Author Topic: Interesting Article  (Read 3517 times)

Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Interesting Article
« on: February 04, 2008, 08:58:48 AM »
Evolution Wilts in Light of Flowering Plants

In his book Creation: Facts of Life, biologist Gary E. Parker asked:

    Did you ever wonder what kind of plants the dinosaurs tromped around on? The answer may surprise you. Some of these unfamiliar animals wandered around among some very familiar plants: oak, willow, magnolia, sassafras, palms, and other such common flowering plants.

Now the orchid can be added to Parker's list, according to a fossil analysis by Harvard University biologists that was published August 30, 2007, in Nature.

The scientists found a mass of orchid pollen (Meliorchis caribea) on the back of a stingless bee (Proplebeia dominicana) preserved in an amber encasement from approximately "15 million to 20 million years ago."

Santiago R. Ramirez, a researcher in Harvard's Museum of Comparative Zoology and the study's lead author, said orchids have fascinated evolutionary biologists since the time of Darwin. Orchids have been "absent from the fossil record," he suggested, due to their infrequent blooming cycle and concentration in tropical areas where heat and humidity prevent fossilization.

The age of orchids has long been debated by evolutionary scientists, who have placed the flowers anywhere from 26 to 112 million years old. The Harvard find suggests "orchids are old enough to have coexisted with dinosaurs" and that "flowering plants arose some 76 million to 84 million years ago, much longer ago than many scientists had estimated."

But though the bee mentioned above is extinct, according to the researchers, the analysis of the pollen load on its back places the orchid from which it comes "firmly within one of the five extant subfamilies of orchids."

"By applying the so-called molecular clock method, the scientists...|t|o their surprise...found that certain groups of modern orchids, including the highly prized genus Vanilla, evolved very early during the rise of the plant family."

In other words, they found that the supposedly 15- to 20-million-year-old pollen belonged to orchids we can find and observe today. Why, then, did the orchid not "evolve" with other living organisms?

Discoveries such as this fit the creation model perfectly because the Bible states that God created plants and animals "after their kind." We would not expect to find any incontrovertible transitions between one kind and another kind, either for plants or animals.

Fossil plants and animals are found complete and fully formed (often identifiable down to the species level!) farther back in "geologic time" than evolutionary theory would predict, with no indication of their supposed evolutionary ancestors.

Even in his 1859 book The Origin of the Species, Darwin did not actually address how species originated, including that of flowering plants, which he later called an "abominable mystery."

The late Colin Patterson of the prestigious British Museum of Natural History also admitted,

    The origin of the angiosperms |flowering plants|, an "abominable mystery" to Charles Darwin, remained so 100 years later and is little better today. ("Congruence between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. Vol. 24, 1993, p. 170 http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.es.24.110193.001101?journalCode=ecolsys.1)

Flowering plants are as much a testament to our Creator as they are an evolutionary enigma.

Deedee

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5067
  • They sicken of the calm, who knew the storm.
Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2008, 09:34:35 AM »
That article doesn't say or prove anything at all, although it's got quite the overly brash and confident headline, and of course closes with the lame but expected... "ergo, this proves my God exists"  even though the article itself said nothing about anything.

It comes from here, http://www.icr.org/articles/view/3603/ so what would one expect. I keep wondering why these religious organizations try to pass themselves off as being scientific representatives on the one hand, when they keep denouncing science and scientific discovery on the other. It's just strange.

columbusdude82

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6896
  • I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!
Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2008, 10:35:06 AM »
YAWN... another "Answers in Genesis" creationist: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/g_parker.asp

He doesn't hold a PhD, only a EdD...

Look at his list of publications, not a single one is in a scientific peer-reviewed journal. This means he is an idiot who pulls crap out of his rectum and presents it to dumb Creationists as "fact"...

When he submits an article to a real journal, and it is accepted and published, then we can discuss his ideas.

Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2008, 11:24:16 AM »
That article doesn't say or prove anything at all, although it's got quite the overly brash and confident headline, and of course closes with the lame but expected... "ergo, this proves my God exists"  even though the article itself said nothing about anything.

It comes from here, http://www.icr.org/articles/view/3603/ so what would one expect. I keep wondering why these religious organizations try to pass themselves off as being scientific representatives on the one hand, when they keep denouncing science and scientific discovery on the other. It's just strange.
There are people who love science and God, ya know?   Even if they don't love God, there are those who would agree to intelligent design over the "from-goo-to-you-compliments-of-the-zoo" evolutionary thought. 

I know we won't get anywhere with this debate, so I won't try to bore you, and I confess that there's no way I can articulate God's existence or his mastery of creating the heavens and the earth.  I just thought it to be an interesting article and wanted to share and watch the verbal fists fly. 

columbusdude82

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6896
  • I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!
Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2008, 11:30:06 AM »
There are people who love science and God, ya know?

Correct

Quote
  Even if they don't love God, there are those who would agree to intelligent design over the "from-goo-to-you-compliments-of-the-zoo" evolutionary thought.

Intelligent Design is nothing but the old creationism dressed up in a cheap tuxedo. But any way...
 

Quote
I know we won't get anywhere with this debate, so I won't try to bore you, and I confess that there's no way I can articulate God's existence or his mastery of creating the heavens and the earth.

Please understand, I am not attacking this guy's faith, or his religion. I am attacking BAD SCIENCE. Remember, LYING FOR JESUS IS STILL LYING!!!

Quote
I just thought it to be an interesting article and wanted to share and watch the verbal fists fly.

Thanks for sharing, but I promise you that this guy would get absolutely killed in an academic debate with real biologists. Not because of his faith, but because of his BAD SCIENCE! 
[/quote]

OzmO

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2008, 11:43:38 AM »
Can someone explain to me why evolution and God cannot exsits?

columbusdude82

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6896
  • I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!
Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2008, 11:52:15 AM »
Can someone explain to me why evolution and God cannot exsits?

Look up Stephen Jay Gould and "NOMA"...

MMC78

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 168
Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #7 on: February 04, 2008, 12:28:39 PM »
Quote
In other words, they found that the supposedly 15- to 20-million-year-old pollen belonged to orchids we can find and observe today. Why, then, did the orchid not "evolve" with other living organisms?

HA HA what the hell is this?

Cockroaches and alligators are unchanged from the cretaceous period (80 -142 millions of years ago).

Just because a species is morphologically similar over millions of years doesn't mean that evolution is false.  This gives support to the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution vs gradualism.

How can you expect someone to take this article seriously?




Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66395
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #8 on: February 04, 2008, 12:58:41 PM »
Can someone explain to me why evolution and God cannot exsits?

I think McWay pointed out in another thread that the theory of evolution is grounded on a desire to disassociate with God and the only other alternative from evolution is a God-created existence, which many scientists want to avoid.

I don't see how you can reconcile parts of the theory with God.   

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9902
Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2008, 01:00:01 PM »
HA HA what the hell is this?

Cockroaches and alligators are unchanged from the cretaceous period (80 -142 millions of years ago).

Just because a species is morphologically similar over millions of years doesn't mean that evolution is false.  This gives support to the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution vs gradualism.

How can you expect someone to take this article seriously?





he expects it because he knows nothing of science and his mind is extremely biased without the ability to look objectively at his faith and this junk science.

everything is a transitional fossil whats so hard to understand about that? are they hoping to find some fossil of a half and half retard breed and cannot live?

i have no idea why they have such a hardon for transitional fossils, when everything is a transitional fossil in slow evolution

OzmO

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #10 on: February 04, 2008, 01:05:32 PM »
I think McWay pointed out in another thread that the theory of evolution is grounded on a desire to disassociate with God and the only other alternative from evolution is a God-created existence, which many scientists want to avoid.

I don't see how you can reconcile parts of the theory with God.   


I believe in both.  So what ever.  Evolution is a bit hard to deny.  But then again, i don't buy into the "either or" approach.

OzmO

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #11 on: February 04, 2008, 01:08:11 PM »
he expects it because he knows nothing of science and his mind is extremely biased without the ability to look objectively at his faith and this junk science.

everything is a transitional fossil whats so hard to understand about that? are they hoping to find some fossil of a half and half retard breed and cannot live?

i have no idea why they have such a hardon for transitional fossils, when everything is a transitional fossil in slow evolution

We are talking about fossils that would have had to remain intact for millions of years and we would have had to find find them on this big un-dug up planet.  Aside from that, many of these creatures were probably eaten at some point when they died instead and were lucky to have the fossil we do have.

Lack of transitional fossils seems to be a weak point against evolution.

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9902
Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #12 on: February 04, 2008, 01:10:39 PM »
We are talking about fossils that would have had to remain intact for millions of years and we would have had to find find them on this big un-dug up planet.  Aside from that, many of these creatures were probably eaten at some point when they died instead and were lucky to have the fossil we do have.

Lack of transitional fossils seems to be a weak point against evolution.

there is no lack of fossils, they are everywhere. everything is in transition. monkeys dont have humans like kent hovind thinks.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66395
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #13 on: February 04, 2008, 01:52:29 PM »
I believe in both.  So what ever.  Evolution is a bit hard to deny.  But then again, i don't buy into the "either or" approach.

Not hard to deny at all.  It's a theory. 

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9902
Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #14 on: February 04, 2008, 02:14:51 PM »
I think McWay pointed out in another thread that the theory of evolution is grounded on a desire to disassociate with God and the only other alternative from evolution is a God-created existence, which many scientists want to avoid.

I don't see how you can reconcile parts of the theory with God.   


why is that the only alternative? if that is your outlook then you are missing the whole point of science, the other alternative is the truth not some pre accepted conclusion like god did it.

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9902
Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #15 on: February 04, 2008, 02:18:17 PM »
Not hard to deny at all.  It's a theory. 

its both fact and theory.

do you deny the theory of gravity?

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66395
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #16 on: February 04, 2008, 02:21:56 PM »
its both fact and theory.

do you deny the theory of gravity?


Obviously not. 

Do I deny the theory that a cell appeared from nothing and multiplied into all of the complex life forms we see today?  Yes. 

columbusdude82

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6896
  • I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!
Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #17 on: February 04, 2008, 02:26:41 PM »
I think McWay pointed out in another thread that the theory of evolution is grounded on a desire to disassociate with God and the only other alternative from evolution is a God-created existence, which many scientists want to avoid.

Yeah right, and MCWAY is the world's most prolific scientific thinker ::) Evolution is "grounded" on one thing only, FACT.

Quote
I don't see how you can reconcile parts of the theory with God.   

Lots of scientists who are also believers seem to manage. Have you read SJ Gould's "Rock of Ages"? Or more generally, have you heard of his "NOMA"?

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9902
Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #18 on: February 04, 2008, 02:30:24 PM »
Obviously not. 

Do I deny the theory that a cell appeared from nothing and multiplied into all of the complex life forms we see today?  Yes. 

gravity is only a theory so its not that hard to deny?

a cell appearing from nothing is not the theory of evolution, your thinking abiogenesis.

whats your theory on how that first cell appeared or how we have so many species?

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66395
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #19 on: February 04, 2008, 02:30:48 PM »
Yeah right, and MCWAY is the world's most prolific scientific thinker ::) Evolution is "grounded" on one thing only, FACT.

Lots of scientists who are also believers seem to manage. Have you read SJ Gould's "Rock of Ages"? Or more generally, have you heard of his "NOMA"?

I believe he quoted someone with pretty good credentials.  Plus McWay is one of the smartest guys posting on the board.  You disagree with the quote he posted?  

I'm sure people can rationalize almost anything.  I'm just expressing my personal opinion.  Certain parts appear irreconcilable to me.  People can certainly have different opinions.  

No I haven't read Gould's book or his "NOMA."  

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66395
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #20 on: February 04, 2008, 02:32:40 PM »
gravity is only a theory so its not that hard to deny?

a cell appearing from nothing is not the theory of evolution, your thinking abiogenesis.

whats your theory on how that first cell appeared or how we have so many species?

Gravity can be observed, so it is hard to deny.  There is zero comparison between gravity and the single cell theory. 

I believe God created the heavens and earth, so that's my theory on how we all got here. 

columbusdude82

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6896
  • I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!
Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #21 on: February 04, 2008, 02:34:42 PM »
Gravity can be observed, so it is hard to deny.  There is zero comparison between gravity and the single cell theory. 

I believe God created the heavens and earth, so that's my theory on how we all got here. 

OK, that's your theory. What evidence do you have in its favor? :)

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #22 on: February 04, 2008, 02:36:52 PM »
Gravity can be observed, so it is hard to deny.  There is zero comparison between gravity and the single cell theory. 

I believe God created the heavens and earth, so that's my theory on how we all got here. 

Bum, correct me if I'm wrong but don't you believe that all forms of life basically appeared on the earth exactly as they are now (forgetting for the moment the micro/macro argument that fundies like to make).  Basically man just appeared as he currently is today, dogs, cats, birds, etc...  God just made them all as they currently appear to us today?

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66395
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #23 on: February 04, 2008, 02:57:44 PM »
OK, that's your theory. What evidence do you have in its favor? :)

Actually, I should back up and say I don't have a theory.  I have a belief.  And if you're asking for scientific "evidence" in support of my belief, I don't have any.  It's not necessarily a scientific belief and I'm not a scientist.  I really don't know how the people who believe that God created us all have attempted to prove this scientifically.  I haven't read their material, websites, etc.   

But I'll also say the theory of evolution has precisely the same problem when it comes to proving the origin of life.

OzmO

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Interesting Article
« Reply #24 on: February 04, 2008, 03:03:25 PM »
Not hard to deny at all.  It's a theory. 

there are different degrees of theories, there is too much evidence pointing to evolution.  Way too much.  Take humans for example:

1.   Male nipples.  whats the point?

2.   Tale bones?  remnants from being apes,  why don't we have tails?  We no longer needed them and edvolved away from them and now the only thing that remains is the tail bone.

3.  Wisdom teeth.  Before we started hunting with tools and fire, we ate primarily veggies.  We needed more molars for this, but since we have evolved and starting hunting and eating meat and beggies now we don't need them but they still exsits.

4.  body hair....what's the point if it's not thick for insulation?  We have it becuase it's part of our mammal ancestry

5.   Goose bumps......for puffing up fur like your cat does in the winter to keep warm, only that we discovered fire along with clothing ourselves and we evolved out of hairy bodies like apes.

6.  here's a big one,  if we are unique in the sense that God created us in his own image why then are we 98% ape in our DNA?  Shouldn't we be a separate and distinct species?

I'm with you.  i believe in god, but i don;lt see why God cannot create through evolution.....Imperfect as it is, life still goes on and evolves.

soon, well in a few thousands of years, we will have cross bred so much we will be one race.