6E Origin of Plants (optional excursus)

An excursus is similar to an appendix and provides a digression from the main text. The excursuses are completely optional and are not part of the course. The excursuses in first 12 chapters are my updates to a popular interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis in the 19th century: the day-age interpretation of Arnold Guyot. 

There are a few ways to evaluate the plant types. One classification scheme based on the ancient Hebrew conception of plant classification was suggested by Keil and Delitzsch: grasses, shrubs or short plants, and trees.[1] Another classification scheme might be the modern classifications of gymnosperms (seed plants) and angiosperms (flowering and fruiting plants). The reason that the specific classification scheme does not matter is that the superphylum that evolved in 610 Ma, which was just prior to the fourth day (580 Ma) included all of these plants. The only members of the plant kingdom left out of the superphylum Spermatophyta are ferns, bryophytes, and green algae, which had already evolved.

In the history of plant evolution (Figure 6-24), the Bryophyta evolved first. The Tracheophyta diverged from the Bryophyta in 850 Ma. The Tracheophyta had a vascular system and could transport water and nutrients up through the plant whereas the earlier Bryophyta did not have a vascular system. The Euphyllophyta (leaves, ferns) began to evolve in 800 Ma, and the Spermatophyta began to diverge from the ferns, in 610 Ma. Shortly after this, 580 Ma, the fourth day began. Thus, the superphylum that contained the plants listed in vss. 11-12 had evolved by the end of the fourth day, and there was the potential for the various types of plants in the modern world to come from it. 

Verse 11 begins with "sprout vegetation." The verb tadseʾ (hiphil jussive) is sprout. The word translated as vegetation is dešeʾ. In several verses, deše refers to new green grass sprouting up after a rain (Deuteronomy 32:2, 2 Samuel 23:4), but it is also contrasted with grass in some verses (2 Kings 19:26), where it is translated as herbs. In Deuteronomy 32:2, dešeʾ is translated as tender herb while ‘êśeb is translated as grass. Thus, it is sometimes translated in v. 11 as vegetation instead of grass. In Proverbs 27:25, dešeʾ is translated as new growth, tender grass, or the tender green. It generally refers to the fresh grass or sprouting herbs. After rains, fields turn green with new grass so there is also the concept of green in dešeʾ. Delitzch translated the verse as Let the earth sprouting, sprout forth green.[2] Westerman wrote, Let there green forth. [3] Keil and Delitzsch translated, The earth brought forth green.[4]. Leupold thought that grasses, mosses, and other plants that carpeted the earth fit the definition of dešeʾ.[5] He argued that the root word signifies to be damp and that this concept describes plants that are “fresh green” (Frisches gruen), such as fresh grass and moss. With this in mind, it is interesting that the Bryophyta (Figure 6-30), which include moss, were the first plants and fit the concept of "sprout vegetation." 

Although three types of plants are listed in v. 11, there is only one “kind” in v. 11. In contrast, “seed bearing plants” and “fruit trees” are each followed by “after their kind” in v. 12. Sailhamer stated that the last plant type of v. 11, the fruit trees, could be read as an apposition or modifier to the rest of the verse.[6] If it were a modifier (a further description of the plant kind), then v. 11 only describes one type of vegetation.[7] The significance of one kind of plant in v. 11 is that v. 11 ends with "and it was so." This means that the one type of plant that would lead to these various forms of plants had already appeared by the end of the third day, which was the Spermatophyta (Figure 6E-1).

"And the earth brought forth vegetation..." The verb towse (brought forth) is used in v. 12 instead of tadse in v. 11. It is the wayyiqtol form of the verb (watotse). This verb is normally used to describe people leaving one situation and going to another. For example, the word describes how Moses led the people out of Egypt. The implication in v. 12 is that after this point in time, the two kinds came from the one kind through the processes of the earth. Verse 12 ends with, "God saw that it was good." Just as God saw that the protosun was good before it was the mature sun.

While the ancient Hebrew conception of the divisions of plants on earth did not include gymnosperms (seed plants) and angiosperms (flowering and fruiting plants), v. 12 is divided into two kinds called seed plants (gymnosperms) and fruiting plants with the seed in them (angiosperms), The correlation with names of the modern divisions of plants is difficult to let pass by, thus Figure 6E-1. The Spermatophyta evolved just before the fourth day, confirming "and it as so," in v. 11. The Spermatophyta were the ancestors of the gymnosperms and angiosperms. Notice that "sprout vegetation" is in v. 11 in the description of the origin of the plant kingdom but is missing from v. 12 because the focus is on the end rather than the beginning.

The process of the Earth evolving the Spermatophyta lasted 3 billion years. Plant evolution began with the origin of life after the final accretion of materials that formed the earth at the end of the third day (the Late Veneer laid down during the Late Heavy Bombardment, 3.85 Ga). The third day ended with the change in the orientation of earth's axis at 580 Ma, which was the fourth day. It is interesting that fruit trees were last of the angiosperms to evolve. Thus, the Mosaic description of seed plants to fruit trees spans the entire history of gymnosperm and angiosperm evolution.

The kinds

Min with the lamed preposition means "according to" or "with respect to." The suffix in v. 11 is u. There are four suffixes attached to lemin in the first chapter of Genesis, denoting masculine, feminine, and/or plural.

1. leminehu: third person, singular, masculine (his kind)

2. leminu: third person, singular, masculine (his kind)

3. leminehem third person, plural, masculine (their kinds)

4. leminah third person, singular, feminine (her kind)

Verse 11 has one "after his kind," leminu. Verse 12 has two "after his kind," leminehu. The King James translation, "after his kind" in verses 11 and 12 is the literally accurate translation. It is suitable to interpret a plant division as a "kind." Gesenius translated it as form, species, or kind. [8] Westermann stated that kind in v. 11 was the general division of all plants. [9] Hamilton stated that it could refer to genus, family, and order. [10] Driver stated that "after its kind" should be translated as "after its kinds" and should refer to the many types of plants within each of the broad categories in v. 11. [11]. Thus, gymnosperms, angiosperms, and Spermatophyta are suitable categories for leminu. and leminehu.

Origin of life

Whether or not life had a completely natural origin has little impact on the interpretation of the third day. The origin of life took place in a brief window of time. The process of the earth sprouting the early plants and evolving advanced plants took place during the 3 billion years of the Archaean and Proterozoic eons (3.85 to 0.85 Ga). While the evolution of plants from primitive archaebacteria and cyanobacteria is supported in the fossil record, the cause of the start of the process is not precisely defined by science or the Bible. Genesis 1:11 states that the Earth should sprout vegetation, but it does not state whether, or how often, God intervened in the process. 

If is interesting to try to adapt traditional interpretations of Genesis 1:11-12 to modern natural history and biology. The traditional interpretation of Genesis 1:11 was that nonliving earth and seas spontaneously generated animals and plants, respectively. Granted, the ancients did not think that life evolved over billions of years, but the following statements by St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas, with a few extra billions of years, might correspond with the origin of plant life from nonliving matter. 

"But, in truth, some hidden seeds of all things that are born corporeally and visibly, are concealed in the corporeal elements of this world. For those seeds that are visible now to our eyes from fruits and living things, are quite distinct from the hidden seeds of those former seeds; from which, at the bidding of the Creator, the water produced (over billions of years) the first swimming creatures and fowl, and the earth (over billions of years) the first buds after their kind, and the first living creatures after their kind." [12]

"It was laid down by Avicenna that animals of all kinds can be generated by various minglings of the elements (over billions of years), and naturally, without any kind of seed. This, however, seems repugnant to the fact that nature produces its effects by determinate means, and consequently, those things that are naturally generated from seed cannot be generated naturally in any other way. It ought, then, rather to be said that in the natural generation of all animals that are generated from seed, the active principle lies in the formative power of the seed, but that in the case of animals generated from putrefaction (over billions of years), the formative power of is the influence of the heavenly bodies. The material principle, however, in the generation of either kind of animals, is either some element, or something compounded of the elements. But at the first beginning of the world the active principle was the Word of God, which produced animals from material elements, either in act, as some holy writers say, or virtually, as Augustine teaches. It is not as though water or earth possess in themselves the power of producing all animals, as Avicenna held, but rather that the fact that animals can be produced from elemental matter (over billions of years) by the power of seed or of the stars, is from the power originally given to the elements." [13]

The theologians of old earth thought that God bequeathed the earth with a special power to produce plants from soil. With a much longer time frame for the evolution of plants, this view must be adapted to the modern understanding of natural history and biology. Scientists are showing the feasibility of some of the necessary processes along the path of the evolution of life from nonlife; however, they have not proven a completely natural evolution of life. Did God bequeath all of this special power at the beginning of time, or did God also intervene in the process of the origin of life?

It is important for those on both sides of the aisle to exercise some humility. For example, those who oppose all evolution based on watching a 5-minute YouTube animation of cellular processes but have no training in biology should realize that they do not understand the adaptive processes of cells that might lead to the things that they are observing in the video. On the other hand, scientists should not claim that life could evolve naturally based on their chosen favorite origin of life hypothesis. This is not to say that scientists will never prove a natural origin of life in the laboratory, but they have not demonstrated a proof at this time.

Would it be impossible for God to design chemistry such that life would evolve from chemicals? Of course not. Based on the last two decades of research on the origin of life, many processes seem finely tuned to support an origin of life from chemicals or at last a progression of life in early protocells. Of course, God facilitated life and the progression of life through evolution in the initial design of chemistry. Likewise, God facilitated the constant expansion of the universe through finely tuned laws of nature and constants of nature; however, the rapid shift in forces during inflation is extremely unlikely and thus does not fit the concept of natural. It seem likely that God intervened at the beginning of the universe. Likewise, God might have intervened in some way at the initiation of life. We just do not know.

At the time of Guyot, scientists did not think that natural selection was mathematically possible, but the field of population genetics arose in the 1930s and proved that Darwinian natural selection with Mendelian genetics is mathematically possible. There is a general progression toward complexity in the fossil record. Consider the relatively simple light harvesting mechanism in the archaebacteria Halobacterium halobium. Compare this to the advanced photosynthetic mechanisms in cyanobacteria, green algae, and plants. The more complex system evolved from the simpler system. If the sequence of life after the beginning of life can increase in complexity, then it is reasonable to think that life could gain in complexity from the beginning. 

At this point, scientists cannot definitively state that life evolved from chemicals without any divine intervention; however, we can look forward to the next decade of research on origin of life processes. We might find out the answer. On the other hand, we might not. Either way, the timing plant evolution during the Archaean and Proterozoic eons agrees with the timing of the second half of Moses' third day of creation. 

The 19th century arguments

With the switch to biology and geology in the third day, Guyot probably thought he was on safer ground. He and James Dana were leading geologists, and they were well acquainted with the fossil record. Geology had matured much more than astronomy because geologists were able to access their data with shovels whereas astronomers tried to access their data with relatively primitive telescopes. The problem was that plant fossils were completely lacking from the Proterozoic Eon. As per usual, Guyot proposed some novel interpretation of Genesis to reconcile Moses' third day with natural history, and Morton justifiably criticized these interpretations. 

Pasteur disproved abiogenesis in 1859, and neither Guyot, nor it seems Morton, thought that plants or any other life could naturally originate from nonliving matter. Whether or not this is the case, Pasteur's discovery probably caused Guyot to make an erroneous interpretation. Because the third day has no direct statement of creation, Guyot stated that God's creation of animals on the fifth day applied to the third day. Thus, Guyot stated that God specially created plants. [14] Morton justifiably criticized Guyot's transfer of the fifth day creation to the third day.[15] The fact that Guyot felt the need to refer to the fifth day to support a supernatural creation of life on the third day indicates that Guyot, and probably Hodge, did not think that the description of the third day sufficiently supported the concept of supernatural creation of plants.

Guyot thought that the "infusorial plants" (algae) in the fossil record of the Precambrian (Archaean and Proterozoic eons) were the initial vegetation (dešeʾ) referred to in v. 11.  

"The latest geologic investigations tell us that abundant traces of carbonaceous matter and old siliceous deposits, among the azoic rocks (period before life), indicate the presence of a large number of infusorial protophytes in these early seas." [16]

Morton disagreed with Guyot's interpretation that infusorial microbes could be the meaning of deše. Morton stated that deše in v. 11 should only be translated as grass and should not be translated as vegetation. [17] Morton also argued that there was no difference between animals and plants at the microbial level: 

"As regards the property of life or simple vitality it is quite impossible to make any distinction between animal and vegetable struct­ures, and indeed, in the lowest forms of each, a distinctive definition is all but impossible." [18]

"In this connection I would note that Professor Asa Gray of Cambridge, in his book "Natural Science and Religion," a refers to the impossibility of separating the lower grades of vegetable from those of animal life, even by the analysis of scientific methods, as a settled opinion of science." [19]

Morton argued that the third day was out of order because plants did not appear in the fossil record until the Carboniferous (400 Ma), which was after the appearance of the animals of the fifth day in the Cambrian period. [20] In response to this legitimate argument against the order of the days of Moses, Guyot stated that vss. 11-12 referred to the first appearance of algae on earth and to the subsequent evolution of plants on earth. 

"If we should understand the text as meaning that the whole plant kingdom, from the lowest infusorial form to the highest dicotyledon (fruit tree), was created at this early day, geology would certainly disprove it. But the author of Genesis, as we have before remarked, mentions every order of facts but once, and he does it at the time of its first introduction." [21]

In summary, Morton had three objections to Guyot's attempted synthesis of the third day with the natural history of plants. First, the creation of the fifth day should not be applied to the third day. Second, the algae of the Precambrian were no more related to plants than they were to animals. Third, the plants of the third day were out of order since the fossil record showed that plants followed the animals of the fifth day.

Although Morton had legitimate objections to Guyot's interpretation in the 19th century, his objections have been answered by the molecular DNA evaluation and an improved fossil record that moved the evolution of plants back into the Proterozoic. Moses provided a precise and accurate description of the status of plant evolution at the end of the Proterozoic and the eventual evolution of the Spermatophyta (Figure 6E-1). The "And it was so" in v. 11 defines this as the status of plants in the third day. Verse 12 describes the continuance of plant evolution on the fifth and sixth days. 

References

[1] Keil, Carl Friedrich, and Franz Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament. Titus Books, 2014.

[2] Delitzsch, Franz. A New Commentary on Gensis. Vol. 1. T. & T. Clark, 1899.

[3] Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1-11: A commentary. Vol. 1. Augsburg Fortress Pub, 1984.

[4] Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary 

[5] Leupold, Herbert Carl, and Albert Barnes. Exposition of Genesis. Vol. 1. Baker Book House, 1942.

[6] John Sailhamer, Genesis Unbound (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1996).

[7] Sailhamer, Genesis, 32.

[8] Gesenius, Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, trans A. Cowley (London, Oxford University Press, 1966), 257

[9] Westermann, 125

[10] Hamilton, Victor, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17, vol 1 of the New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 126

[11] Driver, S. The Book of Genesis. Westminster Commentaries (1907), 9.

[12] St. Augustine, On the Trinity, Book IIII, Chapter VIII  

[13] Saint Thomas Aquinas, ST, I, Q. 71, Reply to Obj. 1. 

[14] Guyot, Arnold. Creation: Or, the biblical cosmogony in the light of modern science. C. Scribner's Sons, 1884. 

[15] Morton, Henry. "The Cosmogony of Genesis and its reconcilers." Part A. Bibliotheca Sacra. 54 (1897)

[16] Guyot, Cosmogony 

[17] Morton, Reconcilers

[18] Morton, Reconcilers

[19] Morton, Reconcilers

[20 Morton, Reconcilers

[21] Guyot, Cosmogony

Banner

Winter moss. Credit James919. Used here per CC BY-SA 3.0.