Day # 3 in Genesis -- Plants Before Sunlight

Cal Peters: You've listed several living things which aren't dependent on photosynthesis. Yet the Bible says the earth brought forth grass and fruits, etc. Those do require sunlight. Also, while some living things don't require sunlight for photosynthesis, what would the temperature be on an earth without a sun?

Genesis/Science: Hi Cal, I'm sorry, but "Fruit" does not require photosynthesis. You have been extremely misinformed on what "fruit" is. Fruit is the end beneficial product, including such phrases as "Fruits of their labor" or "Fruit of the womb". The Bible was not written in 20th century English. It was written in Hebrew, thousands of years ago. So, for a scientific perspective, start here The religious leaders who do not begin to understand what science teaches, yet sadly assume they do, erroneously claim that science says there were no trees before sunlight, but they conveniently leave out the fact that there is simply no empirical evidence or way to prove when life photosynthesized from earth's own light and switched to reliance on the sun. Science does know to some extent when sunlight was knocked out, due to mass extinctions. However, one thing science is certain of is that there were organisms populating the earth 3.5 billion years ago and continued to do so through to the time of the Cambrian explosion. Now what those organisms were? Scientists still lack those answers. Darwin was mystified. Who knows? Many successful and failed evolutionary experiments took place during those billions of years, but most didn't leave fossil impressions. That doesn't mean they didn't exist and its very believable a grass-like non-photosynthetic organism or even a grass-like organism that relied on the earth's own geothermal photosynthetic potential (geothermal, hydrothermal vents, hot springs) existed way back when in early geological history. That's the beauty of it. YOU CAN NOT AND DO NOT KNOW, NOR DO I. That's the beauty of theory, because it is entirely possible. The point here is not to defend the Bible as infallible, but the point is to prove to Atheists that science does not.. Not.. NOT have all patent answers they falsely claim it offers, and especially, science does not exist for the sole purpose of destroying gods, religions, and blindly attacking people of faith. Science "Facts" and what Science teaches, is that the exception makes the rule, and that theories also can be falsified with proper evidence. We know there were in fact complex organisms before the Cambrian that did not leave fossils. They were soft-bodied, and non-photosynthetic and did not leave fossil impressions and that includes the possibility of a grass-like organism that would today, be classed among fungi and quite possibly it could have produced fruit as well!

DO PAY CLOSE ATTENTION... FRUIT = NON-PHOTOSYNTHETIC. This... is what science teaches. Anyone who says otherwise, is misinformed.

"...moreover, they provide an alternative pathway for the production of food without having recourse to sunlight and independent of the photosynthetic route..."

Foods and feeds - Google Books Result
by Dilip K. Arora, K. G. Mukerji, Elmer H. Marth - 1991 - Science - 621 pages These structures are aptly designated as the "fruiting bodies," and such fungi are called the "fruiting fungi." In nature, as many as 2000 edible species ...
books google com/books?isbn=082478491X...

And to those who are unclear on how evolution works? 3 billion years ago, 2 billion years ago, 1 billion years ago... one half billion years ago, 99% of the organisms that existed back then, failed to resemble anything known on the planet in our modern day. They completely disappeared, went extinct, nada, caput. Atheists do not know what existed a billion years ago. They are not psychic nor have they time-traveled to the past to see the planet before the Cambrian. And modern organisms are a hard sell, to establish exactly what kind of life-forms existed 2 billion years ago. Species have evolved and diversified to where the kinds and "after their kinds" do not necessarily represent their ancestors adequately enough to say for instance, "Well, since the snake today has poisonous fangs, all snake ancestors had poison fangs," for even this trait was an evolved one, and whilst some have venomous fangs, others do not. Others have only bare traces of modified teeth. TO SUMMARIZE: It is impossible to know WHAT existed 1.5 billion years ago, how it functioned, and what they were! Precambrian organisms are such an oddity, scientists confess they do not know what they were, including perhaps, a failed evolutionary experiment that met with a dead end. Yet, Atheists claim to have all patent (TM) truths. Thank God the Agnostics are not so arrogant. In the case of the Pre-Cambrian, Science is content to admit more is unknown than known. A few scant fossils of mysterious organisms exist and nothing more. So could there have been a grass-like organism? Yes, indeed.

Nature... 3 billion years ago... 2 billion years ago... 1 billion... produced single cell organisms and non-photosynthetic, soft-bodied types of organisms, including life-forms that to this day, their fossils can not be properly classified (Vendian organisms). What they were, remains a mystery. Species can evolve in the form of many things, including species that qualify in size and form as trees, produce fruit, some forms could appear as grass.

From there (what science has confirmed as a "matter of fact") one's imagination is at liberty to fill in the blanks with theories because, there simply are no concrete answers. My guess is as good as anyone else's, although I am certain of this fact, Creationists are WRONG and Atheists, because they boast to possess patent (TM) truths, they too are equally in error. Thank God the Agnostics are not so arrogant. Thank God some people can admit they "do not know" and move on with their lives.

So Cal, I hope I have adequately addressed your statement.

Cal Peters: You've listed several living things which aren't dependent on photosynthesis. Yet the Bible says the earth brought forth grass and fruits, etc. Those do require sunlight. Also, while some living things don't require sunlight for photosynthesis, what would the temperature be on an earth without a sun?

We've established factually, there are "fruiting organisms" that do not depend on sunlight. What was originally meant in ancient Hebrew when terms such as fruit or grass, is debatable at best. Not all nutrition is derived from sunlight. Period. The temperature on earth around hydrothermal vents can vary as do methods of deriving nutrition. Below find two images that give insight into "early earth" and after some careful contemplation, ask yourself honestly, how sunlight would make any difference?.

Life as We Didn't Know It - NASA Science - Science@NASA
Before 1977, scientists believed that all forms of life ultimately depended on the Sun for energy. For all ecosystems then known to exist, plants or photosynthetic microbes constituted the base of the food chain....In contrast, these vent ecosystems depend on microbes that tap into the chemical energy in the geyser water that billows out from the sea floor -- energy that originates within the Earth itself.

Earth Life May Have Originated at Deep-Sea Vents | Space.com
Jan 25, 2013 - Hydrogen sulfide is a poison gas that’s lethal for humans even in very low concentrations. Yet, this compound — two parts hydrogen, one part sulfur — turned out to be the food source for bacteria that drive an entirely new ecosystem. (New to usat least. Some scientists suspect this type of ecosystem might, in fact, be the oldest on our planet.)

IN THE ABSENCE OF SUNLIGHT :

Researchers find photosynthesis deep within ocean
Discovery of green sulfur bacteria living near hydrothermal vents has major implications for where photosynthesis happens and where life may reside
A team of researchers, including a photosynthesis expert from ASU, has found evidence of photosynthesis taking place deep within the Pacific Ocean. The team found a bacterium that is the first photosynthetic organism that doesn’t live off sunlight but from the dim light coming from hydrothermal vents nearly 2,400 meters (7,875 feet) deep in the ocean.
The discovery of the green sulfur bacteria living near hydrothermal vents off the coast of Mexico has significant implications for the resiliency of life on Earth – and possibly on other planets, says Robert Blankenship, a member of the research team and professor and chair of ASU’s chemistry and biochemistry department.
“Life finds a way,” Blankenship says of the plucky bacteria that were found in a vent field called 9 North off the coast of Mexico.
The bacteria apparently live in the razor-thin interface between the extremely hot water (350 degrees Celsius, or 662 degrees Fahrenheit) coming from a flange vent and the very cold water (2 degrees Celsius, or about 36 degrees Fahrenheit) surrounding it.

You can find further articles by searching "life began around hydrothermal vent".

Just as all life forms do not rely on the sun for photosynthesis, we cannot know with certainty what method early organisms derived nutrition.

Methods of Deriving Nutrition
(Protozoa (meaning "first animals") obtain their food supply through three methods):
1. Holophytic protozoa obtain nutrients through photosynthesis.
2. Holozoic protozoa depend on plants and animals for food.
3. Saprophytic protozoa asorb organic matter through the cell wall.

The diversity and unknowns go on and on, and these (example of just one group of organisms, methods of deriving nutrition) also represent just one further example, of the complexities of 3.5 billion years of diversification of life. There are no "absolutes".

Precambrian Fossils that have been discovered notably lacking teeth and mouths, leaving scientists baffled about what they were/are to be classified as when compared to any known known extinct or extant organism. Perhaps an evolutionary experiment, that simply failed. There are more questions, than concrete answers, and currently both Creationists and Atheists have collectively failed to provide adequate answers.

So, all I can say is good luck on your continuing search for answers and back to original article, below:

---

Genesis 1:11-13
"...And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day..."

The YLT Version notes *tender
And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit (whose seed is in itself) after its kind; and God seeth that it is good;

* according to popular theories surrounding Vendian organisms is their notable lack of hard-body structure which explains the lack of fossils, as it stands, why mention "tender" in Genesis at all? Unless, it implies a soft-body plan for the earliest plant-life, which should naturally precede animal forms.

King James footnotes the same "tender" (Hebrew),

Source: King James Hebrew-Greek KeyWord Study Bible, AMG Publishers 1991
This is vital that everyone knows this. A major reason the church denies evolution/science.
It states:

"The various attempts to join together the biblical account of creation and evolution are not supportable by the various gap theories because the order of creation is in direct opposition to the views of modern science (e.g., the creation of trees before light.)"

I am trying to figure out where he got his information, because science teaches no such thing.

For instance,

Mistletoe is a "fruit bearing" plant, complete with seeds that is non-photosynthetic, to partially non-photosynthetic, and does not require sunlight to grow. With a slight genetic modification, this semi softer-body "plant" could easily be transformed into a tree... and certainly in a sunless world. It's thicker structure allows it to hold in moisture, a defense against the heat of the sun. Consider the cactus, which lives in the desert, and adapted perfectly so, due to its hard-body structure, to store large amounts of water.



Just for fun, this is a coral that resembles a tree in some fashion, and is non-photosynthetic.



Comes from Non-photosynthetic gorgonian. Photo: Alf J Nilsen.

Another group of non-photosynthetic plants, turns up under Orchids.

The Orchidaceae is one of the largest families in the plant kingdom, with more than 20,000 species identified, most distributed in the tropics and subtropics.

Of the European species, of which there are around 90, the genera's Orchis, Ophrys, Epipactis and Dactylorhizas are particularly well represented (Werner, 1992).

This diversity is perhaps surprising given that at some point in their life cycle all orchids are reliant upon mycorrhizal fungi. Whether they are chloro- or achlorophyllous as adults, all orchids have a stage where they are non-photosynthetic and therefore dependant on external sources of nutrients (Smith & Read, 1997).

From: Fremont Peak orchid. W. Kaehler/ Corbis with permission.

I could continue on with examples of plants whom, to this day in our sunlit world, do not depend on sunlight to sustain them.

I won't even include examples from the group called "Carnivorous Plants," as in Venus flytraps and Pitcher Plants which obtain their energy from consumption of flesh.

The point is, science no where teaches that plants *necessarily must* depend on photosynthesis. A majority of plant-life, may in our modern world, but the exception usually is the rule. Particularly for a completely extinct eco-system, that is hinted at, in Genesis 1, in the absence of sunlight. For more information, I suggest searching more information on the "Vendian" or "Ediacaran Fossils" (some of the first organisms known to exist on earth and that left a scant number of fossil impressions). These organisms continue to mystify scientists who remain uncertain as to what exactly they were. Some have hypothesized their structure included soft-body plans, which would be ideally suited for a dark, damp, sunless world, which is implied in Genesis 1, "Day #3".