Three Ways that Plants Defy Darwin’s Mechanism

tas8831 · Jul 19, 2018

Anguspure said:
Another great article from the usual suspects:

Why was it 'great'?

Do you find it odd that this creationist organization NEVER posts essays about some great new creation science finding that supports IDcreation claims or hypotheses?

Why do you suppose they ONLY ever write about how silly evilution is?
The DI has a multi-million dollar budget. They created a 'lab' for Axe and Gauger to do 'research' in - and to date, they have churned out... primarily evolution-bashing essays.

Why do you suppose Jeff Tomkins refuses to test his "DNA sequence identity" routine on, say, animal pairs that creationists claim belong to the same Kind? Why do you suppose the ONLY 'scientific research' ANY creation scientist does is to try to poke holes in evolution?
It is all about 'debunking' evolution, yet their claimed 'debunkings' are all nonsense.

Creationists have no evidence, at all, that their tall tales have any merit whatsoever.

tas8831 · Sep 14, 2018

Anguspure said:
@tas8831
The articles from Evolution News (Discovery Institute) are free to share, and are interesting for anybody who wishes to follow the ID argument.
So there is no plagiarism on my part.

LOL!

So, I guess, among everything else, you do not understand what plagiarism is.

Further more the content is relevant to the discussion taking place here and is only recieved by recipients who choose to subscribe to alerts of new content on the forum. So spam is not an issue either.

It is when you look at the forum rules.

I have debated this stuff in the past and no doubt will do so in the future but for now, for the most part, I am happy to observe the discussion that these articles inspire on this forum.

Not sure how spamming ENV essays by crackpots and assuming their content is 100% true counts as "debate."

The attacks against the content observed, on every posting I have made, are so very typical of the circles that the evolutionary crowd run around in are hardly worthy of chasing at the moment. Please forgive me.

Not as typical as the content of your "debate" points - hackneyed reiterations/plagiarism of angry nonsense that has generally already been refuted from people that are paid to try to prop up the religious beliefs of folks like you.

tas8831 · Sep 14, 2018

KomatiiteBIF said:
One thing that isnt talked about too often is the fossil record of plants. You actually get early vascular plants in the silurian. Cooksonia for example is a very primitive plant transitional with no leaves or seeds or flowers, and it had rhizomes. Then beyond the silurian you have the appearance of things like ferns in the devonian. Simultaneously you have the advance of terrestrial invertebrates through the silurian and into the devonian, along side the plant succession, with things like millipede burrows and liverwords that small insects likely consumed.

The first seed bearing plant fossils appear later in the devonian. And beyond that, we dont even see flowering plants until the mesozoic. But there are many plant transitionals throughout the fossil record.

To say that plants did not undergo evolution or descent with modification would beg the question of why a seeded plant had never been found beyond the devonian, or why primitive looking vascular plants occupy the oldest rocks? Or why flowering plants are not found in rocks beyond the mesozoic. Why are there no vascular plants in the ordovician? Among other things.

Just as there are no rabbits in the cambrian, just the same, there are no angiosperms in the silurian.

Just as there is a succession of fossil animals throughout the record, and an order therein, there is also a succession of plant fossils, going from...less derived to more derived, over time.

Well sure, but, since Dougie Axe and David Klinghoffer declare otherwise, ID is REAL!

Speedwell · Sep 14, 2018

Anguspure said:
@tas8831
The articles from Evolution News (Discovery Institute) are free to share, and are interesting for anybody who wishes to follow the ID argument.
So there is no plagiarism on my part.

Further more the content is relevant to the discussion taking place here and is only recieved by recipients who choose to subscribe to alerts of new content on the forum. So spam is not an issue either.

I have debated this stuff in the past and no doubt will do so in the future but for now, for the most part, I am happy to observe the discussion that these articles inspire on this forum.

I am currently sitting in the shores of a lake in N.America enjoying the summer sun with my family.
The attacks against the content observed, on every posting I have made, are so very typical of the circles that the evolutionary crowd run around in are hardly worthy of chasing at the moment. Please forgive me.

So where are you going with all this? You put a lot of work into pushing ID. What do you expect to get out of it? Suppose you could convince us that the must have been a "designer" of some kind? What would be next?

DogmaHunter · Sep 17, 2018

SkyWriting said:
Without proper planning, biology would be worthless.

Genetic algoritms demonstrate that statement to be pure nonsense

DogmaHunter · Sep 17, 2018

Speedwell said:
So where are you going with all this? You put a lot of work into pushing ID. What do you expect to get out of it? Suppose you could convince us that the must have been a "designer" of some kind? What would be next?

a praying circle?

SkyWriting · Nov 1, 2019

tas8831 said:
Ah, so you do not know what plagiarism is.You see, you have, in almost every one of your spam-troll threads, copy-pasted, verbatim, parts of the articles you refer to, often intermixed with your own comments, without indicating that you had done so - no quotation marks, no indents, no italics - just copy-pastes. The first couple threads I read of yours, since there was no actual attribution, I had concluded that the words were yours until I clicked the link and saw that you were just pasting blurbs from the articles without indicating as much.That, pal, is plagiarism.

Add to this the fact that on the rare occasions that you do actually respond to comments, you tend merely to refer back to the essay, and it is pretty clear that you are just spamming and trolling. IOW - sfs had you pegged.

It's really only plagiarism if one is posting for personal gain.
A chat forum is a more casual conversation and not usually
used for building a professional reputation. Especially since
few people identify themselves.

SkyWriting · Nov 1, 2019

DogmaHunter said:
Genetic algoritms demonstrate that statement to be pure nonsense

It's easier to plan if an entity already knows the outcome of future events.

Brightmoon · Nov 1, 2019

Anguspure said:
Noticing that you havn't modified your view on plant reproduction either.
Plants do not clone themselves.

This is a coleus . To clone a coleus you just break a stem off and stick it in the dirt or in water .Of course they break off by themselves too. That purple plant in the background Purple Heart ( Setcreasea purpurea) also clones easily . Maybe you should read and think about what you write before you post it .

loveofourlord · Nov 1, 2019

SkyWriting said:
It's easier to plan if an entity already knows the outcome of future events.

it's more enjoyable to set a program to make things for you so your surprised by the outcome.

loveofourlord · Nov 1, 2019

SkyWriting said:
It's easier to plan if an entity already knows the outcome of future events.

it's more enjoyable to set a program to make things for you so your surprised by the outcome.

SkyWriting · Nov 1, 2019

loveofourlord said:
it's more enjoyable to set a program to make things for you so your surprised by the outcome.

Naa. Having planned success is better. And any programmer or Olympic athlete.

Anguspure · Nov 1, 2019

Brightmoon said:
View attachment 265970

This is a coleus . To clone a coleus you just break a stem off and stick it in the dirt or in water .Of course they break off by themselves too. That purple plant in the background Purple Heart ( Setcreasea purpurea) also clones easily . Maybe you should read and think about what you write before you post it .

A slight twist if definition and shazam! We can equivocate 2 different types of function, and supply evidence for our argument.
Now where have I seen that before?

FrumiousBandersnatch · Nov 2, 2019

Anguspure said:
Plants do not clone themselves.

As it happens, large number of plant species do clone themselves - it's a form of asexual reproduction called 'apomixis' or, more specifically, 'agamospermy'.

Some common examples are dandelions, crab apples, citrus, blackberries, and grass.

Anguspure · Nov 2, 2019

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
As it happens, large number of plant species do clone themselves - it's a form of asexual reproduction called 'apomixis' or, more specifically, 'agamospermy'.

Some common examples are dandelions, crab apples, citrus, blackberries, and grass.

They are capable of "cloning" due to all cells retaining stem cell capability, enabling regrowth when damaged. I put a leaf of a mustard green plant in my garden the other day and it has become a complete plant.
The normal form of reproduction is not cloning however, which was my point.
To say that these plants clone themselves as a matter of course is like suggesting that they also marry because they are capable of grafting.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Nov 3, 2019

Still doesn't mean plants 'defy' evolution.

Anguspure · Nov 3, 2019

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Still doesn't mean plants 'defy' evolution.

Any living thing containing DNA information defies the proposition that living things originated and developed without the presence of an information producing mechanism.
The only "mechanism" available in the universe capable of producing the sort of specifically functional information observed in biological systems is intelligence.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Nov 3, 2019

Anguspure said:
Any living thing containing DNA information defies the proposition that living things originated and developed without the presence of an information producing mechanism.
The only "mechanism" available in the universe capable of producing the sort of specifically functional information observed in biological systems is intelligence.

For that to be true, you first have to provide evidence that information came from somewhere, that that intelligent source is an actual thing.
Just saying it's so does not make it so.

loveofourlord · Nov 3, 2019

Anguspure said:
Any living thing containing DNA information defies the proposition that living things originated and developed without the presence of an information producing mechanism.
The only "mechanism" available in the universe capable of producing the sort of specifically functional information observed in biological systems is intelligence.

weasel words, yes new 'information' is in DNA YOU have new information in your dna that wasn't there from your parents, around 50 new bits of information, so yes it can appear in there.

Anguspure · Nov 3, 2019

loveofourlord said:
weasel words, yes new 'information' is in DNA YOU have new information in your dna that wasn't there from your parents, around 50 new bits of information, so yes it can appear in there.

As a function of the design that allows it to be there. When detrimental anomalies in the information occur the biological system seeks to remove it. Errors in DNA Replication | Learn Science at Scitable

Three Ways that Plants Defy Darwin’s Mechanism

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

The Librarian

The Librarian

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.

Newbie

Newbie

The Librarian

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Well-Known Member

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Well-Known Member

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency