Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
-Astonishing symbiotic relationships between organisms found in nature. There are many instances where organisms of different species are completely dependent upon each other for survival. Now, Organisms in a symbiotic relationship "evolved together" per NECSI or any science foundation anywhere. According to evolutionist organisms have co-evolved too whose families first appeared very far apart on evolution's time scale. Now the first segmented flatworms originated millions of years before the first mammals. However, the tapeworm, a segmented flatworm that is a parasite of humans, cows, and other mammals, could not have evolved before the first large mammals.
-Members of the honeybee family, consisting of the queen, workers, and drones, are interdependent. If one member of each interdependent group evolved first (such as the plant before the animal, or one member of the honeybee family before the others), it could not have survived. Because all members of the group obviously have survived, they must have come into existence at essentially the same time.
-Evolutionist claimed the reason for SR is that certain organisms become progressively more dependent on one another over time. First they say "certain organism" not those mentioned that use SR. And this relationship is not something that helps the organism, its a way of life. Without another species to feed upon and vis vera the animal or insect, ect, would die. It's not a thing you put in your "nice things to have" bag, no, its life for them. There are thousands of species that rely on plants, other animals, ect to survive. Any thought anyone.
So, worship4ever, did the animals that were created in the garden of eden come with bacteria in their gut, or did that come later? How about Adam? When God was creating him from the dust, did he create a few bacteria in his gut as well?
The problem with the argument you presented is that it looks at the relationships now and assumes that they must, or have always been as strong as they are now. This is the same basic flaw as most ID irriducibly complex arguments. There is no reason that any organism can not become more dependent on others over time within a population if it benefits both species, in fact, evolutionary theory would demand it if the relationship provided benefit to both, or benefit to one and was neutral to another.
Do you think that horses just came off of the prarie and started to do our fieldwork? If I look at wild horses today compared to tame and raised horses, I guess my only conclusion would be that tame horses and man were created at the same time because ofthe relationship they have. There is no way this relationship could have evolved over time.
Just because a species is dependent on another NOW is no indication that its ancestor species were dependent.
Plants haven't always had flowers. Once insects were available for pollination that would increase diversity, flowers evolved. This is not a mystery to biologists, only to those who make bold assertations based on the relationships in place now and who don't have the imagination to look and how they might have developed over time with slight modifications over generations within a cooperative population.
__________________ "Therefore we really do have the remedy before the assault weapon is produced. Did you ever read poor old George Orwell's uh.. 1984? Yes, yes, that's wonderful. That would be, could be, the palest imagined shadow of what a world would be like under the rule of the secret use of Scientology with no remedy in existence." - L. Ron Hubbard, Philadelphia Doctorate Course Tape 20
How did the bees and flowers evolve at the same time? If the flowers came without the bees, theose plants would not be able to reproduce and would be extinct. If the bees came and the flowers did not exist, what would the bees feed on? How did the plants learn to produce sweet nectar in their flowers to attract the bees? There are millions of such examples in the natural world.
Monocots and dicots are two classes of flowering plants called angiosperms. Angiosperms appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitional ancestral evidence. Darwin called the origin of angiosperms an "abominable mystery", so suggesting they are evidence for macroevolution is totally without merit.
As for the plant comment, geez, we are then assuming again that the earth is the way it is now, the same thing you accuse me of. Plants need oxygen, for respiration, or for photosynthesis. "oxygen content of the Earth's atmosphere rose over time. Starting about 2 billion years ago are the Banded Iron Formations of deposits of Fe2O3, which is insoluble, while FeO, with less oxygen, is. Also, the uranium oxide UO2 is replaced by U3O8.
From chemical-equilibrium considerations, one finds that the Earth's atmosphere would be "neutral", consisting mostly of N2 and CO2. Oxygen would be removed by the oxidation of weathering rocks. Thus, around 2 billion years ago, something or other had started producing oxygen, and that was presumably the cyanobacteria." You then would agree that animals tranfer pollen much better than wind does, don't you. Natural selection obviously made a certain insect to take care of this problem. "Natural Selection" says, "the wind isnt doing a good job, so ill make a bee, insect, anything." I hope this sounds crazy, b.c it is. To me, this far more proves intelligent design. Natural selection isnt a person, a thing, or place, it doesnt tell anything to anyone. Would you also agree that natual selection could, in time, run its course. By this i mean, everything needs to be at the exact place it needs to be, total effficiency by every species. Natural selection is this never ending on-going process, correct. Why can't it have an end, or maybe it wont, b.c it doesnt exsist. Every animal depends on others someway or somehow. Every species is interlocked with anyother species, its impossible to have complete equality. Yet, animals seem to made do with the tools given to them, ie beeks, longer legs, ect, this tends to look more like intelligent design. The fact, k, a human is still be a human 300 million years from now, just like a bee will be a bee 300 million years ago. Humans are animals, right, geez, can we become instict, well to natural selection it can, how? Can human intelligance out witt this "natual selection."
An insect, a beneficial mutation in a somatic cell cannot be passed on to the next generation. And the insect's germ-line cells cannot test a mutation to see if it makes the wings work better for example. Only a complete organism in the next generation can test a germline mutation from a previous generation to see if it will increase the number of offspring that survive and reproduce. In other words, in higher plants and animals, any adaptive mutations in somatic cells can't be passed on, and while mutations in germline cells can be passed on, they cannot be adaptive.
I mean geez, how did photosynthesis evolve? how did flowering plants evolve? which came first, the plants or the insects that live and pollinate the plants? How did single cell plants become multi-celled (where are the two or three celled intermediates) and most importantly, is it possible that the similarities in design between different animals prove a common creator or a common ancestor?
How did the bees and flowers evolve at the same time? If the flowers came without the bees, theose plants would not be able to reproduce and would be extinct. If the bees came and the flowers did not exist, what would the bees feed on?
The plants probably came first. There is plenty of plant life that can survive and reproduce without bees picking up their pollen for them. But, if bees were attracted to certain plants for whatever reason, those plants would gain a reproductive advantage over other plants. Natural selection takes care of the rest.
How did the plants learn to produce sweet nectar in their flowers to attract the bees?
They didn't "learn". There probably were a bunch of plants producing nectar that attracted bees and some that didn't. The plants that didn't faced a reproductive disadvantage and therefore would be selected against.
Linear Mode
