[Texaggie79]

Also, why fruit's and vegetables? I mean, I know non-creationists say that plants somehow figured out that animals would eat the fruit and spread the seeds, but wouldn't that require rational thought?

[RonF]

"Also, why fruit's and vegetables? I mean, I know non-creationists say that plants somehow figured out that animals would eat the fruit and spread the seeds, but wouldn't that require rational thought?"

You know this? How interesting. I don't. But since you know this, you should have no problem quoting the source of this fascinating belief that plants have sentient powers to understand animal life and genetically redesign themselves. No one I know of has ever proposed that view.

On the other hand, I am familiar with these concepts. Say a given group of animals eat 100's of 1000's of seeds from a given plant, and 95% get digested, but 5% of them have thicker coats and pass though the animal's digestive tract and retain viability, they'll get scattered, and tend to themselves breed plants with thick-walled seeds. And if the animals eat plants with larger, sweeter, etc. fruits preferentially, and spread their seeds around (providing fertilizer at the point that they were spread, as well), then seeds from plants with more delicious fruits will tend to be propogated more.

There's no thought processes involved. Now that you've made a couple of statements like this, I'd like to know where you've seen anyone arguing the case for evolution use the argument that there's any conscious thought on the part of any of the entities involved. It's frankly a stupid thing to say, so if you're going to keep on doing so I'd at least like to see your source.