Creationist objections to plant evolution?

[R34L1TY]

It grows a chimpanzee!

 

[Noaidi]

It grows a chimpanzee!

I was hoping for something rather more spectacular!

 

[crocusj]

I encourage ANY creationist to try this experiment.

Grab some moss, throw it in a blender with some milk. Pour the contraption anywhere. Check on it in 2 days.

Report your results.

I wish I had read the whole post before I drank it....

 

[dust1n]

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.

Where Did All the Flowers Come From? - NYTimes.com

Thank ye! I'll have to check it out sometime! Though, I must admit, my real passion if for conifers!

 

[R34L1TY]

I wish I had read the whole post before I drank it....

Lmao.

If anyone did do this experiment, they would find that the moss grows anywhere.

This is an example of cell adaptation and can be linked to how the Earth is soo green. It is a good example of how greens evolved to survive.

Now unfortunately (or fortunately), just because a Creationist thinks a finding or study effects their religion..does not mean anybody has to care. I had a guy in my class who was of Christian Faith. The first sample we were given, comparing animals DNA, he quickly shot down and said that the slides are fixed. He complained to the board that the course goes against his beliefs. Well.. Unfortunately Professors are not going to change their curriculum to your beliefs. Especially not in a Course that revolves around Biology and the study of DNA and cells. Could you imagine a group of Bio-Techs coming out learning nothing about cellular development and the core principles of dna?

Its just unrealistic. A bible is not going to hold solubility against evidence, normally such topics would not be debated as they would not be worthy enough to debate. The problems arise when Science gets altered for the teachins of a Religion. This is not allowed nor is building a Creationst Museum to teach kids that we fed Dinosaurs carrots.

It is an abomination to education.

 

[crocusj]

It is an abomination to education.

An abomination to science education. A bible is not about evidence, it is about faith in the message contained within that bible. It is important that we keep religious belief outside scientific inquiry but I am OK with religion being included within social studies. Clearly when debating the pros and cons of some of our more immediate problems - like slavery and virgin stoning - then biblical input will be crucial.

 

[dust1n]

Wouldn't an abomination to science education also be an abomination to education, since all science education is education?

 

[crocusj]

Wouldn't an abomination to science education also be an abomination to education, since all science education is education?

Well, no. Humans have faith. There are many theories why this is so. Also, teaching people that the world is flat might well be education but it is hardly the be all and end all. I don't doubt that there is a good scientific/economic explanation of why Da Vinci created Pieta and why we look on it so and I also see attempts to explain this as educational, not exclusively scientific.

 

[dust1n]

No, I understand that an abomination to science education wouldn't be an abomination to religious education, I guess, but just because something is an abomination to education doesn't mean its an abomination to all types of abomination. However, if something is an abomination to a particular type of education, than it is an abomination to education. It's a categorical issue.

 

[johnhanks]

[Post deleted]

 

[mycorrhiza]

Let's give this another go, shall we?

 

[dust1n]

It's impossible. The plantae are too strange for the Bible.

 

[Ouroboros]

Let's give this another go, shall we?

Banana is a good example. They are perfect in your hand, and have a natural package. They must be designed...

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Most of the time, the debate seems focused on the evolution of animals, so let's talk about plants instead. As hybridization is very common in plants and the hybrids mostly are fertile, how would we define a plant "kind"?

Do you want the Biblical description or will any old description do?

 

[Skwim]

Most of the time, the debate seems focused on the evolution of animals, so let's talk about plants instead. As hybridization is very common in plants and the hybrids mostly are fertile, how would we define a plant "kind"? We also see a huge diversity within plant families (like apples and strawberries both belonging to the Rosaceae family).

Are there any good arguments against plant evolution?

(NOTE: Abiogenesis is not to be discussed here. That's a different subject.)

In as much as creationists consider "kind" to be representative of the family level of taxonomic classification:

The biblical word “KIND” (Creationists call it “Baramin”—created from the Hebrew for create and kind) would be more at the “FAMILY” level of classification (Phylum, Class, Order, FAMILY, Genus, species).
source

Plant kinds would be the 620 families:
​

Acanthaceae
Achariaceae
Achatocarpaceae
Acoraceae
Acrobolbaceae
Actinidiaceae
Adelanthaceae
Adiantaceae
Adoxaceae
Aextoxicaceae
Aizoaceae
Akaniaceae
Alismataceae
Allisoniaceae
Alseuosmiaceae
Alstroemeriaceae
Altingiaceae
Alzateaceae
Amaranthaceae
Amaryllidaceae
Amblystegiaceae
Amborellaceae
Anacardiaceae
Anarthriaceae
Anastrophyllaceae
Ancistrocladaceae
Andreaeaceae
Aneuraceae
Anisophylleaceae
Annonaceae
Antheliaceae
Anthocerotaceae
Aphanopetalaceae
Aphloiaceae
Apiaceae
Apocynaceae
Apodanthaceae
Aponogetonaceae
Aquifoliaceae
Araceae
Araliaceae
Araucariaceae
Archidiaceae
Arecaceae
Argophyllaceae
Aristolochiaceae
Arnelliaceae
Asparagaceae
Aspleniaceae
Asteliaceae
Asteropeiaceae
Atherospermataceae
Aulacomniaceae
Austrobaileyaceae
Aytoniaceae
Balanopaceae
Balanophoraceae
Balantiopsaceae
Balsaminaceae
Barbeuiaceae
Barbeyaceae
Bartramiaceae
Basellaceae
Bataceae
Begoniaceae
Berberidaceae
Berberidopsidaceae
Betulaceae
Biebersteiniaceae
Bignoniaceae
Bixaceae
Blandfordiaceae
Blechnaceae
Bonnetiaceae
Boraginaceae
Boryaceae
Boweniaceae
Brachytheciaceae
Brassicaceae
Brevianthaceae
Bromeliaceae
Bruchiaceae
Brunelliaceae
Bruniaceae
Bryaceae
Bryobartramiaceae
Bryoxiphiaceae
Burmanniaceae
Burseraceae
Butomaceae
Buxaceae
Buxbaumiaceae
Byblidaceae
Cabombaceae
Cactaceae
Calceolariaceae
Calomniaceae
Calophyllaceae
Calycanthaceae
Calyceraceae
Calymperaceae
Calypogeiaceae
Campanulaceae
Campyneumataceae
Canellaceae
Cannabaceae
Cannaceae
Capparaceae
Caprifoliaceae
Cardiopteridaceae
Caricaceae
Carlemanniaceae
Caryocaraceae
Caryophyllaceae
Casuarinaceae
Catagoniaceae
Catoscopiaceae
Celastraceae
Centrolepidaceae
Centroplacaceae
Cephalotaceae
Cephalotaxaceae
Cephaloziaceae
Cephaloziellaceae
Ceratophyllaceae
Cercidiphyllaceae
Chaetophyllopsaceae
Chloranthaceae
Chonecoleaceae
Chrysobalanaceae
Cinclidotaceae
Circaeasteraceae
Cistaceae
Cleomaceae
Clethraceae
Cleveaceae
Climaciaceae
Clusiaceae
Colchicaceae
Columelliaceae
Combretaceae
Commelinaceae
Compositae
Connaraceae
Conocephalaceae
Convolvulaceae
Coriariaceae
Cornaceae
Corsiaceae
Corsiniaceae
Corynocarpaceae
Costaceae
Crassulaceae
Crossosomataceae
Cryphaeaceae
Crypteroniaceae
Ctenolophonaceae
Cucurbitaceae
Cunoniaceae
Cupressaceae
Curtisiaceae
Cyatheaceae
Cycadaceae
Cyclanthaceae
Cymodoceaceae
Cynomoriaceae
Cyperaceae
Cyrillaceae
Cyrtopodaceae
Cytinaceae

Continued on next page

 

[Skwim]

Daltoniaceae
Daphniphyllaceae
Dasypogonaceae
Datiscaceae
Davalliaceae
Degeneriaceae
Dendrocerotaceae
Dennstaedtiaceae
Diapensiaceae
Dichapetalaceae
Dicksoniaceae
Dicnemonaceae
Dicranaceae
Didiereaceae
Dilleniaceae
Dioncophyllaceae
Dioscoreaceae
Dipentodontaceae
Dipteridaceae
Dipterocarpaceae
Dirachmaceae
Disceliaceae
Ditrichaceae
Doryanthaceae
Droseraceae
Drosophyllaceae
Dryopteridaceae
Ebenaceae
Ecdeiocoleaceae
Echinodiaceae
Elaeagnaceae
Elaeocarpaceae
Elatinaceae
Emblingiaceae
Encalyptaceae
Entodontaceae
Ephedraceae
Ephemeraceae
Equisetaceae
Ericaceae
Eriocaulaceae
Erpodiaceae
Erythroxylaceae
Escalloniaceae
Eucommiaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Euphroniaceae
Eupomatiaceae
Eupteleaceae
Eustichiaceae
Exormothecaceae
Fabroniaceae
Fagaceae
Fissidentaceae
Flagellariaceae
Fontinalaceae
Fontinaliaceae
Fossombroniaceae
Fouquieriaceae
Frankeniaceae
Funariaceae
Garryaceae
Geissolomataceae
Gelsemiaceae
Gentianaceae
Geocalycaceae
Geraniaceae
Gesneriaceae
Gigaspermaceae
Ginkgoaceae
Gisekiaceae
Gleicheniaceae
Gnetaceae
Goebeliellaceae
Gomortegaceae
Goodeniaceae
Goupiaceae
Grammitidaceae
Grimmiaceae
Griseliniaceae
Grossulariaceae
Grubbiaceae
Gunneraceae
Gymnomitriaceae
Gyrostemonaceae
Haemodoraceae
Halophytaceae
Haloragaceae
Hamamelidaceae
Hanguanaceae
Haplomitriaceae
Haptanthaceae
Hedwigiaceae
Heliconiaceae
Helicophyllaceae
Helwingiaceae
Herbertaceae
Hernandiaceae
Himantandraceae
Hookeriaceae
Huaceae
Humiriaceae
Hydatellaceae
Hydnoraceae
Hydrangeaceae
Hydrocharitaceae
Hydroleaceae
Hydrostachyaceae
Hylocomiaceae
Hymenophyllaceae
Hymenophyllopsidaceae
Hymenophytaceae
Hypericaceae
Hypnaceae
Hypnodendraceae
Hypopterygiaceae
Hypoxidaceae
Icacinaceae
Iridaceae
Irvingiaceae
Isoetaceae
Iteaceae
Ixioliriaceae
Ixonanthaceae
Jackiellaceae
Joinvilleaceae
Jubulaceae
Jubulopsaceae
Juglandaceae
Juncaceae
Juncaginaceae
Jungermanniaceae
Kirkiaceae
Koeberliniaceae
Krameriaceae
Lacistemataceae
Lactoridaceae
Lamiaceae
Lanariaceae
Lardizabalaceae
Lauraceae
Lecythidaceae
Leguminosae
Lejeuneaceae
Lembophyllaceae
Lentibulariaceae
Lepicoleaceae
Lepidobotryaceae
Lepidolaenaceae
Lepidoziaceae
Leptodontaceae
Lepyrodontaceae
Leskeaceae
Leucodontaceae
Leucomiaceae
Liliaceae
Limeaceae
Limnanthaceae
Linaceae
Linderniaceae
Loasaceae
Loganiaceae
Lomariopsidaceae
Lophiocarpaceae
Lophocoleaceae
Lophoziaceae
Loranthaceae
Lowiaceae
Loxsomataceae
Lunulariaceae
Lycopodiaceae
Lythraceae
Magnoliaceae
Makinoaceae
Malpighiaceae
Malvaceae
Marantaceae
Marattiaceae
Marcgraviaceae
Marchantiaceae
Marsileaceae
Martyniaceae
Mastigophoraceae
Matoniaceae
Mayacaceae
Meesiaceae
Melanthiaceae
Melastomataceae
Meliaceae
Melianthaceae
Menispermaceae
Menyanthaceae
Mesoptychiaceae
Metaxyaceae
Meteoriaceae
Metteniusaceae
Metzgeriaceae
Misodendraceae
Mitrastemonaceae
Mitteniaceae
Mniaceae
Molluginaceae
Monimiaceae
Monocarpaceae
Montiaceae
Montiniaceae
Moraceae
Moringaceae
Muntingiaceae
Musaceae
Myliaceae
Myodocarpaceae
Myricaceae
Myriniaceae
Myristicaceae
Myrothamnaceae
Myrtaceae
Myuriaceae
Nartheciaceae
Neckeraceae
Nelumbonaceae
Neotrichocoleaceae
Nepenthaceae
Neuradaceae
Nitrariaceae
Nothofagaceae
Notothyladaceae
Nyctaginaceae
Nymphaeaceae
Ochnaceae
Octoblepharaceae
Oedipodiaceae
Olacaceae
Oleaceae
Oleandraceae
Onagraceae
Oncothecaceae
Ophioglossaceae
Opiliaceae
Orchidaceae
Orobanchaceae
Orthorrhynchiaceae
Orthotrichaceae
Osmundaceae
Oxalidaceae
Oxymitraceae
Paeoniaceae
Pallaviciniaceae
Pandaceae
Pandanaceae
Papaveraceae
Paracryphiaceae
Passifloraceae
Paulowniaceae
Pedaliaceae
Pelliaceae
Penaeaceae
Pentadiplandraceae
Pentaphragmataceae
Pentaphylacaceae
Penthoraceae
Peraceae
Peridiscaceae
Petermanniaceae
Petrosaviaceae
Philesiaceae
Philydraceae
Phrymaceae
Phyllanthaceae
Phyllodrepaniaceae
Phyllogoniaceae
Phyllonomaceae
Physenaceae
Phytolaccaceae
Picramniaceae
Picrodendraceae
Pilotrichaceae
Pinaceae
Piperaceae
Pittosporaceae
Plagiochilaceae
Plagiogyriaceae
Plagiotheciaceae
Plantaginaceae
Platanaceae
Pleuroziaceae
Pleuroziopsaceae
Plocospermataceae
Plumbaginaceae
Poaceae
Podocarpaceae
Podostemaceae
Polemoniaceae
Polygalaceae
Polygonaceae
Polypodiaceae
Polytrichaceae
Pontederiaceae
Porellaceae
Portulacaceae
Posidoniaceae
Potamogetonaceae
Pottiaceae
Primulaceae
Prionodontaceae
Proteaceae
Pseudolepicoleaceae
Psilotaceae
Pteridaceae
Pterigynandraceae
Pterobryaceae
Ptilidiaceae
Ptychomitriaceae
Ptychomniaceae
Putranjivaceae
Quillajaceae
Racopilaceae
Radulaceae
Rafflesiaceae
Ranunculaceae
Rapateaceae
Regmatodontaceae
Resedaceae
Restionaceae
Rhabdodendraceae
Rhabdoweisiaceae
Rhachitheciaceae
Rhacocarpaceae
Rhamnaceae
Rhipogonaceae
Rhizogoniaceae
Rhizophoraceae
Ricciaceae
Riellaceae
Rigodiaceae
Roridulaceae
Rosaceae
Rousseaceae
Rubiaceae
Ruppiaceae
Rutaceae
Rutenbergiaceae
Sabiaceae
Salicaceae
Salvadoraceae
Salviniaceae
Santalaceae
Sapindaceae
Sapotaceae
Sarcobataceae
Sarcolaenaceae
Sarraceniaceae
Saururaceae
Saxifragaceae
Scapaniaceae
Scheuchzeriaceae
Schisandraceae
Schistochilaceae
Schistostegaceae
Schizaeaceae
Schlegeliaceae
Schoepfiaceae
Scorpidiaceae
Scrophulariaceae
Selaginellaceae
Seligeriaceae
Sematophyllaceae
Serpotortellaceae
Setchellanthaceae
Simaroubaceae
Simmondsiaceae
Siparunaceae
Sladeniaceae
Smilacaceae
Solanaceae
Sphaerosepalaceae
Sphagnaceae
Sphenocleaceae
Spiridentaceae
Splachnaceae
Splachnobryaceae
Stachyuraceae
Staphyleaceae
Stegnospermataceae
Stemonaceae
Stemonuraceae
Stereophyllaceae
Stilbaceae
Strasburgeriaceae
Strelitziaceae
Stylidiaceae
Styracaceae
Surianaceae
Symplocaceae
Takakiaceae
Talinaceae
Tamaricaceae
Tapisciaceae
Targioniaceae
Taxaceae
Taxodiaceae
Tecophilaeaceae
Tetrachondraceae
Tetramelaceae
Tetrameristaceae
Tetraphidaceae
Thamnobryaceae
Theaceae
Theliaceae
Thelypteridaceae
Thomandersiaceae
Thuidiaceae
Thurniaceae
Thymelaeaceae
Ticodendraceae
Timmiaceae
Tofieldiaceae
Torricelliaceae
Tovariaceae
Trachypodaceae
Treubiaceae
Trichocoleaceae
Trigoniaceae
Triuridaceae
Trochodendraceae
Tropaeolaceae
Typhaceae
Ulmaceae
Urticaceae
Vahliaceae
Velloziaceae
Verbenaceae
Vetaformaceae
Violaceae
Vitaceae
Vittariaceae
Vivianiaceae
Vochysiaceae
Wardiaceae
Welwitschiaceae
Wiesnerellaceae
Winteraceae
Woodsiaceae
Xanthorrhoeaceae
Xeronemataceae
Xyridaceae
Zamiaceae
Zingiberaceae
Zosteraceae
Zygophyllaceae

source

Which are home to about 16,167 genera and 400,000 species*. It's pretty evident that a whole lot of evolution was going on




*

 

[mycorrhiza]

Do you want the Biblical description or will any old description do?

Anyone that is consistent. Creationists claim speciation never happens, and then say that all canids descended from a single dog kind, which clearly must be speciation, since there are several canid species. But if we put the level at family, then chimpanzees and humans must be the same kind, which creationism doesn't allow. But if we put the level at genus so we can separate humans from chimps, then there can no longer be a single dog kind. I'm using animals here, as I don't think there are any plants that are controversial for creationists.

In as much as creationists consider "kind" to be representative of the family level of taxonomic classification:

The biblical word “KIND” (Creationists call it “Baramin”—created from the Hebrew for create and kind) would be more at the “FAMILY” level of classification (Phylum, Class, Order, FAMILY, Genus, species).
source

Plant kinds would be the 620 families:
​

Wouldn't that put humans and chimpanzees in the same kind?

 

[Skwim]

Wouldn't that put humans and chimpanzees in the same kind?

That it would.

​

 

[mycorrhiza]

That it would.

​

Which they wont allow.. I wonder if they'll ever be able to give us a consistent definition of kind. It can't be = species, because we have seen speciation. It can't be = genus, because we have made Triticale and there would no longer be a single dog kind, for example. It can't be = family or higher, because then chimps are in the same kind as humans.

So kind cannot really be equal to any taxonomic rank.

 

[Skwim]

Which they wont allow.. I wonder if they'll ever be able to give us a consistent definition of kind. It can't be = species, because we have seen speciation. It can't be = genus, because we have made Triticale and there would no longer be a single dog kind, for example. It can't be = family or higher, because then chimps are in the same kind as humans.

So kind cannot really be equal to any taxonomic rank.

Not in any reasonable, workable sense, but of course creationists often claim whatever they need to get themselves through the day, and to hell with the objections that will surface later on.