So plants aren't classified acc to the plant homolog of the 16s rRNA sequence? Like they do for microorganisms nowadays?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationist objections to plant evolution?
- Thread starter mycorrhiza
- Start date
So plants aren't classified acc to the plant homolog of the 16s rRNA sequence? Like they do for microorganisms nowadays?
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Plants are classified by a variety of methods.
Morphology is still the most common but genetics using various genes (such as chloroplast sequences) is also standard now and is being used to augment and clarify the morphological phylogeny.
wa:do
dust1n
Zindīq
Things get pretty loopy in that little tiny level. Mitochondria possibly being a separate species that was eaten and created a symbiotic relationship that benefited all animals and stuff for eons, cells possibly creating viruses to attack surrounding species, cells that can pick up random DNA pieces and start producing the relevant proteins... kinda amazing how any classification gets done at all!
otokage007
Well-Known Member
Things get pretty loopy in that little tiny level. Mitochondria possibly being a separate species that was eaten and created a symbiotic relationship that benefited all animals and stuff for eons, cells possibly creating viruses to attack surrounding species, cells that can pick up random DNA pieces and start producing the relevant proteins... kinda amazing how any classification gets done at all!
indeed
mycorrhiza
Well-Known Member
What do you mean? Theistic evolution?
When I speak of creationism, I generally mean the Biblical kind, that all living things were created individually or as "kinds".
Pozessed
Todd
Sure theistic evolution. I like the sounds of that.
We cant explain the birth of the universe which would be the birth of evolution. Science literally believes that if it can prove the build up of events that lead to its birth, then it can prove that God doesn't exist without understanding the sources that brought it together. That's not science it's educated speculation....
Another role for God is as a raison d'être for the universe. Even if cosmologists manage to explain how the universe began, and why it seems so fine-tuned for life, the question might remain why there is something as opposed to nothing. To many people, the answer to the question is God. According to Carroll, this answer pales under scrutiny. There can be no answer to such a question, he says.
quoted from an article I found on this website titled "Will science someday rule out the world".
I totally disagree with that and believe this is how most people feel when it comes to their search for God. Just because we can't explain how God made everything work the way he did we deny his existence.
Search for magnetic energy and emotions in google and tell me if that is science or not. Also look up the significance of magnetic energy in all life, then look up where magnetic energy originated. More questions arise that science hasn't even began to fathom.
We cant explain the birth of the universe which would be the birth of evolution. Science literally believes that if it can prove the build up of events that lead to its birth, then it can prove that God doesn't exist without understanding the sources that brought it together. That's not science it's educated speculation....
Another role for God is as a raison d'être for the universe. Even if cosmologists manage to explain how the universe began, and why it seems so fine-tuned for life, the question might remain why there is something as opposed to nothing. To many people, the answer to the question is God. According to Carroll, this answer pales under scrutiny. There can be no answer to such a question, he says.
quoted from an article I found on this website titled "Will science someday rule out the world".
I totally disagree with that and believe this is how most people feel when it comes to their search for God. Just because we can't explain how God made everything work the way he did we deny his existence.
Search for magnetic energy and emotions in google and tell me if that is science or not. Also look up the significance of magnetic energy in all life, then look up where magnetic energy originated. More questions arise that science hasn't even began to fathom.
otokage007
Well-Known Member
So your hypothesis is that God with all his might created something more simple than a Bacteria. And the rest of life is just evolution.
What a gigantic display of power!
Pozessed
Todd
Exactly. If we can make all different types of A.I, it is not to far fetched to assume that a higher intelligence actually made the big bang happen and that everything in the big bang was programmed before it started.
The only reason we say that this isn't so is because of our ignorance. Notice that is only 1 reason to disbelieve, yet there are many many more details that proves evolution wouldn't happen without intervention at some point in its history.
otokage007
Well-Known Member
That only would be an argument in favour of extraterrestrials creating life with some ultra-high technology capable of producing the Big Bang. Which seems highly unlikely.
:sarcastic... There's not a single evidence that would suggest evolution happened with intervention.
Pozessed
Todd
That's your opinion on the only way it could have happened. I believe God to be a conscious energy and with out his energy the universe wouldn't exist.
Explain the limitations of conscious energy before you doubt what I say.
Evolution would not happen without that energy...
mycorrhiza
Well-Known Member
Noaidi
slow walker
A new species of monkey flower has been discovered in Scotland, a result of natural hybridisation between 2 other species of Mimulus - one introduced from North America and the other from South America.
Given the relatively recent introduction of both parent species, this is an example not only of successful hybridisation and speciation in the wild (i.e. resulting in a fertile new species reproductively isolated from both parents), but of a recent example of speciation - something many creationists are clamouring to see as evidence.
A brief synopsis here: Rare glimpse into the origin of species
Full research paper here: Mimulus peregrinus (Phrymaceae): A new British allopolyploid species - Pensoft
Given the relatively recent introduction of both parent species, this is an example not only of successful hybridisation and speciation in the wild (i.e. resulting in a fertile new species reproductively isolated from both parents), but of a recent example of speciation - something many creationists are clamouring to see as evidence.
A brief synopsis here: Rare glimpse into the origin of species
Full research paper here: Mimulus peregrinus (Phrymaceae): A new British allopolyploid species - Pensoft
otokage007
Well-Known Member
Again, the theory of evolution doesn't mention any conscious energy u are mentioning.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Same with chloroplasts... and I think another recent endosymbiotic relationship was observed (in the wild or in the lab I can't remember which), but I'd have to hunt down the references on that.
Ohhh, I hadn't heard that one... interesting idea. Talk about an arms race gone amok.
Absolutely... but it also shows how powerful the ability to analyze DNA is.cells that can pick up random DNA pieces and start producing the relevant proteins... kinda amazing how any classification gets done at all!
wa:do
dust1n
Zindīq
So I've heard. It's strange to me there aren't more symbiotic relationships amongst really small things that we wouldn't see more of these things, but I suppose only a few really took off at a time when there was little competition to allow such relationships to form. If anything like that happened now, it probably wouldn't be well equipped enough to really compete with the other relationships that have been around for... well millions of years, I suppose.
In such an old an terrible way, indeed. But there are a few different theories on where the little buggers come from. I just think this one is particularly interesting. To think that viruses may have branched off from the earliest forms of life is also interesting to me, but such a thing leads me to believe that all life forms might be an inevitable chemical reaction given the right circumstances. The former makes me think that there is something special about life given the general perimeters we generally ascribe to life as we know it... the later seems to imply that chemicals will just react in such a way given the right environment to do what they could only do.Absolutely... but it also shows how powerful the ability to analyze DNA is.
wa:do
What, by us humans or by cells?
I watched a documentary on the evolution of flowers. Very fascinating, they went to their evolutionary origins in places where rare flowers grow on the side of the road.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/science/08flower.html?pagewanted=all
Noaidi
slow walker
OK, as a plant ecologist, I'm intrigued. I don't want to try the experiment as I don't want to rip up some moss, but what are the results?