Evidence for God from Science

Please tell me something about this; I've never heard anything on it! What are the facts, and what theories are out there?

kateliz wrote:Please tell me something about this; I've never heard anything on it! What are the facts, and what theories are out there?

Well of Course Plants came from Rocks that hit the Earth A LONG TIME Ago that had the Proper nutrients and RNA/DNA to create the Plant (like Evolution knew what it was doing) They then began to Grow and to EVOLVE into walking things which are our Ancestors. So our First AnCestor was a piece of DNA from a Rock that hit the Earth Billions of Years ago. Guys I am just joking around please do not take me seriously

All I know is that onions have considerably longer DNA than humans do. I can't find the resource for that info, but here's a decent examination of DNA length across various living things. http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultran ... Sizes.html

Of the many great leaps of faith in evolution-the leap from single celled organisms to multi-cellular organisms. A leap that, given trillions of billions of the year, still couldn't happen....but the belief is that they came from an ancient protozoa, or maybe it was a bacteria. Basically, evolutionist have no real answer, they have theories which they call fact. The fossil record, the greatest evidence for evolution (this is sarcasm, be warned) shows nothing about plants slowly becoming more complex (don't show the same thing about animals either...it's just rock, then BAM, the Cambrian Explosion of Death). Felgar, I think that it's it's a fern that's the most evolved-it has 1022 or so chromosomes....so it's look that's where the human race is evolving?

Of the many great leaps of faith in evolution-the leap from single celled organisms to multi-cellular organisms. A leap that, given trillions of billions of the year, still couldn't happen...

It happened in labs several times...

Maybe you're thinking I mean something different, so explain what the heck you're referring. There are protists that will work together in some ugly looking ooze of a colony.....but nothing like a bacteria turning into a plant....lol.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Maybe you're thinking I mean something different, so explain what the heck you're referring. There are protists that will work together in some ugly looking ooze of a colony.....but nothing like a bacteria turning into a plant....lol.

No, there is no bacteria turning into a plan. And I'm not thinking you meant something different. I replied to your exact comment. You said evolving from unicellular to multicellular organisms wouldn't happen even if given billions or trillions of years. You were wrong. Deal with it.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:The fossil record, the greatest evidence for evolution (this is sarcasm, be warned) shows nothing about plants slowly becoming more complex

Except the earliest fossil plants have no flowers, pollen, fruit, roots, seeds or vascular tissue. Early plants had to depend on water to transport their reproductive cells.

After a while in the fossil record spore bearing plants appear and stay. Spores are a hard coating around the reproductive cell and allow the plants to spread. But spores can only survive in moist conditions.

After spores seed bearing plants appear 360 million years ago and in a short time they take over and dominate the spore bearing plants on earth. Seeds are more resiliant and allow plants to spread easier.

A long time later (130 million years ago) flowering plants appear. Flowering plants don't appear in the fossil record before this.

The other features such as roots, vascular tissue and fruit seen in many plants today also appear at various times in the fossil record. The first primitive trees appear 320 million years ago (of course none of them have fruit, flowers or seeds at that time).

Grasses only appear very recently 60 million years ago. No grasses are found prior to this point. The appearance of grasses coincides with when fossil horse teeth become adapted for grazing. Coincidence? I should probably mention that horses at that time had 3 toes on each foot.

So to say that the fossil record shows nothing about plants slowly becoming more complex is wrong. The fossil record shows exactly that.

(don't show the same thing about animals either...it's just rock, then BAM, the Cambrian Explosion of Death).

There are multi-celled organisms before the cambrian explosion. Even earlier the first organisms in the fossil record are traces of single celled organisms.

And of course all the animals during the cambrian were about 20cm small. There are no tigers, elephants or apes that far back. No whales, dogs, cats bears, birds or crocodiles. Basically there is no single instance of creation in the fossil record. Creation occurs over time with new species appearing all the time. Funnily enough the new species tend to look quite like previous species. We don't go from 20cm creatures straight to hippos for example. Life gets more complex gradually.

Felgar, I think that it's it's a fern that's the most evolved-it has 1022 or so chromosomes....so it's look that's where the human race is evolving?

Chromosome count does not represent the level of "evolvedness". There is a mutation that causes chromosome count to double. There have been several instances of this happening in plants observed in the last century. It often led to new species of plant being formed.

There is no pinnacle of evolution. There is no species that is the "more evolved" than another. All species are adapted for their own environments and behaviours.

Chromosome number change in animals is quite a bit more serious though. I know it's a death warrant if it happens to humans.

if we sat in a room with nothing in it for a million years, would a horse eventually grow out of it? i love horses.

if we put the pieces of a clock in a box and shook the box for a million years, would it turn into a full-blown working clock? why not, all living beings are far more complicated and they arose out of nothing.

why aren't there half-fish, half-something else's walking around right now, evolving into even better organisms than what we have at present?

Thanks BobSmith, you answered my question. Well, except for theories arguing over this topic as well. Are they out there like they are for animal evolution? And at what point did plants and animals start to differ from each other?

Mastermind wrote:Chromosome number change in animals is quite a bit more serious though. I know it's a death warrant if it happens to humans.

yes you are right

I've read that pollen spores have been found in rock before pollen producing plants somehow evolved...

kateliz wrote:Are they out there like they are for animal evolution? And at what point did plants and animals start to differ from each other?

Animals and plants both have DNA and evolve in exactly the same way. The difference between the two is because plants and animals split so long ago.

I am no expert on evolution at all so take my explaination for just something I have read at some point.

The early ancestors of plants are thought to be green algea. This is mainly because the cell structure of green algae is so similar to plant cells and green algae existed long ago. Green algae adapted to floating and turning sunlight into energy and this is what their plant decendants now specialise in, wheras a lot of other multi-celled organisms adapted to moving around and consuming things (whatever sealife eats) and their animal decendants specialise in this. Two different paths for two different types of life.

Nice storytelling.