Oldest Forest

[Boydstun]

 

Earth's Oldest Forest

[Boydstun]

 

The Brits Are Claiming 390 Million Years Ago,

Topping the US 385 Million Years Ago.

[tadmjones]

Would the proto-types of the proto-types of modern trees have been fossilized at the time their fossilization occurred? 
 

And I suppose we are still the New World, lol.

But certainly not on a young Earth , well relatively anyway

[EC]

8 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Would the proto-types of the proto-types of modern trees have been fossilized at the time their fossilization occurred? 

Were they fossilized when they when fossilized? Not being rude but unless I'm misunderstanding what you are actually asking the answer is clearly yes. Also remember, that the vast majority of that ancient plant life is what we now use to run our vehicles though. 

In walks the mystics: "Hey guys, you know none of this is possible because everything is really only like 8000 years old!" LOL 

[tadmjones]

52 minutes ago, EC said:

Were they fossilized when they when fossilized? Not being rude but unless I'm misunderstanding what you are actually asking the answer is clearly yes. Also remember, that the vast majority of that ancient plant life is what we now use to run our vehicles though. 

In walks the mystics: "Hey guys, you know none of this is possible because everything is really only like 8000 years old!" LOL 

So you accept that rate of plant evolution is relatively linear? The proto types of the proto-types of tree/ferns mentioned were in the process of evolving for the prior 350 million years? I was under the impression that a rough estimate is like a billion years after the earth formed and ‘cooled’ , attained a state that we would recognize as earth like now, unicellular life got started and then maintained a rather static almost homeostasis rate of growth but not development , for as much as a few billions years of nothing but unicellular life forms until bam! eukaryotes!

I think eukaryotes fossils are like 1.9 billion years old , looks like fits and spurts there , but maybe linear if the ages are misaligned, I suppose.

And isn’t fossil fuels really a misnomer ? 

Edited March 8 by tadmjones

[Boydstun]

12 hours ago, tadmjones said:

. . .

And isn’t fossil fuels really a misnomer ? 

Tad, the picture I'm getting is that when something petrified comes to mind at the word "fossil", it is only by typicality. Like when one thinks of a mouse or rat at the word "rodent". "Fossil" seems to really mean merely the product of minerals replacing living tissue. My Encyclopedia Britannica says that fossilization is process by which the remains or traces of plants or animals are preserved in the earth's crust. I notice that fossils are always sources of information on earlier life forms or sources of energy to people with appropriate background knowledge. However, that does not seem to be part of the definition (by use).

On emergence of angiosperms: A, B

Edited March 8 by Boydstun

[Boydstun]

Correction to preceding post: as I understand so far, angiosperms are NOT the types of tree whose fossils are showing the oldest forests. Perhaps pertinent focus should be on Tree Fern, which were earlier than fruit trees (angiosperm) talked of in the Garden of Eden story.

[EC]

13 hours ago, tadmjones said:

So you accept that rate of plant evolution is relatively linear? The proto types of the proto-types of tree/ferns mentioned were in the process of evolving for the prior 350 million years? I was under the impression that a rough estimate is like a billion years after the earth formed and ‘cooled’ , attained a state that we would recognize as earth like now, unicellular life got started and then maintained a rather static almost homeostasis rate of growth but not development , for as much as a few billions years of nothing but unicellular life forms until bam! eukaryotes!

I think eukaryotes fossils are like 1.9 billion years old , looks like fits and spurts there , but maybe linear if the ages are misaligned, I suppose.

And isn’t fossil fuels really a misnomer ? 

No. I didn't make such a claim and it was actually a bit sooner than a billion years after Earth first formed when the first life appeared. I was trying to get you to state what you were asking not make up a bunch of stuff I didn't say and attribute it to me somehow. 

[tadmjones]

11 hours ago, EC said:

No. I didn't make such a claim and it was actually a bit sooner than a billion years after Earth first formed when the first life appeared. I was trying to get you to state what you were asking not make up a bunch of stuff I didn't say and attribute it to me somehow. 

But do you think the rate of plant evolution is linear? If it is then what I said about the proto types of the proto types would/could be true right ? 

[EC]

 

But do you think the rate of plant evolution is linear? If it is then what I said about the proto types of the proto types would/could be true right ? 

Of course, slight changes over time. But that is so obvious I don't understand the point in stating it here. 

Edit: If you are asking if life evolves at times at a non-linear rate and at times accelerates exponentially then the answer is yes, for example after the great oxygenation event. There's also dead-ends and repeats like crabs.

Edited March 9 by EC

[Boydstun]

 

Earliest Sub-Canopy Tree 

– Another Summary

– Original Paper

 

[tadmjones]

On 3/8/2024 at 11:35 PM, EC said:

Of course, slight changes over time. But that is so obvious I don't understand the point in stating it here. 

Edit: If you are asking if life evolves at times at a non-linear rate and at times accelerates exponentially then the answer is yes, for example after the great oxygenation event. There's also dead-ends and repeats like crabs.

My original comment was sort of a shit post, though not as denigration to Stephen's contribution, just a semi-humorous little 'throw it out there thingy'. But our little back and forth about it has brought, at least to my mind, thoughts in tangential areas. Eg. the origin of and types of petro-chemicals colloquially or perhaps technically referred to as 'fossil fuels' , is there a distribution of 'rates' of evolution dependent on organism type? how long ago was Pangea a place? as in if we assume a linear rate of plant evolution, than is it even plausible to think the development of 'the proto-types of the proto-types' would stretch back 700 million years? and how does a timeline like that match up with the age of the planet and how that might affect developing a gauge for evolutionary 'rates'.

One of O'ism's strongest suits or powerful attributes is the importance placed on integration of non contradictory identification. For me that highlighted the idea of not only using 'logic' to identify 'facts' but has to also be coupled to the idea that all facts correctly identified need to be integrated into the set of all previously 'proven facts'.

And now your latest comment has touched on, to me anyways, a possible ontological point, but perhaps it is just me reading too much into semantics. But I am curious , when you say "life evolves" , you mean different 'forms of life' can and do evolve at rates consistent within the range of possibility and circumstances available for say an increase in 'survivablity ' of certain or various forms , or that 'life' is evolving 'through' the various forms? Is 'the vital force' changing constitution or do the germ lines of living things change? Ie that 'life' gets more complex through time ?or that organisms 'obviously' change through time by genetic variation?

Edited March 10 by tadmjones

[EC]

57 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

My original comment was sort of a shit post, though not as denigration to Stephen's contribution, just a semi-humorous little 'throw it out there thingy'. But our little back and forth about it has brought, at least to my mind, thoughts in tangential areas. Eg. the origin of and types of petro-chemicals colloquially or perhaps technically referred to as 'fossil fuels' , is there a distribution of 'rates' of evolution dependent on organism type? how long ago was Pangea a place? as in if we assume a linear rate of plant evolution, than is it even plausible to think the development of 'the proto-types of the proto-types' would stretch back 700 million years? and how does a timeline like that match up with the age of the planet and how that might affect developing a gauge for evolutionary 'rates'.

One of O'ism's strongest suits or powerful attributes is the importance placed on integration of non contradictory identification. For me that highlighted the idea of not only using 'logic' to identify 'facts' but has to also be coupled to the idea that all facts correctly identified need to be integrated into the set of all previously 'proven facts'.

And now your latest comment has touched on, to me anyways, a possible ontological point, but perhaps it is just me reading too much into semantics. But I am curious , when you say "life evolves" , you mean different 'forms of life' can and do evolve at rates consistent within the range of possibility and circumstances available for say an increase in 'survivablity ' of certain or various forms , or that 'life' is evolving 'through' the various forms? Is 'the vital force' changing constitution or do the germ lines of living things change? Ie that 'life' gets more complex through time ?or that organisms 'obviously' change through time by genetic variation?

I suggest you read about genetics and evolution. It's not my job to do your thinking and learning for you. 

[tadmjones]

28 minutes ago, EC said:

I suggest you read about genetics and evolution. It's not my job to do your thinking and learning for you. 

Now I think you've misinterpreted my motivations.

[EC]

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Now I think you've misinterpreted my motivations.

No, these are questions that can be answered via a Google search and study of the issue.  I meant exactly what you will find via study of the correct sources on the subject and nothing else.