-
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
dust1n
Zindīq
He would know PW, he's an expert in the field.
dust1n
Zindīq
Test Tube Yeast Evolve Multicellularity: Scientific American
How did they turn yeast into a multicelluar organism that never existed before?!?!
I guess we're still on day four...
How did they turn yeast into a multicelluar organism that never existed before?!?!
I guess we're still on day four...
mycorrhiza
Well-Known Member
If people were plants, then yes, we could solve world hunger with artificial photosynthesis. People cannot live on sugar alone, though. We could already solve the world hunger issue if the US and other rich countries didn't do everything to keep it existing, just so they themselves can make money.
What about photosynthesis implies design? It's a complicated process, but definitely not the most complicated natural process we know about. That we don't know the specifics of how photosynthesis arose doesn't support creationism. After all, it was over 3 billion years ago, so it might be difficult to study it's beginning.
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Who's arguing?
I only argue with people who intend to honestly discuss a subject. Otherwise it's a waste of my time.
wa:do
Zoe Doidge
Basically a Goddess
Fantastic stuff! Just goes to show that sometimes what seems like an incredibly complex question can be resolved fairly easily.
Not to mention quickly! That single-celled organisms can evolve into multi-celled ones in only 60 generations is seriously impressive.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
Plant evolution = busted.
mycorrhiza
Well-Known Member
Haha!
mycorrhiza
Well-Known Member
Any creationists / ID-supporters that would care to provide some material against plant evolution? I would prefer peer-reviewed articles, but any material would do.
Any creationists / ID-supporters here who actually accept plant evolution, but not animal evolution?
Any creationists / ID-supporters here who actually accept plant evolution, but not animal evolution?
mycorrhiza
Well-Known Member
No one?
Kind is concept of consensus, not necessarily a scientific definition. Evolution on the other hand is a genetic difference two species. So whenever evolution is involved, you need to specify the evolution of what and from what, such that the genetic difference can be well defined. Moreover, hybridization is not part of what commonly referred to as evolution.
So if hybridization brings in new species genetically speaking, then what is its the implication? For example, if the hybridization of A and B brings in C, what's its implication?
Does it mean that
"because the hybridization of A and B brings in C, such that all plants must be a result of such a kind of hybridization"
Is the above statement valid?
To me, the statement is a fallacy. That's why evolution is such a joke which can't live without the applying of such a fallacy.
mycorrhiza
Well-Known Member
For it to be useful in a debate about science it needs to be a scientific concept. If there is no genetic barrier, then there cannot be such a thing as a kind that doesn't evolve.
Hybridization is part of evolution. Why wouldn't it be?
That is not what it implies. It implies that hybridization can cause new species to appear, not that hybridization is the only way new species appear.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
The Bible describes grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
So would you say then that there are three "kinds" of plants?
Grass, herb and tree.
wa:do
dust1n
Zindīq
Doesn't even make sense... such a description completely excludes conifers, ferns, or mosses... a pretty large chunk of the plant kingdom.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Yes, but if one insists on "biblical kinds" then you can only go by the "kinds" listed in the Bible.
You should not "add to" nor "remove from" scripture.
wa:do
otokage007
Well-Known Member
It's quite difficult to say when a plant is a different specie from other plant if both can hybridize and produce fertile offspring. I would use a similar norm that it's used for bacteria, which it goes basicly like this: if they share an X % of the genome, they are the same species (well it's actually quite a bit more complex than that).
But this is an interesting thread, I wonder what concepts will christians bring up this time
What you call banana, potato, tomato, corn and many more, are all human-created. And someone posted an interesting example of a lettuce.
But this is an interesting thread, I wonder what concepts will christians bring up this time
Humm interesting. I remember hearing somewhere than most the fruits and/or vegetables we eat we unedible in their original forms, but somehow early humans mixed plants that were really easy to farm but not good to eat, with some others that were good to eat, but bad to farm and many fruits of today happened that way.
Was the strawberry one of them? Is what I am saying completely bananas?
What you call banana, potato, tomato, corn and many more, are all human-created. And someone posted an interesting example of a lettuce.
Last edited:
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Biblical kinds, yes.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Or algae.