Do creationists accept the evolution of plants?

[Justatruthseeker]

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

Just did.

""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).""

Subspecies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In biological classification, subspecies (abbreviated "subsp." or "ssp."; plural: "subspecies") is either a taxonomic rank subordinate to species, or a taxonomic unit in that rank. A subspecies cannot be recognized in isolation: a species will either be recognized as having no subspecies at all or two or more (including any that are extinct), never just one."

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?

Hence you may divide them into subspecies, which are merely subdivisions between two or more of the same species. Dictated by isolation or adapted traits. Not a distinct species in and of themselves. So stop trying to imply this is the case. You are just showing your desperation, when your own science tells you what it is.

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?

But you didn't arrive from the planet Zarg. You already know the breeds that man himself manipulated into being. All still Canidae, and nothing else. You have the same distinction in the fossil record. Just as all dogs are similar yet can vary within that kind. So are all T-Rex still T-Rex from the first to the last. Just as all Doberman are still Doberman, from the first to the last. Just as it is more than likely that like Doberman and German Shepard, so to with T-Rex and Allosaurus. Different breeds or subspecies within the same kind.

Of course I am sure if we didn't have any living dogs, you would classify them as separate species too, instead of merely breeds and subspecies of the same kind as you know for a fact is the case. So someone from Zarg might get dogs wrong, just like you got dinosaur wrong, not knowing any better. But they would at least have an excuse, not having observed it right before their eyes.

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?

Only mutations within the reproductive genes will be passed on. Mutations that will not affect me or better me for survival in the least. Mutations of genes and sequences already existing, in me or my mate. Whether the same or different in every single person. "Every individual has gene mutations only found in itself" will be of what already exists within that specific host, and the host of it's mate. Nothing that does not come from one or the other will ever be passed on or created.

So how does one get from simple to complex, when only pre-existing sequences are mutated????? One doesn't, plain and simple. One instead goes from more complex to less, as gene sequences are lost through mutation.

Come come, we both know you are not capable of making this drivel up yourself.

You seem quite capable of making up drivel though. Drivel that your own mutation experiments fail to support in the least.

The rest is just personal attacks, because you lack any science in which to counter. Instead wanting me to pretend we are from Zarg, so you can ignore the evidence before your very eyes in favor of imagination.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Just did.

""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).""

Subspecies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In biological classification, subspecies (abbreviated "subsp." or "ssp."; plural: "subspecies") is either a taxonomic rank subordinate to species, or a taxonomic unit in that rank. A subspecies cannot be recognized in isolation: a species will either be recognized as having no subspecies at all or two or more (including any that are extinct), never just one."



Hence you may divide them into subspecies, which are merely subdivisions between two or more of the same species. Dictated by isolation or adapted traits. Not a distinct species in and of themselves. So stop trying to imply this is the case. You are just showing your desperation, when your own science tells you what it is.

The question was the difference between subspecies and species. Have another go. Concentrate on the word 'difference".

But you didn't arrive from the planet Zarg. You already know the breeds that man himself manipulated into being. All still Canidae, and nothing else. You have the same distinction in the fossil record. Just as all dogs are similar yet can vary within that kind. So are all T-Rex still T-Rex from the first to the last. Just as all Doberman are still Doberman, from the first to the last. Just as it is more than likely that like Doberman and German Shepard, so to with T-Rex and Allosaurus. Different breeds or subspecies within the same kind.

Of course I am sure if we didn't have any living dogs, you would classify them as separate species too, instead of merely breeds and subspecies of the same kind as you know for a fact is the case.

You just mentioned desperation. The above is about as desperate as it gets. Are you deliberately trying to avoid answering the question?

Only mutations within the reproductive genes will be passed on.
Mutations that will not affect me or better me for survival in the least. Mutations of genes and sequences already existing, in me or my mate. Whether the same or different in every single person. "Every individual has gene mutations only found in itself" will be of what already exists within that specific host, and the host of it's mate. Nothing that does not come from one or the other will ever be passed on or created.

I've read the above several times and still don't know what you are trying to say.

So how does one get from simple to complex, when only pre-existing sequences are mutated????? One doesn't, plain and simple. One instead goes from more complex to less, as gene sequences are lost through mutation.

What are you talking about?

You seem quite capable of making up drivel though. Drivel that your own mutation experiments fail to support in the least.

Says your (apparently non-existent) creationist website.

The rest is just personal attacks, because you lack any science in which to counter. Instead wanting me to pretend we are from Zarg, so you can ignore the evidence before your very eyes in favor of imagination.

Let's go back to the point that completely eluded you to begin with.

Species and subspecies. What is the crucial difference? Clue: you touched on it when you were talking about dogs. Let's see if the implications of the answer shed any light for you.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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

Don't mock me. The survival of most food crops depends on us, as is the case of most domesticated animals as well.

 

[MoneyGuy]

Don't mock me. The survival of most food crops depends on us, as is the case of most domesticated animals as well.

I apologize to you and any plants I've harmed. Now, lunch time.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I apologize to you and any plants I've harmed. Now, lunch time.

-_-

 

[stevevw]

Don't mock me. The survival of most food crops depends on us, as is the case of most domesticated animals as well.

Yeah and I'm a bit sus about these genetically modified crops. Who knows what the end results will be in the future. I just dont trust the way we mess around with nature. For all we know it may add a rouge gene into our system or cause some other form of genetic breakdown in years to come. From the track record that some of the methods we have used in the past I find it hard to trust the so called experts when they say it will be OK.

 

[biggles53]

Yeah and I'm a bit sus about these genetically modified crops. Who knows what the end results will be in the future. I just dont trust the way we mess around with nature. For all we know it may add a rouge gene into our system or cause some other form of genetic breakdown in years to come. From the track record that some of the methods we have used in the past I find it hard to trust the so called experts when they say it will be OK.

Well, at least it'll put some colour into our faces...!

Thank you, you've been a wonderful audience....!

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yeah and I'm a bit sus about these genetically modified crops. Who knows what the end results will be in the future. I just dont trust the way we mess around with nature. For all we know it may add a rouge gene into our system or cause some other form of genetic breakdown in years to come. From the track record that some of the methods we have used in the past I find it hard to trust the so called experts when they say it will be OK.

More likely issue would be future sterility of the crops.

 

[Kylie]

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.

Okay, here's a question.

What does an animal do that a plant does not? What is it that makes an animal alive that a plant lacks?

 

[stevevw]

Well, at least it'll put some colour into our faces...!

Thank you, you've been a wonderful audience....!

It may end up putting more than colour into our faces though. We may end up with two faces because we have two heads. But like they say two heads are better than one. All the more quicker to come up with some more brilliant ideas that come back to haunt us.

 

[stevevw]

More likely issue would be future sterility of the crops.

I understand the intention is to create a better more resistant crop. But what we dont often do is consider the side effects. I just think from examples in the past like with the anti biotics put into chickens that it can cause knock on effects that we dont know about at the time. Or we do suspect that there could be some repercussions but either dont think its important or maybe some other reason like commercial ones influence decisions. Now antibiotics are overused and they dont fight off some diseases. Now a super bug is brewing in the wings thats going to come and kill millions.

 

[juvenissun]

Yeah and I'm a bit sus about these genetically modified crops. Who knows what the end results will be in the future. I just dont trust the way we mess around with nature. For all we know it may add a rouge gene into our system or cause some other form of genetic breakdown in years to come. From the track record that some of the methods we have used in the past I find it hard to trust the so called experts when they say it will be OK.

Hey, evolutionists said that we can mutate to fit. So, don't worry.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Yeah and I'm a bit sus about these genetically modified crops. Who knows what the end results will be in the future. I just dont trust the way we mess around with nature. For all we know it may add a rouge gene into our system or cause some other form of genetic breakdown in years to come. From the track record that some of the methods we have used in the past I find it hard to trust the so called experts when they say it will be OK.

Rogue genes that go wild in the system are perhaps the least of our concerns. What about mono-cultures, that become extremely vulnerable to a wild pathogen that mutates to eat them very effectively?

 

[stevevw]

Rogue genes that go wild in the system are perhaps the least of our concerns. What about mono-cultures, that become extremely vulnerable to a wild pathogen that mutates to eat them very effectively?

Ok I'm not to sure about monoculture and pathogens. But I did a quick read up and It seems to be from poor farming techniques. Rather than have a variety of crops and rotate them which seems to help with the soil pest control they are concentrating on one or two types of crops. This makes the need for more pesticides because the insects can get use to the one type of crop more easily and makes the crop vulnerable to attacks. The yield eventually starts to decline through this poor practice. I guess this is the market pressures for certain crops and specializing. So it may lead to a less sustainable crop and land.

This must also be something to do with the pathogen. If they are constantly using a single crop and putting pesticides into the soils then it will weaken the defenses of the crops. It also mentions that these crops become more vulnerable to pest attacks. With the weather changing through Global warming there is an increase in insects especially in warmer climates. So I can see a time when we will get plagues of insects and they can destroy crops in a matter of hours. That would throw a big spanner in the works if it is wide spread.

 

[stevevw]

Hey, evolutionists said that we can mutate to fit. So, don't worry.

I dont think evolution has taken into account that one of the very creatures it produced has the ability to mess around and change it. Where as they say its a natural processes subject to the environment man comes along and starts to un naturally experiment with it. One of the very creatures it has suppose to have created maybe the one that actually destroys it. Its like evolution has created its own monster which is now undoing all the work its done by playing God.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I dont think evolution has taken into account that one of the very creatures it produced has the ability to mess around and change it. Where as they say its a natural processes subject to the environment man comes along and starts to un naturally experiment with it. One of the very creatures it has suppose to have created maybe the one that actually destroys it. Its like evolution has created its own monster which is now undoing all the work its done by playing God.

You are anthropomorphising the process of evolution.

 

[stevevw]

You are anthropomorphising the process of evolution.

No what you class as evolution still goes on the way it does in the background. What humans do to it is relevant. If humans were not in the picture maybe everything would be OK and nature would not be disturbed. But if man evolved then he has got to a point where he is meddling in the process. He can consciously think and take actions that he knows will alter the process. He can speed it up or he can manipulate it to whatever he wants. If the evolution of man is true then it is evolution that has produced this. So evolution has created a creature that can affect its process. We know we are doing it and we know that we can affect it. Its not just a case of survival of the fittest. In the end it will be the survival of one species man and even then we will end up destroying ourselves and the planet. It wont be from some natural chance event, it will be calculated all the way to the end.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Hey, evolutionists said that we can mutate to fit. So, don't worry.

Actually, artificially altering genetics like this would be more like creation than evolution.

 

[46AND2]

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.

Do you feel guilty when you step on an ant and kill it? Is an ant not alive?

 

[Loudmouth]

Hey, evolutionists said that we can mutate to fit. So, don't worry.

We can also use our evolved brain to determine what the outcome of our actions will be, and decide accordingly.