How Flowers Conquered Earth

The earth must have been surrounded by a permanent cloud cover that suited the ferns and conifers. Ferns, moss etc seem to prefer shady spots.

At some stage in the past the conditions must have changed causing a collapse of the cloud cover leaving the habitat more favourable to flowers with the sunflower as an example of an opportunist sun seeker.

The flood as described in the Bible always had me wondering, why was the occurrence of a rainbow suddenly so important?

Maybe it was new to them because the cloud cover prevented direct sunlight from reaching the droplets.

Unlikely. God created flowers several hundred years before the flood.

I don't think Epke's comment is really off 'topic'.

The original post speculated about cloud cover. It is entirely possible that the fern's sensitivity to sunlight is a more recent development. Once the gymnosperms were demoted to second-class status, they learned to eke out a living in the shade of their new overlords. The adaptations that had allowed earlier ferns to live in direct sunlight would no longer be important and would tend to be bred out over time. One hundred million years is serious time. On the other hand it is clear that the earth was considerably warmer then, leading to higher evaporation rates for water and more clouds.

I heard somewhere that after the flood Noah used the bloated carcasses of the dinosaurs he found lying around to float the kangaroos back to Australia. It's probably just a theory...

Hmmm yes. A dry spell would play a part in the fires that undoubtedly opened up habitat for flowering plants.

It's interesting that old growth conifer forests are also home to fungi like witches brooms that concentrate flammable resins and twigs: ready to burn.

The article makes the point that soils are made more fertile by flowering plants. It's a fact, rapid cycling of annuals and perennials builds up soil with a favourable ph for their own growth. But I can tell you from my own experience, that if there are conifers near by to seed themselves into the area, they establish themselves, and their own drop of needles soon turns the soil more acid again and favourable to mosses and the like. For the soil theory to work, there would have to be really huge fires, vast areas opened up with no gymnosperms near to seed them. Or a failure of the gymnos to produce seed, is another possibility.

The biggie for evolution of flowering species is insect pollinators, afaict. Yes, some are wind pollinated, or even by mammals and birds. The whole point of the flower and fruit scheme is that it appeals to animals of one kind or another, flowers attract to come and pollinate, and then fruit attracts to eat it and disperse the seeds.

The coevolution with animals factor is more important than simply soil, IMHO.

You make a good point about the coevolution of plants and animals, and I have also observed the fertility of gymnosperms. I moved from the Sierras to Oregon a few years ago and brought along a number of potted outdoor plants. Every spring I get a new crop of Ponderosa seedlings in these pots.

But in spite of this tremendous fertility, the whole Sierra plant community is in flux. Everywhere you look there are dead and dying trees, the victims of pine bark beetles. As the current drought in the west progresses, the weakend trees become more vulnerable to these infestations. On my half acre of the forrest I lost about a dozen trees to the beetles, in spite of efforts to save them by building enormous wells around them to try to keep them watered, and applying pesticides to the bark as recommended by the local USF biologist. One tree was over 150 years old. Clearly even established trees of hardy species are very vulnerable to even modest environmental changes. Of course I plan to go back in a hundred years or so to see if the thousands of seedlings that spring up every year have survived....

It's entirely possible that some of those thousands of seedlings carry a natural resistance to the pine bark beetles, and when you come back in 2109 you might find a forest where beetles are no longer a major threat. Unless the beetles also evolve.

I've also witnessed the devastation of bark beetles - mostly on our native larch Larix laricina. It was positively a result of a number of very dry years - optimal conditions for the beetles, and hard on the trees because they were weakened by the drought already.

So, the beetle infestation seems to be part of the fire cycle as well. Turning moist living trees into firewood. Luckily though, the beetles don't seem to attack the young ones, so your seedlings will probably be okay, as long as they can handle the drought.

Interesting theory Bhankiii. Are you taking the six creative days as literal days? If you look at Genesis 2:4, you can see that the hebrew word translated as 'day' (as used in chapter 1 to refer to the separate creative periods) just means a distinct period of time. Also see Psalms 90:4 to see how that same hebrew word for 'day' can mean a very long period of time. Here's an interesting poing to think about: If the universe was created in only six literal days, some 6000 years ago - why do we see the light of stars that are billions of light years away?

I believe that the bible is completely congruent with science when interpreted correctly. For instance, Job 26:7 (written 2700 years ago) says that the 'north of the earth is stretched out over the empty place', and that 'the earth hangs upon nothing' (other translations render this as 'suspended in a void'). Another planetary example is Isaiah 40:22 - the hebrew word pronounced 'kug' refers to the earth as a sphere, or the projection of its surface as a circle. Lots of other great examples to mention!

Regards,

TinTin

My comments in no way reflect my personal scientific beliefs. I just have an overwhelming compulsion to point out logical inconsistencies.

Hi Hendrik, finally got some time to answer your question before I go to bed:

"why was the occurrence of a rainbow suddenly so important?'

The rainbow mentioned in Genesis was revealed to Noah and his family after the flood to act as a visible reminder of God's covenant that 'no more would all flesh be cut off by waters of a deluge, and no more would there occur a deluge to bring the earth to ruin.' (Ge 9:11-16). It wasn't the physical process of the rainbow that was particularly important, but it was an appropriate reminder (visible in the clouds) to bring to mind God's promise to future generations.

Here's where it gets really interesting... (regarding the reasoning in your post)... according to the biblical account, there was as you speculated, a permanent cloud cover over the earth which was initiated on the second creative day (Gen 1:6-8). In this passage, it says that God created an expanse about the earth, (called "Heaven" in verse 8), which formed a division between the waters below it, that is, the oceans, and the waters above it. In fact, when God declared the flood in Genesis 6:17, the Hebrew word "mab·bul" translated as 'deluge' literally means 'heavenly ocean'. This is what apostle Peter was reffering to at 2 Peter 3:5,6 where he recounted that there "were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God". It appears that this body of water remained until the flood, when the 'flood-gates of the heavens were opened' (Gen 7:11). In Genesis 2:5,6 it speaks also speaks about how God had not made it rain by the second creative day before the vegetation of the field (like flowers) were created; a 'mist' would go up from the earth and water its surface instead. The Bible doesn't describe the degree of clarity of the atmosphere before the flood, but from the biblical account, atmospheric conditions definately did change from that point. Therefore as you suggested, Noah and his family were likely the first humans to witness the spectacle.

I hope I've haven't given you too much info there, but its interesting to consider nevertheless If you have any other biblical questions, please don't hesitate to ask, as I'd be glad to endeavour to provide you with an answer.

Kind regards,

TinTin

hi all,

i read in my dinosaur book that the dinosaurs were the reason that flowers became as they are. after species die off and new dinosaur species that grazed low to the ground instead of at tree top level, that the low lying plants could not compete. therefore they had to adapt to grow faster and better or become extinct. flowers was the result in that it allowed plants to reproduce at a much faster rate.

Not so big an enigma, only to question why this late?

The insects - necessary for pollination - were around in the air in carbonaceous time, some 350 Myears ago.

Diversification and coevolution may have acted since that time.

So may be we did not find the early fossils of flowering plants.

And may be it took some time for the genes to change.

This seems to be usual in evolution: why did it take 150 Myears from the first (?) birds -archaeopterix- to the advent of modern birds around 15 Myears ago?

Flowers do not dominate the conifers, look to the mountain slopes: any region has its flowers and has its trees.

Preceding ferns: very likely more cloudy. Higher temperature was a matter of fact.

This is in parallel with high humidity. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas! So lack of sunlight had boosted ferns in the Carbonaceaous time.

But in Permian times this changed as first reptiles could walk on land, looking for edible things. Slowly bringing seeds to open land and slow adaption of plants.

If really the fertilising problem will solve the mystery - think about all the shit the (dino)saurs dropped!

RHABE