), microevolution-adapting to conditions (leaves thinner and larger in low light conditions, more bluish waxy coating on blue spruce when growing in harsher climates). With microevolution you can get differing characteristics within a genus over time but it is still the same genus (an oak is still an oak, a cat is still a cat). Microevolution is observable and a fact, macroevolution is not observable and is a theory. There are too many problems with macroevolution to say it is a fact. The linking fossil record is one problem. To get from a horse-like creature to a giraffe there would be many "in between" stages that link one to another and this would be evident in the fossil record. It is not. When you see the depictions at a museum that show this it is mostly an artists depiction of what they think happened and not backed up in the fossil record. If you remember from high school the depiction of the stooped over ape through the upright human, again this is mostly an artists depiction. In fact the few that they have fossil records from, when you put them in the order from the rock layers they were found in, they get all out of order (some of the upright forms come before the stooped over knuckle dragging forms. I think I have actually worked with some of the knuckle dragging forms and I'm not millions of years old, unless you listen to my kids. Many other problems with physics, chemistry, geology, mathematics, and biology for me to agree that macroevolution is a fact. I don't have a problem with them teaching it as a theory but show me the problems with it also. I know this wasn't the case when I was taught it in school. Check it out for yourselves. Most people have an agenda when teaching on this subject. I have an agenda, I believe in a Creator, so check out the facts yourselves.
 
Macroevolution is a theory. First definitions-Macroevolution-evolving from one genus to another (examples horse to giraffe, oak to maple), microevolution-adapting to conditions (leaves thinner and larger in low light conditions, more bluish waxy coating on blue spruce when growing in harsher climates). With microevolution you can get differing characteristics within a genus over time but it is still the same genus (an oak is still an oak, a cat is still a cat). Microevolution is observable and a fact, macroevolution is not observable and is a theory. There are too many problems with macroevolution to say it is a fact. The linking fossil record is one problem. To get from a horse-like creature to a giraffe there would be many "in between" stages that link one to another and this would be evident in the fossil record. It is not. When you see the depictions at a museum that show this it is mostly an artists depiction of what they think happened and not backed up in the fossil record. If you remember from high school the depiction of the stooped over ape through the upright human, again this is mostly an artists depiction. In fact the few that they have fossil records from, when you put them in the order from the rock layers they were found in, they get all out of order (some of the upright forms come before the stooped over knuckle dragging forms. I think I have actually worked with some of the knuckle dragging forms and I'm not millions of years old, unless you listen to my kids. Many other problems with physics, chemistry, geology, mathematics, and biology for me to agree that macroevolution is a fact. I don't have a problem with them teaching it as a theory but show me the problems with it also. I know this wasn't the case when I was taught it in school. Check it out for yourselves. Most people have an agenda when teaching on this subject. I have an agenda, I believe in a Creator, so check out the facts yourselves.

Well said.
 
Plants evolve, just like any living thing.
In fact it wasn't till 140 million years ago that flowering plants evolved and that coincides with the evolution of insects needed to pollinate them.

prove it
 
Devilution becomes you.


"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”

Max Planck

It is pointless to argue with ignorant people -- they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.... :rock:
 
And dinosours are very bitter, It only took me tree times to spell dinosaur correctly, I think.

Tell me someone noticed "it only took me TREE times…'" I thought I was pretty funny on that one…give me a bone. Ok, so I'm not quitting my day job.
 
Also, redwoods are also the only species that dates back to the dinosaur, every other has evolved since then.

You may find a few other trees to add the that list. Gingko Ginkgo biloba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Nothofagus Wollemi Pine Wollemia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia have been around awhile.

Interesting story to tell about the possible evolution or adaptation to changed climate from the snow & ice of Gondwanaland land to the tropical forest of pacific rim lands and ocean island for Araucaria bidwillii, the bunya pine and the Araucaria araucana monkey puzzle and other of Araucaria.

Climate change and conservation of Araucaria angustifolia in Brazil

CONCLUSIONS

Genetic variation is necessary for adaptation of tree species and populations to environmental changes and is a precondition for conservation. More efficient strategies for conservation, whether in situ or ex situ, can be established only based on knowledge about environmental requirements and variation patterns of targeted species and forest types, combined with future climate change scenarios.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top