Posted on 08/30/2018 7:33:06 AM PDT by fishtank
How Could Plants Evolve? Answer: They Evolved
August 29, 2018 | David F. Coppedge
Darwinism has replaced the need for demonstration in science with the convenience of assertion.
When you read papers and articles that offer to explain how something evolved, what you often find are statements that they just evolved. Let’s see some examples.
(Excerpt) Read more at crev.info ...
" Professing to be wise, they have become fools.
Professing to be scientific, they have become converts to the cult of Darwin.
Bits of fossils are used as shiny pendulums to hypnotize them into thinking “Thisssss issss scienccccccce”
while the teacher drugs them into euphoria about how much better they feel
now that they have kicked out “religion”
and that nasty old God of the Bible they might have learned about as kids.
But this is not the experimental science of Joule or Faraday.
It is a new Aristotelianism taught with authoritarianism.
Plants evolved because it is their nature to evolve.
Since the student now ‘knows’ that plants evolved (because that is their nature), wee bits of data work as props to illustrate the dogma."
There is only one problem with the missing link...
It’s missing.
Besides, it was Zelda that was missing.
It’s not one ‘missing link’ - - all links between species are missing...
This thread will get pulled due to a lack of a link, but in the meantime that sentence is not what I was taught in school 40 years ago.
What I was taught is that because of radiation and other environmental influences, random mutations in genes occur, and if these random mutations result in a biological advantage, the mutated plant thrives and reproduces the mutation.
I read this yesterday, and the story is always the same. Cowardly scientists cover their ignorance by loudly proclaiming that “EVOLUTION DID IT, and btw, if you don’t believe our pabulum, you are a DENIER of science!”
In politically correct science the assertion is everything.
Brawndo! It’s got Electrolytes! It’s what plants crave.
Give us one, just one, electrical or chemical reason for any of the molecular interactions in the cell of any plant or animal.
It takes a lot more faith to say “it evolved” than to say “it was created”. A complex universe creating itself, regardless of how many millions of years you give it, is absurd. On the other hand, evidence for designed and created is everywhere.
To clarify, I’m referring to the interactions between the messenger RNA, the DNA, the ribosomes, etc, in unzipping, reading, decoding, translating, communicating, building, etc.
These present participles in the foregoing sentence describe the actions of sentient beings.
Either these molecules are sentient, or there is a Sentience that directs them.
Here is a good collection of articles by a scientist and theistic evolutionist:
https://biologos.org/author/dennis-venema
Darwin explains some changes in the plant and animal life over the past few million years. But it does not at all explain all the changes. Why does Australia have almost all the marsupials in the world. While possums are found in lots of places. How do large cats, Kangaroos and bears and other mammals have the same pockets to hold their young. They did not evolve from a single source.
Why do Octopus, fish, bugs and humans all have two and only two eyes on either side of your head. There is no single ancestor. The reality is that Darwin can explain small changes. Even changes that become big over time. But there is something else at work. Its likely that part of evolution started off earth. The primordial ooze explanation is not founded in science. It is a guess at best. A scientific place holder until they figure out what really happened.
I was taught that as well and it makes good sense for small incremental changes. There are complex organs in the body that are hard to imagine evolving all at once, yet individual bits make no sense to evolve seperately. That's where I think some other idea is needed.
Scientists explain the cambrian explosion (where thousands of new and novel organisms sprang up virtually overnight in evolutionary terms) by saying that it was an evolutionary process they call "punctuated equilibrium". Meaning a burst of evolutionary changes, then nothing for a time. Another burst, then nothing for a time. Great, so evolution isn't necessarily slow and it can yield large changes in short times. Cool but then if they aren't gradual mutations that each interdependently show some advantage to survival then what's the mechanism again? This is where I begin to scratch my head.
Theistic evolutionists are scoffed at, but humored by some Darwinists. There is evidence galore for ID, but virtually none for the evolutionists’s ide of paramecia to frog to whale to man.
Just one simple question: Which came first, muscles, bones, tendons or ligaments?
Some other idea is already there: Creation.
“How do large cats, Kangaroos and bears and other mammals have the same pockets to hold their young.”
Bears have pockets?
That's a *mighty* big "if" since it never occurs.
so-called Darwinian evolution needs no explanation: after all, it was just a really, really, really, really, improbable series of random accidents ... as science, Darwinian evolution is a complete dead-end because because there it has no causality ... Darwinian evolution is fundamentally no different than the old, discredited theory of spontaneous generation: both theories ultimately posit that life arose spontaneously from dirt, rocks, and water ...truly, belief in the THEORY of Darwinian evolution is nothing more or less than a matter of faith; that is, belief in Darwinian evolution is religion, not science ...
Which came first, cartilage or bones would be a valid question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.