Do creationists accept the evolution of plants?

[Only Me]

OK, what exactly is your definition of "life", then?

Off the top of my head I would say something that was alive and had the capacity to reproduced itself.
A rock or a 747 in a junkyard are not alive.

 

[CabVet]

No. Plants are not life.

Where is that picture again? Yeah, here:

 

[Skaloop]

Off the top of my head I would say something that was alive and had the capacity to reproduced itself.
A rock or a 747 in a junkyard are not alive.

Which would include plants, which is why I am curious about what definition of life juvenissun is using that includes animals but not plants.

 

[Loudmouth]

As I am not a biologist, so my argument has holes. But it is not a big deal.

Every human has different DNA. But we all have human DNA which is different from DNA of other life forms.

But, individual plants of the same species, have very different DNA. In other words, plant species can not be identified by its DNA.

Right? Biology expert.

Wrong, biological layperson.

The distribution of genetic variants in plant populations is strongly affected both by current patterns of microevolutionary forces, such as gene flow and selection, and by the phylogenetic history of populations and species. Understanding the interplay of shared history and current evolutionary events is particularly confounding in plants due to the reticulating nature of gene exchange between diverging lineages. Certain gene sequences provide historically ordered neutral molecular variation that can be converted to gene genealogies which trace the evolutionary relationships among haplotypes (alleles). Gene genealogies can be used to understand the evolution of specific DNA sequences and relate sequence variation to plant phenotype. For example, in a study of the RPS2 gene in Arabidopsis thaliana, resistant phenotypes clustered in one portion of the gene tree. The field of phylogeography examines the distribution of allele genealogies in an explicit geographical context and, when coupled with a nested clade analysis, can provide insight into historical processes such as range expansion, gene flow, and genetic drift. A phylogeographical approach offers insight into practical issues as well. Here we show how haplotype trees can address the origins of invasive plants, one of the greatest global threats to biodiversity. A study of the geographical diversity of haplotypes in invasive Phragmites populations in the United States indicates that invasiveness is due to the colonization and spread of distinct genotypes from Europe (Saltonstall 2002). Likewise, a phylogeographical analysis of Tamarix populations indicates that hybridization events between formerly isolated species of Eurasia have produced the most common genotype of the second-worst invasive plant species in the United States.
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/94/3/197.full.pdf​

Not only can we identify plants by their DNA, but we can use the differences between plants in the same species to map their evolutionary history.

 

[CabVet]

But, individual plants of the same species, have very different DNA. In other words, plant species can not be identified by its DNA.

Right? Biology expert.

First plants are not life, and now this (which somehow I missed). Do you enjoy spreading misinformation and making false statements?

UC Davis: Foundation Plant Services

A DNA barcode for land plants

DNA fingerprinting, DNA barcoding, and next... [Methods Mol Biol. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0029473

DNA system developed to identify and authenticate plant species -- ScienceDaily

DNA barcoding of medicinal plant material for identification

Identification using DNA | Naktuinbouw

Bioprofiles Ltd - DNA Root Identification and Plant Microsatellite Development Services

Use of DNA barcodes to identify flowering plants

Plant DNA Fingerprinting and Barcoding - Methods and Protocols

I stopped at 10 (the last one is an entire book about the subject), but I can post many others, so, how many links do you want me to post to show that your statement is false?

Note that some of the links above are of companies that will identify plant fragments (to species) based on DNA tests, so if you still don't "believe" that plants can be identified by their DNA, just sent a fragment of a plant of known identity (only to you) to one of those companies and see for yourself. That is how science works, I am not making a statement and asking you to "believe" me. I am giving you an opportunity to see it for yourself.

 

[CabVet]

Here is some "not-life" for your enjoyment:

[youtube]MgDZBqTuUuE[/youtube]

 

[Skaloop]

First plants are not life, and now this (which somehow I missed). Do you enjoy spreading misinformation and making false statements?

UC Davis: Foundation Plant Services

A DNA barcode for land plants

DNA fingerprinting, DNA barcoding, and next... [Methods Mol Biol. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0029473

DNA system developed to identify and authenticate plant species -- ScienceDaily

DNA barcoding of medicinal plant material for identification

Identification using DNA | Naktuinbouw

Bioprofiles Ltd - DNA Root Identification and Plant Microsatellite Development Services

Use of DNA barcodes to identify flowering plants

Plant DNA Fingerprinting and Barcoding - Methods and Protocols

I stopped at 10 (the last one is an entire book about the subject), but I can post many others, so, how many links do you want me to post to show that your statement is false?

Note that some of the links above are of companies that will identify plant fragments (to species) based on DNA tests, so if you still don't "believe" that plants can be identified by their DNA, just sent a fragment of a plant of known identity (only to you) to one of those companies and see for yourself. That is how science works, I am not making a statement and asking you to "believe" me. I am giving you an opportunity to see it for yourself.

None of those links say that plants are not a form of life.

 

[CabVet]

None of those links say that plants are not a form of life.

I used the links to refute this statement:

individual plants of the same species, have very different DNA. In other words, plant species can not be identified by its DNA.

As for refuting the statement that plants are not life, this is such basic information that I don't think there is any link that explicitly refutes that. It's like looking for a link to refute someone that says that insects are not animals, or that bats are birds.

 

[Skaloop]

I used the links to refute this statement:

Very well.

As for refuting the statement that plants are not life, this is such basic information that I don't think there is any link that explicitly refutes that. It's like looking for a link to refute someone that says that insects are not animals, or that bats are birds.

Such basic information that you are literally the only person I have ever heard assert that plants are not a form of life, and that every single other description of life includes plants?

Although, yes, saying that plants are not life is just as ridiculous as saying that insects are not animals or that bats are birds. The way you phrased that is that you do think plants are life, and that is irrefutable, yet you previously stated that plants are not life.

So which is it? Are plants a form of life? Why or why not?

 

[Loudmouth]

Very well.



Such basic information that you are literally the only person I have ever heard assert that plants are not a form of life, and that every single other description of life includes plants?

Although, yes, saying that plants are not life is just as ridiculous as saying that insects are not animals or that bats are birds. The way you phrased that is that you do think plants are life, and that is irrefutable, yet you previously stated that plants are not life.

So which is it? Are plants a form of life? Why or why not?

It was meant as an indignant rhetorical question.

"First plants are not life, and now this (which somehow I missed)[?]"

He was making fun of Juv for thinking that plants were not life.

 

[Naturalism]

If you define "evolution", you will find what you said is either meaningless, or is not true.

Interestingly there is a definition already.

Maybe you read it and find out plants have DNA & are actually living?

 

[CabVet]

Such basic information that you are literally the only person I have ever heard assert that plants are not a form of life, and that every single other description of life includes plants?

Although, yes, saying that plants are not life is just as ridiculous as saying that insects are not animals or that bats are birds. The way you phrased that is that you do think plants are life, and that is irrefutable, yet you previously stated that plants are not life.

So which is it? Are plants a form of life? Why or why not?

Haha, I am pretty sure you are confusing me with someone else. I am not the one saying that plants are not life, juvenissun is.

 

[CabVet]

It was meant as an indignant rhetorical question.

"First plants are not life, and now this (which somehow I missed)[?]"

He was making fun of Juv for thinking that plants were not life.

Thanks, lost in translation, I guess.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thanks, lost in translation, I guess.

Reminds me of the movie "My Cousin Vinny". When Ralph Macchio's character was taken into the police station they accused him of killing the sheriff. He reacted by saying, "I killed the sheriff?!?!". When they read the transcript back in court they acted as if it was confession, and that it was not asked as a question. Always reminds of me of how creationists argue.

 

[Rubiks]

Plants aren't real life forms, that's why Noah didn't take them on the ark.

You're making the huge error of reading modern scientific definitions into the text. It very well be that "life" to the Hebrews consisted only of animals.

 

[Rubiks]

Plants aren't real life forms, that's why Noah didn't take them on the ark.

You're making the huge error of reading modern scientific definitions into the text. It very well be that "life" to the Hebrews consisted only of animals. The definition of "life" changes all the time and will continue to change. Viruses may very well be considered living at some point in the future

 

[CabVet]

You're making the huge error of reading modern scientific definitions into the text. It very well be that "life" to the Hebrews consisted only of animals.

I don't recognize your name, so I gather you don't frequent these forums very often, but most creationists here take the Bible literally. Some even think that it was written in English, and that it was written for and applies to every culture (past, present and future, everywhere).

 

[Rubiks]

I don't recognize your name, so I gather you don't frequent these forums very often, but most creationists here take the Bible literally. Some even think that it was written in English, and that it was written for and applies to every culture (past, present and future, everywhere).

I don't subscribe to that view. Whenever you translate something, you're always going to lose or gain some meaning to the text. No two words translate perfectly, connotation for connotation. We have the read the bible in light of the culture at the time it was written.

 

[CabVet]

I don't subscribe to that view. Whenever you translate something, you're always going to lose or gain some meaning to the text. No two words translate perfectly, connotation for connotation. We have the read the bible in light of the culture at the time it was written.

Why do you state in your signature that Jesus is from Israel then? Israel didn't exist when Jesus was born.

 

[Rubiks]

Why do you state in your signature that Jesus is from Israel then? Israel didn't exist when Jesus was born.

I didn't know that I guess he from the land we call Israel today?