The evidence of the angiosperms (flowering plants)
1. Proponents of evolution since Darwin called the sudden appearance of angiosperms an “abominable mystery” because they could not find any evidence for their evolution.
2. Researchers at Penn State published a paper titled: “Study helps to solve Darwin's mystery about ancient plant evolution.” They wrote: “The evolution and diversification of the more than 300,000 living species of flowering plants may have been ‘jump started’ much earlier than previously calculated…two major upheavals in the plant genome occurred hundreds of millions of years ago -- nearly 200 million years earlier than the events that other research groups had described.”
3. “Upheavals” in the plant genome “produced thousands of new genes that may have helped drive the evolutionary explosion that led to the rich diversity of present-day flowering plants.”
4. Not knowing the cause of the “upheavals” nor having a proof that it really happened they opine that the “upheavals” in the plant genome “produced thousands of new genes that may have helped drive the evolutionary explosion that led to the rich diversity of present-day flowering plants.” No matter what caused these events, these were genetic miracles as they write: “one or more important genetic metamorphoses had occurred in the ancestor of flowering plants, and we also knew that these metamorphoses could explain the enormous success of so many species living on the Earth today.”
5. The metamorphosis was “a special kind of DNA mutation — called a polyploidy event — that revolutionized the flowering-plant lineage.” Polyploidy mutations are generally lethal in vertebrates, but “Plants, on the other hand, often survive and can sometimes benefit from duplicated genomes.” “Some of these new genes led to true innovations and have become vital parts of the genetic toolkit for the regulation of flower development,” Claude dePamphilis explained. He also remarked, “The further we push back the date of when these events happened, the more confidently we can claim that not most, but all flowering plants are the result of large-scale duplications of the genome…It’s possible that the important polyploidy events we’ve identified were the equivalent of two ‘big bangs’ for flowering plants.”
6 The Penn State press release neglected to go into details of how in detail a copy of DNA mutated further to innovate new things full of functional genetic information, leaving their whole ‘big bang’ theory unproven and on the level of mere scientific speculation. Moreover, it is very unclear if the big-bang theory of flowering plant evolution provides understanding on the origin of orchids any more than saying, “Stuff happens,” namely that anything can happen, anywhere, anytime, without any reason, and we can never know why.
7. The sudden appearance of angiosperms is still an “abominable mystery” because there is no evidence for their evolution, only a theory for how things could have happened. A scientific theory can be fully accepted only when proven by an experiment.
8. Conifers and other gymnosperms were already successful before the above mentioned metamorphosis.
9. Because of the complexity of conifers, gymnosperms and angiosperms and their unknown sudden appearance, the only possible explanation of their coming to existence is intelligent design and creation by the intelligent designer all men call God.
10. God exists.
For those who may not know, the biggest and most fatal difference between an angiosperm (like an apple)
The flowering plants (angiosperms), also known as Angiospermae Lindl. or Magnoliophyta, are the most diverse group of land plants. Angiosperms are seed-producing plants like the gymnosperms and can be distinguished from the gymnosperms by a series of synapomorphies (derived characteristics). These characteristics include flowers, endosperm within the seeds, and the production of fruits that contain the seeds. Etymologically, angiosperm means a plant that produces seeds within an enclosure; they are fruiting plants, although more commonly referred to as flowering plants.
The ancestors of flowering plants diverged from gymnosperms around 245–202 million years ago, and the first flowering plants known to exist are from 160 million years ago. They diversified enormously during the Lower Cretaceous and became widespread around 120 million years ago, but replaced conifers as the dominant trees only around 60–100 million years ago.
and a gymnosperm (like a fir)
The gymnosperms are a group of seed-producing plants that includes conifers, cycads, Ginkgo, and Gnetales. The term "gymnosperm" comes from the Greek word gymnospermos (γυμνόσπερμος), meaning "naked seeds", after the unenclosed condition of their seeds (called ovules in their unfertilized state). Their naked condition stands in contrast to the seeds and ovules of flowering plants (angiosperms), which are enclosed within an ovary. Gymnosperm seeds develop either on the surface of scales or leaves, often modified to form cones, or at the end of short stalks as in Ginkgo.
The gymnosperms and angiosperms together compose the spermatophytes or seed plants. By far the largest group of living gymnosperms are the conifers (pines, cypresses, and relatives), followed by cycads, Gnetophytes (Gnetum, Ephedra and Welwitschia), and Ginkgo (a single living species).
is the fact that the 'carpels' (the parts that become the seed/s) are INSIDE the 'sporophylls' in the angiosperms, and OUTSIDE the sporophylls in the gymnosperms.
that's an angiosperm
shows the differences nicely.
How did the change take place? Nobody has a clue.
The difference is like holding a marble in the palm of your hand, and having a tumour growing INSIDE the palm of your hand. The marble simply cannot enter the tissues and become the tumour.
I was interested to hear the comment that the fossil record is the weakest proof of evolution.
Darwin knew this, and not a great deal has changed since his time, except that the gaps have become wider and deeper. Increasing biochemical knowledge has showed that there is nothing 'simple' in nature, and the folly of supposing that some unicell somehow formed itself in a nice warm soup somewhere and evolved into whales, sequoias and man has been heavily underscored by the biochemists at least.
Yet, this is the cornerstone of all evolutionary theory. It is a clear impossibility as we know: because of the protein formation riddle at least.
Such 'transitional fossils' as have been found answer none of the really serious questions such as the origin of life itself, the origins of animals , plants, the protista, the monera and the fungi.
These mighty groups arrive unceremoniously and abruptly in the fossil records as we all know. Attempts to find pre-cambrian fossils are producing some results - but only serve to push the problem one layer down.
As usual, clad in long words, ignorance lies deeply concealed.
For this thread I'd like to present some more facts about plant evolution which the uncommitted readers may not know, and perhaps the committed may not either.
PROKARYOTES AND EUKARYOTES
Plants are eukaryotes ie they have their DNA enclosed in a nuclear membrane. (Bacteria are prokaryotes, whose DNA is NOT enclosed in a nuclear membrane.) That doesn’t sound like much – until you realise that the apparent ‘simplicity’ of the bacterial cell is very deceptive indeed.
Mycoplasma genitalium , which has the smallest genome of any free-living organism, has a genome of 580,000 base pairs (wikipedia). This is an astonishingly large number for such a ‘simple’ organism. Needless to say, the larger prokaryotes are even more complex.
The simplest plants cells ie those containing chlorophyll, present insuperable difficulties for any gradualist theory (the only contender in the field since the Punctuated Equilibrium model was punctured by the gradualist opposition).
What did they evolve from? The answer is ‘nowhere.’ They appear in the fossil record as plant cells ie
1 whose cell walls are made of cellulose, unlike the polysaccharide and PROTEIN walls of the bacteria. How did such an enormous chemical transition take place if eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes? And in any case, how did the prokaryote ever figure out how to manufacture PROTEIN of all things?
2 The molecular level biological structures are also very different. The DNA in the bacterium lies free in the cytoplasm. The DNA in the plant cell is not free, but is enclosed in a double membrane. Darnell points out that: The differences in the biochemistry of messenger RNA formation in eukaryotes compared to prokaryotes are so profound as to suggest that sequential prokaryotic to eukaryotic cell evolution seems unlikely.
Darnell, "Implications of RNA-RNA Splicing in Evolution of Eukaryotic Cells," Science, vol. 202, 1978, p. 1257.
3 There are other very large differences. The genes in a bacterial cell carry the information needed for its life and reproduction only. The genes in plant cells carry the information for a gigantic number of living processes – all crammed into a microscopic space. Where did the information come from? And how did it get into the genes at all?
Some bacteria actually photosynthesise. This means that they have the information needed to construct chlorophyll, and use it, improbable as that sounds. Where did such information come from? And how did it get into the genome? In the bacterium there are no chloroplasts to contain the chlorophyll, but in the plant cell, there are these structures which are by no means simple.