If we are a product of evolution why the need of specific elements in nature?

by cyberjesus 52 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  cyberjesus

  For years I believed that God had created all the plants and their elements and nutrients specifically for us.

  Yesterday as I was walking at the Getty Museum was smelling the garlic plants in the Garden and made me wonder. If we are a product of evolution and the survival of the fittest, why do we depend on a wide variety of plants to survive? We need vitamins and minerals and all those products are found in the plants, fruits, vegetables, etc. So if we are just evolving why do we need of specific nutrients. It seems as if we didnt evolve alone as if we are connected to the earth in itself.

  I am having a hard time presenting my question, so I apologize for it. My point is, If we evolved, then the plants also evolved. How come the plants have things we need. It is as if the plants were designed for us, otherwise why do they have the exact nutrients that we need to survive. What theory says that the things that evolve also will provide food for others? Arent we evolving independently? unless we are somehow also connected to the earth.
• 

  VoidEater

  Everything is interconnected.

  We evolve along with everything else that evolves with us. We are not, and never have been, islands - psychologically, emotionally, or physically.

  That life is interdependent shows that the biosphere developed together. We weren't just plopped down here in the middle of a fully formed world.

  We could not have evolved in a vacuum. We evolved in the environment that provides what we need.
• 

  cofty

  Not sure if this is an answer to your question but vitamin C is an interesting example. We need to get regular supplies of it from fruit in particular otherwise we get ill. Lack of Vitamin C caused scurvy in the British Navy in the 19th C.

  Many animals can manufacture vitamin C. We have the genes to make our own vitamin C but the gene is broken. It has become a pseudo-gene, a relic like an old broken machine in a factory. Interestingly chimps have exactly the same broken gene in their genome.

  Maybe what your thinking about is an example of kind of symbiotic relationship.
• 

  HintOfLime

  It seems as if we didnt evolve alone as if we are connected to the earth in itself. I am having a hard time presenting my question, so I apologize for it. My point is, If we evolved, then the plants also evolved.

  That's the general idea. There are many dependent and co-dependent systems in nature that evolutionary biologists have dissected. Just because two or more systems are dependent or co-dependent does not rule out evolution - in fact in many cases they strongly support evolution. Dawkins lectures on this subject in "The Ultraviolet Garden" portion of his "Growing Up in the Universe" series.

  How come the plants have things we need.

  We eat them (and then only the ones) which have the ones we need. They do not supply 100% of everything we need, and we do not eat 100% (or anywhere close) to the available plant varieties on earth. We must also eat other sources of fat & protein including meat to have a healthy diet. Some plants not only don't supply what we need, some are of course very harmful. In some lands inhabitants have to boil certain foods multiple times in order to remove toxins from them. Plants just offer a large 'grocery store' of organic compounds, some of which we can use, and some we must avoid.

  For some plants it is evolutionarily beneficial for them to be toxic (fewer things eat them, and thus, they survive).. and for others it has been evolutionarily beneficial for them to produce large, eatable fruits (humans and their ancestors farm them, and thus, they survive).

  Some animals eat dirt, or engage in other behaviors in order to get all the nutrients they need. These behaviors survived because the ones that performed them survive and the ones that didn't got weak and died off.

  It is as if the plants were designed for us, otherwise why do they have the exact nutrients that we need to survive.

  If an animal could not survive off of what exists on earth - be it plants, animals, fungi, algae, etc... then that species would die, and thus would not be here. As Dawkins points out... plants are not here for our benefit, nor are animals there for plants benefit (though they do benefit from animals in various ways). We evolved together, and relationships developed that are mutually beneficial.

  The short answer is, of course: If things had evolved differently and plants did not provide the nutrients needed for animal life.. we wouldn't be here asking this question (that's not to say, however, that intelligent life of some other form couldn't exist.)
• 

  BurnTheShips

  It isn't so much that the plants are designed for us, it is that we adapted to available plants. Let me give you an example. Humans don't synthesize vitamin C in their bodies. No primate does. This is because we descended from tree dwelling fruit eaters. All the needed C was in the diet. Other animals, such as lions, don't need to get vitamin C in their diets like we do. Their bodies make it. They are carnivores and don't get much dietary C.

  If an organism doesn't need something anymore to survive, over generations it will probably lose that ability. There is an energy-cost related to keeping a "feature". If the "feature" isn't needed, you lose it. For example, would you want to pay for air conditioning for your car if you lived near the north pole? Probably not. The cost of maintaining the system is a waste. Running the system in subzero temperatures will waste fuel for no good reason. You will try to save the money and maintenance by purchasing a vehicle without the feature. That's probably what happened to us.

  Think of blind cave fish. They lost their eyes after many generations of living in the dark. Also, at the same time that our ancestors evolved to eat fruit, the plants adapted to the circumstances we created. If fruit eating animals help spread seeds far and wide (which is beneficial to the plant) then the plant may evolve tasty nutritious fruit to attract the fruit eaters. It is a symbiosis. Give and take. A lot of evolution is actually not competition, but cooperation.

  In other words, what Void said.

  BTS
• 

  SirNose586

  If fruit eating animals help spread seeds far and wide (which is beneficial to the plant) then the plant may evolve tasty nutritious fruit to attract the fruit eaters. It is a symbiosis. Give and take. A lot of evolution is actually not competition, but cooperation.

  Great point about the fruit. Flowering plants comprise over 90% of the plants on this planet (and I think it's actually closer to 100%, but I forget the exact percentage). Flowers and fruit are successful ideas, so they spread far and wide...
• 

  villabolo

  Cyberjesus, you are putting the cart before the horse. Everything evolves from the simple to the complex (occasionally simplifying itself again). Everything, plants and animals included, co-evolve together, at the same time. If a hypothetical type of animal has a certain need for specific elements, amino-acids etc. and the plants did not have it, that animal would not have come into being in the first place or would redirect their evolution toward using elements that plants do have.

  There is, thus, no need to think of anything as having been "designed for us" or for that matter designed for animals and bacteria, fungi etc.. As for our being connected to the Earth, all living things are connected to the Earth. As far as evolving independently yes and no. All species, in their relation to the Earth, are like a million facets on one jewel.

  villabolo
• 

  paul from cleveland

  For me, the question is not whether life evolves but rather is it really possible for life to arise from non-living matter at all.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  For me, the question is not whether life evolves but rather is it really possible for life to arise from non-living matter at all.

  It is very possible, and easy to imagine if you think about it. There are molecules that self replicate when in the right environment. They also adapt. That pretty much meets many definitions of what life is: self-sustaining things that reproduce and adapt.

  Occasionally, the molecular replication isn't perfect and part of the molecule population comes to have a variation. Sometimes the variation even leads to better replication or self-sustainability. By imperfect replication these molecules often show adaptation to changing conditions and develop better adapted, faster replicating variations. It isn't hard to imagine such molecules growing larger, more complex or even combining with each other over time.

  Between large, complex organic molecules and the simplest organisms, it isn't a difference of type, but of degree.

  BTS
• 

  HintOfLime

  It is very possible, and easy to imagine if you think about it. There are molecules that self replicate when in the right environment. They also adapt. That pretty much meets many definitions of what life is: self-sustaining things that reproduce and adapt.

  I just thought I'd throw in this video that is probably related to what BurnTheShips is refering to (not really a scientific reference, but a good starting point for anyone interested in current abiogenesis theories.)

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

  - Lime