Do creationists accept the evolution of plants?

[stevevw]

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

Yes it seems that plants can affect the area around them. Scientists discovered that all the plants in certain sections of areas had acquired genetic info from each other. I am not sure how far spread this could be but I think it would be possible for some plants to spread their genes further afield because the reproduction method is more open. Scientists know that genetic info can jump from one species of plant to another. they havnt worked out how yet. But it could have insights into how evolution works with plants.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes it seems that plants can affect the area around them. Scientists discovered that all the plants in certain sections of areas had acquired genetic info from each other. I am not sure how far spread this could be but I think it would be possible for some plants to spread their genes further afield because the reproduction method is more open. Scientists know that genetic info can jump from one species of plant to another. they havnt worked out how yet. But it could have insights into how evolution works with plants.

Or perhaps they are not really separate species, but the same kind, merely subspecies or varieties thereof.

Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

So when discussing different varieties of taxa, just understand we are discussing the same taxa to begin with, just divided into different varieties, sub-varieties, and formae.


So for example, when they discuss peas, they are discussing the "kind" Fabaceae.

Or roses the "kind" Rosaceae.

There are simply more varieties of those kinds in plants, being pollination is much more prolific across those varieties, compared to animal reproductive methods.

As animals are divided into different breeds, subspecies, or varieties within kind, so too plants. But as all Felidae are Felidae, it is no wonder all Fabaceae are Fabaceae. We simply observe a greater variety within those plant kinds, due to the propagation method. One-to one reproduction not required, but bees, insects and the wind itself.

Greater varieties within kind an expected result within plants.

We also see some plants dominate in areas because they exude chemicals which prohibit the growth of other kinds.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Or perhaps they are not really separate species, but the same kind, merely subspecies or varieties thereof.

Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

So when discussing different varieties of taxa, just understand we are discussing the same taxa to begin with, just divided into different varieties, sub-varieties, and formae.


So for example, when they discuss peas, they are discussing the "kind" Fabaceae.

Or roses the "kind" Rosaceae.

There are simply more varieties of those kinds in plants, being pollination is much more prolific across those varieties, compared to animal reproductive methods.

As animals are divided into different breeds, subspecies, or varieties within kind, so too plants. But as all Felidae are Felidae, it is no wonder all Fabaceae are Fabaceae. We simply observe a greater variety within those plant kinds, due to the propagation method. One-to one reproduction not required, but bees, insects and the wind itself.

Greater varieties within kind an expected result within plants.

We also see some plants dominate in areas because they exude chemicals which prohibit the growth of other kinds.

I will give you some credit, marking out plant species is much more difficult and debated than with any animal species. For example, all nepenthes can cross breed and many form hybrids in nature.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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".

If lack of guilt when destroying them counts as a definition of life, then life is kind of subjective instead of objective. Obviously we have to ask . . . why YOUR feelings, instead of mine, or the feelings of that Muslim fundamentalist over there with his finger on his body bomb?

 

[juvenissun]

If lack of guilt when destroying them counts as a definition of life, then life is kind of subjective instead of objective. Obviously we have to ask . . . why YOUR feelings, instead of mine, or the feelings of that Muslim fundamentalist over there with his finger on his body bomb?

We should consider general case first, not special case. How many people will feel the guilty of killing when they cut down a tree? Why not? Because we never recognize the tree is a life, even we know it is probably alive.

 

[Kylie]

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

Yes, the poison might kill the rock.

*groan*

 

[PsychoSarah]

We should consider general case first, not special case. How many people will feel the guilty of killing when they cut down a tree? Why not? Because we never recognize the tree is a life, even we know it is probably alive.

I feel guilty about hurting trees...

 

[stevevw]

Or perhaps they are not really separate species, but the same kind, merely subspecies or varieties thereof.

Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

So when discussing different varieties of taxa, just understand we are discussing the same taxa to begin with, just divided into different varieties, sub-varieties, and formae.


So for example, when they discuss peas, they are discussing the "kind" Fabaceae.

Or roses the "kind" Rosaceae.

There are simply more varieties of those kinds in plants, being pollination is much more prolific across those varieties, compared to animal reproductive methods.

As animals are divided into different breeds, subspecies, or varieties within kind, so too plants. But as all Felidae are Felidae, it is no wonder all Fabaceae are Fabaceae. We simply observe a greater variety within those plant kinds, due to the propagation method. One-to one reproduction not required, but bees, insects and the wind itself.

Greater varieties within kind an expected result within plants.

We also see some plants dominate in areas because they exude chemicals which prohibit the growth of other kinds.

Yes and you have described very well all the possible ways that plants can changes into other types. It seems varieties can be made much more easily with plants. Doesn't this then mean that it is harder to tell what may have evolved through natural selection and what was just a variety or some sort of cross pollination happening.

 

[juvenissun]

I feel guilty about hurting trees...

I am sure it is not a feeling of guilty. It is something else.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes and you have described very well all the possible ways that plants can changes into other types. It seems varieties can be made much more easily with plants. Doesn't this then mean that it is harder to tell what may have evolved through natural selection and what was just a variety or some sort of cross pollination happening.

This reminded me a picture in the movie Star War. A lot of weird life forms have fun in a bar. They all have legs, arms, and at least one head.

 

[florida2]

We should consider general case first, not special case. How many people will feel the guilty of killing when they cut down a tree? Why not? Because we never recognize the tree is a life, even we know it is probably alive.

I always feel a bit sad when massive trees, hundreds of years old, are blown down in a storm for example.

 

[stevevw]

This reminded me a picture in the movie Star War. A lot of weird life forms have fun in a bar. They all have legs, arms, and at least one head.

Yeah I remember that. I think one had 3 eyes and another one had 3 heads. Yeah a fun bar in the middle of space where all the action is. I think thats something Richard Branson would be linked to.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I will give you some credit, marking out plant species is much more difficult and debated than with any animal species. For example, all nepenthes can cross breed and many form hybrids in nature.

Agreed, but they are hybrids - i.e. subspecies or varieties of the same kind. But sadly that is not the only defining feature.

As you said in plants harder than animals. Yet we know with the different breeds of dogs they all came from one basic stock, even though some subspecies or breeds or varieties can not interbreed any longer. So yes, dividing them into subspecies or varieties or breeds may be acceptable, as long as we understand what their lineage truly shows.

I have no problems with subspecies or varieties or breeds. The problem begins when the gap game begins and we try to imagine two distinctly separate creatures as belonging to the same kind.

Any links beyond the known is hypothetical and has no evidence to support it.

http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/pix/carnivora_phylogeny.jpg

So unknown it is left blank, imagination given free reign. The links always end at the Family - or Kind, when they even decide to use that designation.

In every single solitary case this is so.

http://www.hammiverse.com/instructionalunits/evolution/chp22-25lecture/print/lecture2-8-1.png

Take away those imaginary links that have no support in genetics or the fossil record, and one is left with the true picture. Such is the reason they are left blank, because no data backs any pre-existing links.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Yet we know with the different breeds of dogs they all came from one basic stock, even though some subspecies or breeds or varieties can not interbreed any longer.

Ooh, look. Evolution in action.

So yes, dividing them into subspecies or varieties or breeds may be acceptable, as long as we understand what their lineage truly shows.

How far back do you want to take the lineage? Therapsids? Or further?

I have no problems with subspecies or varieties or breeds. The problem begins when the gap game begins and we try to imagine two distinctly separate creatures as belonging to the same kind.

Any links beyond the known is hypothetical and has no evidence to support it.

http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/pix/carnivora_phylogeny.jpg

So unknown it is left blank, imagination given free reign. The links always end at the Family - or Kind, when they even decide to use that designation.

In every single solitary case this is so.

http://www.hammiverse.com/instructionalunits/evolution/chp22-25lecture/print/lecture2-8-1.png

Take away those imaginary links that have no support in genetics or the fossil record, and one is left with the true picture. Such is the reason they are left blank, because no data backs any pre-existing links.

You've heard of genetics presumably. Guess what? No, really, just have a guess.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes and you have described very well all the possible ways that plants can changes into other types. It seems varieties can be made much more easily with plants. Doesn't this then mean that it is harder to tell what may have evolved through natural selection and what was just a variety or some sort of cross pollination happening.

An acceptable hypothesis. IF you can show one single pea (or any plant or animal) becoming anything other than a variety of pea (or plant or animal it started as)????

So then why imagine what is clearly not shown? Why imagine mutation changes one Kind into another, when not one single laboratory experiment has even hinted at this? When even the fossil record across the years confirms this?

So definitive within the genetic code that I can breed two poodle or two pea and be assured that what I will get is a poodle and a pea? I need not ever worry that I will get anything but what I started with. If I cross breed I can still be assured of getting simply another breed or variety or subspecies, within that same kind. I can get a Labradoodle by crossing a Labrador with a Poodle, but I do not end up with anything but a sub-breed of Canidae.

There are no links above the Family or Kind in any plant or animal.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ooh, look. Evolution in action.

No, variation within kind in action, not one chaging into something else. All dogs no matter what their breed, still dogs.

How far back do you want to take the lineage? Therapsids? Or further?

How far back you think you can support any claim without playing the imaginary gap game???? Look like a dog to you????

You've heard of genetics presumably. Guess what? No, really, just have a guess.

That it shows every E. coli ever mutated over the last 100 years is still E. coli?

That it shows every dog is still a dog?

Every cat still a cat?

Every pea still a pea?

I know exactly what genetics shows. The question is do you?????

I know it is starting with technological advancements to destroy your evolutionary tree. To show individual bushes or kinds with sideways variation only. And will continue more so in the future as technology continues to increase.

But you continue with those imaginations of links never once found.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

No, variation within kind in action, not one chaging into something else. All dogs no matter what their breed, still dogs.

Didn't you mention something about dog breeds losing the ability to reproduce with each other? The species has split and has begun to diverge. Now, what was the common definition of species again?

How far back you think you can support any claim without playing the imaginary gap game???? Look like a dog to you????

I get the feeling you've been reading some creationist sites that have been feeding you bunkum again. It's always a mistake to rely on sources that lie to you. And I like the way that you now say it has to look like a dog. What exactly does a dog look like? Do chihuahuas and great danes look similar to you?

That it shows every E. coli ever mutated over the last 100 years is still E. coli?

That it shows every dog is still a dog?

Every cat still a cat?

Every pea still a pea?

I know exactly what genetics shows. The question is do you?????

I know it is starting with technological advancements to destroy your evolutionary tree. To show individual bushes or kinds with sideways variation only. And will continue more so in the future as technology continues to increase.

But you continue with those imaginations of links never once found.

Um, going to back to the mammal example, it is possible to compare mammal genomes to discover how distantly related they are.

Seriously, you want to stop relying on those creationist websites. They are feeding you pure excrement and you can't stop shovelling it down fast enough.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Didn't you mention something about dog breeds losing the ability to reproduce with each other? The species has split and has begun to diverge. Now, what was the common definition of species again?

Which makes them subspecies, breeds or varieties, according to your own definition, not a diverging split into a separate species.

Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

So why are you arguing against your own scientific definition????

I get the feeling you've been reading some creationist sites that have been feeding you bunkum again. It's always a mistake to rely on sources that lie to you. And I like the way that you now say it has to look like a dog. What exactly does a dog look like? Do chihuahuas and great danes look similar to you?

Like you just lied to me and tried to tell me that a subspecies is a brand new divergent species??????

Except we both know that both chihuahuas and great danes came from the same initial Canidae, and are merely breeds, varieties, or subspecies thereunder. A fact I know you are not going to claim is not true, are you?????

Um, going to back to the mammal example, it is possible to compare mammal genomes to discover how distantly related they are.

Except every distinct species has genes only found within its own kind, with no links to any other. This is what your technological advancements are beginning to tell you, so why deny it????

Seriously, you want to stop relying on those creationist websites. They are feeding you pure excrement and you can't stop shovelling it down fast enough.

I'm not relying on them. Can you show me one single link to a creationist website? I'm using your own sources, so are you implying your very own sources are pure excrement?

I might be tempted to agree with that statement.

 

[MoneyGuy]

I feel guilty about hurting trees...

How do you think I feel? I had a salad last night.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Which makes them subspecies, breeds or varieties, according to your own definition, not a diverging split into a separate species.

Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

So why are you arguing against your own scientific definition????

Just humour me for a moment and describe the difference between a species and a subspecies.

Like you just lied to me and tried to tell me that a subspecies is a brand new divergent species??????

Refer back to my last question: difference between species and subspecies. Now, was there something about dog breeds losing their ability to interbreed in there somewhere?

Except we both know that both chihuahuas and great danes came from the same initial Canidae, and are merely breeds, varieties, or subspecies thereunder. A fact I know you are not going to claim is not true, are you?????

Humour me again. How do we know that? If you arrived from planet Zarg, how would you determine f they were the same species, subspecies or different species? How would you do it?

Except every distinct species has genes only found within its own kind, with no links to any other. This is what your technological advancements are beginning to tell you, so why deny it????

Every individual has gene mutations only found in itself, you have about 60 of them, that will be passed on to all your descendants. You really don;t know what you are talking about do you?

I'm not relying on them. Can you show me one single link to a creationist website? I'm using your own sources, so are you implying your very own sources are pure excrement?

Come come, we both know you are not capable of making this drivel up yourself. You are like the little boy with jam all over his lips and hands denying he's been in the pantry. You are posting stuff you don't understand written by people who know enough to write only what will convince an ignorant creationist as long as he doesn't make the mistake of trying to repeat the argument himself.