Skip to comments.Plant Evolution: Where’s the Root? ("Lack of data...shielded behind hope")
Posted on 04/18/2009 1:43:54 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Plant Evolution: Wheres the Root?
April 16, 2009 To Darwin, the origin of flowering plants was an abominable mystery. Recently, some entries on Science magazines blog Origins have claimed the mystery has been solved, at least partially, and a full solution is near at hand. Here is a great test case for evolution. Angiosperms comprise a huge, diverse population of organisms. There should be an ample fossil record, and many genes to decipher. Lets see if the optimistic claims are rooted in evidence...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Defunded? Great idea! Time for separation of science and state!
Amen to that, brother!
Not to be argumentative, but I have bred plants through generations to conform to my environment.
That is stunning, especially when you consider Mendel’s work. It’s the biggest cover-up in science, I bet.
Your cartoon has it all wrong. It now appears that bacteria can partially direct their own mutations to become antibiotic resistant. This, of course, is much better explained by intelligent design, since the neo-Darwinian creation myth is driven by RANDOM MUTATIONS.
Sounds like you plants have been intelligently designed to rapidly conform to your wishes :o)
Keep up the good work. Maybe one day you will convince one individual that science sucks and creationism clucks.
Yes, as a matter of fact, they were...
no, bad science sux, God’s creation and the obvious evidence, doesnt....
Hmmm....my unofficial creation ping list keeps growing every week. And BTW, evolution is not a hard-science, it is a materialist/atheistic inference about the unobservable, unrepeatable past. Neither is creation a hard-science. But I must say, it is much better supported by the physical evidence than Darwood’s fanciful creation myth (which is in the process of crumbling under the massive weight of scientific falsification, even while creation science grows stronger and stronger!).
it's also (Primarily) been one heckuva political/ cultural tool.
As for this in the article: “There should be an ample fossil record”
... of plants? Dont they decompose fairly readily?
If they can extract the DNA out of a lump of coal I’d be mighty impressed.
Thanks for the ping!
[[Not to be argumentative, but I have bred plants through generations to conform to my environment.]]
Ah- but hte quesiton is, have they sprouted wings and evovled eyes?
[[But I must say, it is much better supported by the physical evidence than Darwoods fanciful creation myth (which is in the process of crumbling under the massive weight of scientific falsification, even while creation science grows stronger and stronger!).]]
Yep- and the crumbling in your other thread Bears repeating here:
Phylogenetic reconstruction using the complete genome sequence not only failed to recover the correct evolutionary history because of these convergent changes, but the true history was rejected as being a significantly inferior fit to the data.
In hte meantime, We’ll just have to endure al lthe silly accusations against Creation Science and ID while the Church of Darwin implodes from within quietly in the backgraound, apparently unnoticed by those hwo support it
Shhhhh....I think cartoons like that do far more harm to darwinism than anything I can think of...
Good point! :o)