Defending the Christian Worldview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Defending the Christian Worldview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity

You are not connected. Please login or register

Defending the Christian Worldview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design » The catalog of life » THE NON-EVOLUTION OF THE ANGIOSPERMS


Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]





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 most probably 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.[2][3] 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.


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.

Last edited by Admin on Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:59 pm; edited 2 times in total




Evolution, still a theory in crisis, Michael Denton, page 88: 

In Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, I wrote that “the sudden appearance of the angiosperms is a persistent anomaly which has resisted all attempts at explanation since Darwin’s time.”1 The situation is little changed today. None of the taxa-defining characteristics of angiosperms, including the key novelties of the flower—sepals, petals, stamens, carpels—are found in any group of plants, extant or fossil,2 outside of the angiosperm clade.3 Further, no putative ancestral group has been identified in the fossils or by molecular phylogenetics.4 As one author conceded, despite many recent paleontological and molecular advances, the evolutionary pathway which led from the putative ancestral seed-plant to the first angiosperms is still obscure: “No taxon [is] universally accepted as transitional between angiosperms and any other group.”5 And speaking for many researchers in this area, Peter Endress and James Doyle commented in a recent review: The question of the structure and biology of the ancestral angiosperms, and especially their flowers, is an enduring riddle. Although we are continually gaining new insights from new fossils and new studies on phylogeny, morphology, and developmental genetics in extant plants, we are still far from a final answer. There are gaps at different levels. First is the uncertainty concerning which other seed plants are the closest relatives of angiosperms, particularly extinct groups because most molecular analyses indicate that no living group of gymnosperms is any closer to angiosperms than any other. Second, even if known fossils can be recognized as angiosperm stem relatives, all such groups are morphologically well removed from angiosperms, so there is still a major gap that can only be filled by the discovery of closer stem relatives. Third is the problem of the original morphology and early evolutionary differentiation of crown group angiosperms.6 In passing, it is worth noting that the angiosperms are not the only group of land plants that appear in the fossil record without antecedents. The same is true of many other groups of plants.7

A great deal is now known regarding the developmental genetics of the flower, including the basic so-called “ABC developmental system.”8 It is also clear, as in the case of so many other novel homologs, that it was the recruitment of pre-existing gene circuits and pre-existing parts in angiosperm ancestors that led to the formation of the flower.9 But again, as in the case of the limb and the feather, such new “evo-devo” insights provide no real hint as to what causal mechanisms actualized the flower and no support for the notion that it came about “Galápagos fashion,” via thousands of tiny adaptive steps over millions of years. Just about all that developmental genetics tells us about the origin of the angiosperm flower is that pre-existing gene circuits were re-wired to make the flower, i.e., that angiosperms originated by descent with modification from some putative ancestral plant. But this has been assumed by almost all biologists since at least the middle of the nineteenth century. Simply put, the angiosperm flower Bauplan is not led up to gradually via a series of transitional forms in any known extant or fossil plants. Not only are there no transitional forms, but to my knowledge, there does not appear to exist anywhere in academic botanical literature even a tentative hypothetical Darwinian functionalist scheme showing how the flower Bauplan or any of its defining homologs—sepals, petals, etc.—might have emerged via a series of tiny adaptive steps from some ancestral reproductive organ (presumably in a hypothetical gymnosperm). The current evidence is compatible with the possibility that the angiosperms originated per saltum or as a result of a series of major steps (as occurred in the evolution of the feather10) resulting from intrinsic self-organizing mechanisms in putative ancestral species. Günter Wagner has suggested two steps: step one, involving the unification of both male and female organs on the same shoot axis (in the more primitive gymnosperms the reproductive organs are separate); and step two, “integrating subdenting leaves as the perianth into the flower.”11 But again, just what conceivable adaptive continuums could have led gradually, Darwinian-fashion, to the flower via these two steps is not easy to imagine. It is far easier, as in so many other instances, to envisage the “steps” as having an intrinsic developmental rather than an extrinsic adaptive cause.




The ancestral flower of angiosperms and its early diversification 1

The origin of the angiosperm flower remains among the most difficult and most important unresolved topics in evolutionary biology. The growing understanding of the distribution of floral traits in both fossil and extant taxa, and the availability of modern analytical tools will be crucial in this long-standing debate.

Recent advances in molecular phylogenetics and a series of important palaeobotanical discoveries have revolutionized our understanding of angiosperm diversification. Yet, the origin and early evolution of their most characteristic feature, the flower, remains poorly understood. In particular, the structure of the ancestral flower of all living angiosperms is still uncertain. Here we report model-based reconstructions for ancestral flowers at the deepest nodes in the phylogeny of angiosperms, using the largest data set of floral traits ever assembled. We reconstruct the ancestral angiosperm flower as bisexual and radially symmetric, with more than two whorls of three separate perianth organs each (undifferentiated tepals), more than two whorls of three separate stamens each, and more than five spirally arranged separate carpels. Although uncertainty remains for some of the characters, our reconstruction allows us to propose a new plausible scenario for the early diversification of flowers, leading to new testable hypotheses for future research on angiosperms.


Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum