Plants

[Brightmoon]

That’s not true that evolution is being questioned. I’ve got a biology degree so I should know . It’s actually one of the more robust science theories with so much evidence that it’s not being questioned at all. Not natural selection nor common descent are in doubt . Biologists are currently just filling in details

 

[Brightmoon]

Are you familiar with any of the plant memory experiments? Fascinating stuff.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...emember-this-one-seems-to-heres-the-evidence/

. I’ve done something similar. touch a mimosa tree ( the other genus and species with pink flowers) repeatedly and after a while the leaves won’t close . It seems like they can differentiate between harmless movements and damaging touch. I know that Nat Geo is written for laymen but it makes sense that plants like this would evolve that ability . With their leaves closed they can’t harvest sunlight as efficiently.

 

[Babe Ruth]

I believe every living entity has some degree of soul..
I can't prove it, or explain my belief with anymore elaboration.
Just my instinct..

 

[BroRoyVa79]

That’s not true that evolution is being questioned. I’ve got a biology degree so I should know . It’s actually one of the more robust science theories with so much evidence that it’s not being questioned at all. Not natural selection nor common descent are in doubt . Biologists are currently just filling in details

My friend, simply because you have a biology degree does not mean you are in the know in every facet of evolution. For instance, there are a number of proponents of Intelligent Design who believe in evolution, yet they criticize it. See Michael Behe, William Demski, et al. Also see some sources below, this is not at all exhaustive:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/94e1/7ac2b7fa5c515fcbafdbccd003284bfb1f9f.pdf
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ligious-people-doubt-the-theory-of-evolution/
David Berlinski, an atheist:

Michael Denton, a molecular biologist:

As I said, not an exhaustive list. Just a very small glimpse to prove my point you have both religions and non-religious evolutionists raising questions about various aspects of the theory.

 

[akaDaScribe]

Hmmm... Well, there is a definite difference between plants and animals. I think that maybe the scientific definition of life may not align with the word used for life in genesis. Using our current definition of life, I'd say they are alive. However, there is a pretty thick line of distinction between plants and animals. So if one of the qualifiers of life is to roam about freely and make decisions and such then I would say plants are not that.

 

[Brightmoon]

My friend, simply because you have a biology degree does not mean you are in the know in every facet of evolution. For instance, there are a number of proponents of Intelligent Design who believe in evolution, yet they criticize it. See Michael Behe, William Demski, et al. Also see some sources below, this is not at all exhaustive:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/94e1/7ac2b7fa5c515fcbafdbccd003284bfb1f9f.pdf
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ligious-people-doubt-the-theory-of-evolution/
David Berlinski, an atheist:

Michael Denton, a molecular biologist:

As I said, not an exhaustive list. Just a very small glimpse to prove my point you have both religions and non-religious evolutionists raising questions about various aspects of the theory.

. David berlinski isn’t a life scientist and he’s expressing an outlier opinion about something he doesn’t understand and has refused to be corrected on . Very few people agree with Denton either . Both are IDers and neither have demonstrated their ideas . Sorry ,to me they have about as much credibility as Kent Hovind. In other words none. I’m also not impressed with their god-of-the-gaps arguments either

 

[Brightmoon]

That so called thick line between plants and animals is only there because we’ve been separated from them since the Precambrian. That’s a long time! Fungi are sorta in the middle between plants and animals. They have cell walls but they’re more closely related to animals. That’s one of the reasons fungal infections are sometimes so hard to treat

 

[dreadnought]

I just read an interesting post that I couldn’t respond to on another thread . Some creationist said that plants don’t have the “ breath of life” . Now that sounds weird to me because plants do everything that animals do except walk around. They eat , breath oxygen , sleep at night, reproduce, respond to physical damage, communicate with others of the same species and insects , and some can even move rapidly, etc.

Your thoughts?

Communicate with others of the same species and insects?

 

[Brightmoon]

Communicate with others of the same species and insects?

Yep! Humans use sound waves to communicate. Plants use pheromones. They can tell others in the same genus that they’re being attacked by insects or animals . The other plants will then ramp up their chemical defences. Some plants send out chemical signals to the leaf munchers’ predators . I think it’s cool that they send out an SOS like that.

And going back to the biblical idea that they aren’t quite alive , That’s just a silly fantasy ! Plants are very aware of their environment

 

[Strathos]

Yep! Humans use sound waves to communicate. Plants use pheromones. They can tell others in the same genus that they’re being attacked by insects or animals . The other plants will then ramp up their chemical defences. Some plants send out chemical signals to the leaf munchers’ predators . I think it’s cool that they send out an SOS like that.

And going back to the biblical idea that they aren’t quite alive , That’s just a silly fantasy ! Plants are very aware of their environment

The passage refers to the 'breath of life'. Plants respirate but they do not breathe like animals.

 

[Brightmoon]

The passage refers to the 'breath of life'. Plants respirate but they do not breathe like animals.

. Common misconception. Plants take in some of the oxygen they also give off as waste. They just make a lot more than they need. ( nice thought-that you’re breathing in plant poop! ) Insects don’t breathe like mammals either . Their air holes( spiricles) mostly rely on osmosis.

 

[Strathos]

. Common misconception. Plants take in some of the oxygen they also give off as waste. They just make a lot more than they need. Insects don’t breathe like mammals either . Their air holes( spiricles) mostly rely on osmosis.

What I meant was that they don't have lungs or blood.

 

[Brightmoon]

Insects don’t have lungs or blood either . they do have hemolymph that bathes their body organs . Bronze Age biblical scholars were just ignorant of how living organisms really behave . This is why stuff like that is not taken too seriously by me

 

[dreadnought]

Yep! Humans use sound waves to communicate. Plants use pheromones. They can tell others in the same genus that they’re being attacked by insects or animals . The other plants will then ramp up their chemical defences. Some plants send out chemical signals to the leaf munchers’ predators . I think it’s cool that they send out an SOS like that.

And going back to the biblical idea that they aren’t quite alive , That’s just a silly fantasy ! Plants are very aware of their environment

Plants have pheromones?

 

[Brightmoon]

Plants have pheromones?

. What do you think those lovely scents are. They aren’t for you, they’re to call pollenators

 

[BroRoyVa79]

. David berlinski isn’t a life scientist and he’s expressing an outlier opinion about something he doesn’t understand and has refused to be corrected on . Very few people agree with Denton either . Both are IDers and neither have demonstrated their ideas . Sorry ,to me they have about as much credibility as Kent Hovind. In other words none. I’m also not impressed with their god-of-the-gaps arguments either

They don't make god-of-the-gaps arguments. That really shows you haven't and don't consider their side. Your entire post is a quick dismissal. I've read Darwin's book, Dawkins, et al. I give the opposing side all kinds of chances. I listen to debates, read their books, etc. so I can get a better understanding of their arguments. There are evolutionists, non-religious, who make arguments against evolution because they see the holes in the theories. Just because you went to college and got a degree in biology, again, does not mean you were aware or are now aware of everything in every field of the theory.

People disagree with Denton, Berlinski, Dembski, et al. So what? That doesn't tell me much, and I would expect as much. I have not seen adequate responses to any of what they bring up about complexity, etc. And as I said that was a minuscule list of some of the people bringing up complaints about evolution. Evolution is not only about biology, there are other things around the theory as well that other people attack. Again, I emphasized that was not an exhaustive list, but we are free to believe what we want. However, in my research, I have come to find Evolution has a lot of holes that academia will not allow to be taught which is the reason individuals like yourself come to think it is unchallenged and foolproof.

 

[Brightmoon]

I read the ENTIRE Dover trial transcripts as they came out . I paid no attention to the fundies ( because they just came up with silly PRATTs )and I did pay attention to the IDers . And watched them bail on testifying because under oath and forced to answer truthfully ( unless they wanted perjury charges) they looked like they didn’t know what they were talking about . The judge even realised it after a while because he understood that ID was a underhanded ploy to teach “creation science” in American public school classrooms . My second point is that I’d come to the same conclusion months earlier and that was in 2005 . ID is a god-of-the-gaps argument at best. At worst it’s a ploy to teach pseudoscience religious beliefs in science classes. IM NOT IMPRESSED.

The disagreements that scientists have are usually blown out of proportion by creationists . Been there,done that, still not impressed

 

[BroRoyVa79]

Call me unimpressed with the Dover Trials and general objections to IDers and even "fundies" as you derogatorily call them.

They are not god-of-the-gap arguments, but of course, at this point, I don't expect you to move on that since it's apparent you have decided not to listen to any of their criticisms.

I also noticed how you jumped only on the religious folk, yet your profile says your Episcopalian. Even so, you completely glossed over the non-religious folk.

I'm moving along now. You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree that Evolution has not be challenged. You may not agree with those challenges, that's fair, but to make the bold claim it has not been challenged shows a biased, narrowminded opinion of the whole debate.

 

[Brightmoon]

I hear their pointless criticisms all the time as I have a biology degree. If they have a point ( which is very very very very rare) it shows up in the mainstream science literature . I’m still not impressed.

My church accepts mainstream science and I personally do not think that you have to be either ignorant or superstitious to be a Christian

 

[BroRoyVa79]

Evolution does not go together well with what the Bible says.
I'll leave it at that.
I'm unimpressed with your claims that you hear their "pointless criticisms all the time." Your dismissive attitude makes me think otherwise.