Do creationists accept the evolution of plants?

[Paul of Eugene OR]

if you show me a rock, then it is alive. No test is needed.

I don't agree with myself on this argument either. I don't think rock is alive. It is simply a test to people who does not know what a life really is. The real issue is: I don't think plant is a life. If people argued that plant is a life, then I will respond by saying that rock is also s life based on the same reasons.

Ultimately, we do not have a good scientific definition of life.

Rather, we have several, and this causes confusion because we don't always keep our definitions clearly specified.

I deplore using reproduction as a definition of life. I am alive today, but I have had a vasectomy and I cannot reproduce now.

I deplore confining the definition of life to certain chemical reactions. I think alternate chemical reactions, even mechanical actions, could qualify as life.

I prefer a functional definition of life. It is something that a living thing does, above and beyond just sitting there.

So I define a living thing as something that maintains its own organization in the face of various alternative environmental hazards by various means of such complexity as to keep our minds from analyzing the detailed strategies and forcing us to view the success in a summary fashion.

A rock that keeps its shape just because its hard is merely an unliving rock.

A dog that bites somebody who attacks it is a living thing.

Plants are living by this definition. So are self driving cars.

 

[stevevw]

Wonder if plants have kinds?

"Yep, all them thar grasses come from the grass kind. Monkey grass, bermuda grass, field grass... it all came from the same kind 'bout seven thousand years ago. And it all magically lived through that their flood too!"

The trouble is that there is a lot of HGT with plants. Their production systems allow for cross pollination and they have an open system that allows for genetics to be passed from one to another easier than animals.

Genetic information migrates from plant to plant -- ScienceDaily
Horizontal Gene Transfer Between Plants is More Widespread than Previously Thought | SciTech Daily
Here we show that horizontal gene transfer is a dynamic process occurring frequently in the early evolution of land plants.
Widespread impact of horizontal gene transfer on plant colonization of land : Nature Communications : Nature Publishing Group

So wouldn't that mean that rather than the evolution of plants from one to another in upward branch like pattern but that plants just got new genetic info from HGT and was more like a cross the board pattern with no specific line.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The trouble is that there is a lot of HGT with plants. Their production systems allow for cross pollination and they have an open system that allows for genetics to be passed from one to another easier than animals.

Genetic information migrates from plant to plant -- ScienceDaily
Horizontal Gene Transfer Between Plants is More Widespread than Previously Thought | SciTech Daily
Here we show that horizontal gene transfer is a dynamic process occurring frequently in the early evolution of land plants.
Widespread impact of horizontal gene transfer on plant colonization of land : Nature Communications : Nature Publishing Group

So wouldn't that mean that rather than the evolution of plants from one to another in upward branch like pattern but that plants just got new genetic info from HGT and was more like a cross the board pattern with no specific line of .

Plants still have limitations on how much cross breeding can occur, mostly through geographic location barriers, as well as differences in when pollen matures.

 

[Kylie]

Good question. Generally speaking, none.

Then cakes are alive, yes?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Then cakes are alive, yes?

Fruitcake must be an immortal. :o

 

[Kylie]

if you show me a rock, then it is alive. No test is needed.

Then you are contradicting yourself. Earlier in this thread you claimed that rocks can die. Behold:

Rock is alive because it changes through time by taking and releasing energy. It can be born, it ages, and it can die.

What else do you need for a life?

You may describe that biological function of death. And I will use the same to precisely describe the death of a rock.

Try!

If something is dead, then it is not alive. Now you are claiming that a rock is always alive, no matter what. One of your claims must be wrong.

I don't agree with myself on this argument either. I don't think rock is alive. It is simply a test to people who does not know what a life really is. The real issue is: I don't think plant is a life. If people argued that plant is a life, then I will respond by saying that rock is also s life based on the same reasons.

So you were just being foolish with all that "rocks are alive" nonsense? Well, I think we know how to treat your future posts now, don't we?

Ultimately, we do not have a good scientific definition of life.

Back in post 261 I gave a definition of life. Care to explain why it is flawed?

 

[Kylie]

Fruitcake must be an immortal. :o

We've got a few of them posting here...

 

[juvenissun]

2) Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.

3) Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.,[36]

#2 is simple. Any rock will certainly satisfy that condition.
#3 should be modified a little bit. It does not have to be organic in nature. The term organic is not defined outside biology.

With the modification, a rock certainly fits the requirement in #3. The whole rock itself is a dynamic energy balanced system which includes energy input, output and the adjustment of internal energy balance.

 

[juvenissun]

It doesn't have to, some forms of life use RNA. Still, those forms that use RNA or DNA fit all the 7 criteria. The same 7 criteria that rocks do not meet and plants do.

Why must DNA or RNA or both?
Could a system be a life without those? Why not?

 

[juvenissun]

Because the photonic envelope that DNA fires is the source of experiential consciousness. Source of the holographic awareness of the body, reason for "phantom limb syndrome"

I am sorry that I don't understand the terms used in your argument. Have mercy on me because I am not a biologist/psychologist.

What would be wrong if a life does not have DNA?

 

[juvenissun]

Not all things which have DNA are considered alive.

You mean virus? Why not?

 

[Kylie]

#2 is simple. Any rock will certainly satisfy that condition.

No it does not. The fact that a rock is made up of smaller parts does not mean it meets the criteria. By that logic, my daughter's lego sets are alive.

#3 should be modified a little bit. It does not have to be organic in nature. The term organic is not defined outside biology.

With the modification, a rock certainly fits the requirement in #3. The whole rock itself is a dynamic energy balanced system which includes energy input, output and the adjustment of internal energy balance.

You have failed to justify your demand that #3 should be modified. And yes, "organic" is defined in chemistry as well.

As per your statement in the dog thread, I request that you do not make the request again, since you have been shown your claim is in error.

 

[juvenissun]

Rather, we have several, and this causes confusion because we don't always keep our definitions clearly specified.

I deplore using reproduction as a definition of life. I am alive today, but I have had a vasectomy and I cannot reproduce now.

I deplore confining the definition of life to certain chemical reactions. I think alternate chemical reactions, even mechanical actions, could qualify as life.

I prefer a functional definition of life. It is something that a living thing does, above and beyond just sitting there.

So I define a living thing as something that maintains its own organization in the face of various alternative environmental hazards by various means of such complexity as to keep our minds from analyzing the detailed strategies and forcing us to view the success in a summary fashion.

The biological definition of life, even it must include several terms, is pretty good. Except it is confined to the environment of the earth. Out side the earth, those terms may not all be applied to an alien life. So, in general, we do not have, and can not have, an universal definition of life.

If so, how do we determine what a life is?

It has to be determined by one who is most powerful than everyone else. The authority says: THIS IS LIFE. Then everybody follows that definition and no argument is allowed. This is the only way to have a "valid" definition of life.

Currently, that authority is the study of biology. And human is the author of biology. In the era we actually set our foot into other planets, this definition would be forced to have a review.

What happen if we found only plants, but no trace of animals in other planets of the universe? How would we define life in that situation?

 

[juvenissun]

The trouble is that there is a lot of HGT with plants. Their production systems allow for cross pollination and they have an open system that allows for genetics to be passed from one to another easier than animals.

Genetic information migrates from plant to plant -- ScienceDaily
Horizontal Gene Transfer Between Plants is More Widespread than Previously Thought | SciTech Daily
Here we show that horizontal gene transfer is a dynamic process occurring frequently in the early evolution of land plants.
Widespread impact of horizontal gene transfer on plant colonization of land : Nature Communications : Nature Publishing Group

So wouldn't that mean that rather than the evolution of plants from one to another in upward branch like pattern but that plants just got new genetic info from HGT and was more like a cross the board pattern with no specific line.

You know a lot more about plant than I do. I know plants are biologically weird. But I can not make scientific argument like what you did.

The only convincing reason for me to treat plants not as a life is when I destroy any plant, I do not feel guilty. There are sentimental people who treat and protect pet plant as it were alive. What we usually call them? "Idiots".

 

[juvenissun]

Then you are contradicting yourself. Earlier in this thread you claimed that rocks can die. Behold:

​

If something is dead, then it is not alive. Now you are claiming that a rock is always alive, no matter what. One of your claims must be wrong.

When you see a rock, it is alive. When you don't see it, it might just die.
How do you know Bob is alive if you do not see him?
I know Lord Jesus is alive today even I don't see Him.

 

[Kylie]

When you see a rock, it is alive. When you don't see it, it might just die.
How do you know Bob is alive if you do not see him?
I know Lord Jesus is alive today even I don't see Him.

Oh please. Now you're just being silly.

 

[SkyWriting]

Oh please. Now you're just being silly.

It's a Physics thought process:
Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Plants still have limitations on how much cross breeding can occur, mostly through geographic location barriers, as well as differences in when pollen matures.

As well as the "kind" barrier, which is never crossed. Everything that can interbreed, or cross-pollinate, is simply a variation of the same initial kind.

The problem lies in determining between two variants that have lost that ability to cross-pollinate, because of loss of genetic information through mutation. So in reality being able to cross-pollinate or not is only a partial indicator of a kind's lineage.

For example, we have many varieties of peas, but not all pea plants after mutation are capable of cross-pollination any more. But we also know for a fact that even those that can not cross-pollinate, all originated from the same original kind.

To presuppose that a pea could ever become a rose, is a leap of imagination nowhere supported in any mutation experiment ever performed. Every mutated pea is still a pea.

Pea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"There are many varieties (cultivars) of garden peas. Some of the most common varieties are listed here. PMR indicates some degree of powdery mildew resistance; afila types, also called semi-leafless, have clusters of tendrils instead of leaves."

So when studying fossils of which no living specimen exists in which to compare, any musings of things never observed is just that, musings. They may look drastically different - have tendrils instead of leaves - or in shape or size - Lion compared to Bobcat. So the claiming of different species is pure science fiction nonsense, not supported by one single mutation experiment ever performed in the history of science.

Every single plant ever produced through mutation is the same "kind" of plant it started out as. No matter how many varieties of a pea one has, they are all still peas.

 

[juvenissun]

Every single plant ever produced through mutation is the same "kind" of plant it started out as. No matter how many varieties of a pea one has, they are all still peas.

Can we hybrid pea and cucumber, for example? I like to see a cucumber pea or a pea cucumber.

 

[stevevw]

You know a lot more about plant than I do. I know plants are biologically weird. But I can not make scientific argument like what you did.

The only convincing reason for me to treat plants not as a life is when I destroy any plant, I do not feel guilty. There are sentimental people who treat and protect pet plant as it were alive. What we usually call them? "Idiots".

I dont know that much either. i am learning by reading different sites on the subject. I come across HGT a lot and though its not a complete reason why plants can get their new genetic info from it does seem that it contributes a lot more than scientist realize. Its a bit the same with sea life and even more so with micro organisms. HGT also happens with animals but at this stage not as much. To me it means that new kinds of plants, sea life and animals can be made by genetics being passed across from one to another. Sometimes they are finding whole sections of the gnome being transferred.