As I said earlier, seed can even mean a man's reproductive ... well, seed can mean spores, too. I wanted to identify what exactly was meant by "Fruiting Fungi" for that gigantic 20 ft. Prototaxites. This came up, see the extract from Google Books.
Foods and feeds - Google Books Result
by Dilip K. Arora, K. G. Mukerji, Elmer H. Marth - 1991 - Science - 621 pages
These structures are aptly designated as the "fruiting bodies," and such fungi are called the "fruiting fungi." In nature, as many as 2000 edible species ...
books google com/books?isbn=082478491X...
This (see above) may be the answer I was hoping and praying for. These organisms, and organisms very similar, certainly existed during the Vendian.
My God... am I reading that book extract, correctly? They are "fruiting fungi" with spores (seed) within itself... and they state,
"Moreover, they provide an alternative pathway for the production of food, without having recourse to sunlight and independent of the photosynthetic route."
In the total absence of sunlight... a "fruit" bearing seed (spores) in itself... and is edible by humans. Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly... I'm in complete shock. Or, maybe its exactly what Genesis Epoch Three, describes.
"...At the end of the nineteenth century scientists began to think it was an alga, in fact a brown alga, and this opinion has been established and is now mentioned in nearly every book. Until an American paleobotanist, Francis Hueber, after 20 years of research published an elaborated paper (2001) in which he defended that Prototaxites was the fruiting body of an enormous fungus ... And now there is Marc-André Selosse from Paris, who proposes with good arguments that we might have to do with a huge lichen!"
--------------------------------------
EARLIER
Here's an excerpt I just extracted from one pdf on lichens and fungi I pulled off the web. It reminds me of how Anti_Theists do their Science and Bigotry toward people of Faith. They demand "evidence" for God... before believing, but God does not exist for their amusement, entertainment and performing "magic tricks".
Secondly, Paleontology just isn't done that way either. You don't start out saying, "If you haven't got the fossil for it... it never existed." If Science was done that way, Science would've made zero progress... just as Darwin predicted... and had faith, there was a progression of fossils, on back. Darwin was perplexed by the absence of fossils before the Cambrian, but did Darwin stop questioning, and say "The Precambrian fossils didn't exist, because they disappear from the fossil record around the time of the Cambrian." ? No, that's not how Science is done, nor is it how any one approaches God. Scientists go on looking for earlier fossils. With God, and Science, you must have faith it can be found.... then you seek, and you shall find.
Not saying its always what they want or expect to find, but they'll find... just as below, the excerpt comes from scientists themselves, confessing, "it doesn't make any sense..." But, there's nothing saying it has to.
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Figure 2 (A) Prototaxites; transverse section showing the internal anatomy, which is entirely ... structures of a flowering plant. This fungus, which is ...
paleobotany.bio.ku.edu/taylorPDFs%5C%5B2005%5D%20Taylor%20and%20Krings
I will go on believing in God.. Just as I will go on believing strongly that organisms fitting the description in Epoch Three of Genesis, existed in the Vendian and Precambrian. (Not to mention, the very first organism described, "Tender" Grass sure describes Algae, grass, as a covering on land).
Faith is a wonderful thing. Faith may be the stuff science is made of... that has lead to the greatest discoveries of things that were formerly unknown.
Prehistoric Mystery Organism Verified As Giant Fungus
Prototaxites has generated controversy for more than a century. Originally classified as a conifer, scientists later argued that it was instead a lichen, ...
~ sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423080454.htm
Lichens... aye.
~ commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prototaxites_Dawson1888.PNG
Hueber 2001, copied from Dawson (1888) "The Geological History of Plants". Appleton, New York, p290.
Earlier in the evening the thought occurred to me, when the Bible speaks of "seed," it can refer to anything, including the "seed of a man," which could also refer to "spores," for seed and also, the word "fruit" may not refer to "fruit" at all, like apples and oranges. It could even refer to a "nut" or another entirely different form of produce. (One example being, in English, a tomato may be called a vegetable, but technically its a fruit because it grows on a vine.) Could a pecan be considered a "fruit whose seed is within itself"? Fruit is what is produced, as in "Fruits of the Spirit". So, possibly.
Most important, all these organisms evolved from earlier organisms, "after their kind".
Flowers on the ground and in the trees
"The trees are in “full bloom” in this picture. Pecans are dicotymous. In laymans terms it means the male part of the flower is located seperately from the female part. Bees therefore play no part in pecan pollination but rather they are wind pollinated. This may be the reason that the evolution of flowers on pecans had no need for attractive flowers. They do produce huge amounts of pollen though, on the tassels or catkins shown in an earlier photo."
~ rouxpecans.com/blog/?p=202
As pointed out
* Some "flowering" parts would be too small to fossilize. As with spores of Fungi, it wouldn't fossilize at all, due to the soft structure.
HERE'S MORE, BUT I DON'T EXPECT ANY ANTI-THEIST DARWINISTS TO THROW ANY SUGGESTIONS IN... THE ONLY THING THEY USE SCIENCE FOR, IS MAKING A WAR ON GOD.
At the end of the nineteenth century scientists began to think it was an alga, in fact a brown alga, and this opinion has been established and is now mentioned in nearly every book.
Until an American paleobotanist, Francis Hueber, after 20 years of research published an elaborated paper (2001) in which he defended that Prototaxites was the fruiting body of an enormous fungus ...
And now there is Marc-André Selosse from Paris, who proposes with good arguments that we might have to do with a huge lichen!
Below the facts are put in order.
Scientists have identified the Godzilla of fungi, a giant, prehistoric fossil that has evaded classification for more than a century, U.S. researchers said on Monday.
A chemical analysis has shown that the 20-foot-tall (6-metre) organism with a tree-like trunk was a fungus that became extinct more than 350 million years ago, according to a study appearing in the May issue of the journal Geology.
Known as Prototaxites, the giant fungus originally was thought to be a conifer. Then some believed it was a lichen, or various types of algae. Some suspected it was a fungus.
"A 20-foot-fungus doesn't make any sense. Neither does a 20-foot-tall algae make any sense, but here's the fossil," C. Kevin Boyce, a University of Chicago assistant professor of geophysical sciences, said in a statement.
Francis Hueber of the National Museum of Natural History first suggested the fungus possibility based on an analysis of the fossil's internal structure, but had no conclusive proof.
Boyce and colleagues filled in the blanks, comparing the types of carbon found in the giant fossil with plants that lived about the same time, about 400 million years ago.
If Prototaxites were a plant, its carbon structures would resemble similar plants. Instead, Boyce found a much greater diversity in carbon content than would have been expected of a plant.
Fungi, which include yeast, mold and mushrooms, represent their own kingdom, neither plant nor animal. Once classified as plants, they are now considered a closer cousin to animals but they absorb rather than eat their food.
Samples of the giant fungi have been found all over the world from 420 million to 350 million years ago during a period in which millipedes, bugs and worms were among the first creatures to make their home on dry land. No animals with a backbone had left the oceans yet.
The tallest trees stood no more than a couple of feet (a meter) high, offering little competition for the towering fungi.
Plant-eating dinosaurs had not yet evolved to trample Prototaxites' to the ground. "It's hard to imagine these things surviving in the modern world," Boyce said.
~ news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070423/sc_nm/fossil_fungus_dc
Some more interesting information on the evolution of plants: This is funny.
One of the Ediacaran Fossils (above) compared to the modern onion plant (below).
Pic from hort.purdue.edu
Needless to rehash, the earth brought forth the herb, "after its kind."
A couple more facts to consider. Some flowering forms, have a flower too small to fossilize. So it is indeed very difficult to know much about earliest plant forms.
Article: First Orchid Fossil Puts Showy Blooms At Some 80 Million ... The fossil record lacks evidence of orchids, Ramirez says, because they bloom ... along with the highly specialized flowers' need for a well-developed array ... That is...some species were too small to leave a fossil record or died in ...
~accessmylibrary.com/.../summary_0286-32782149_ITM
DARWIN: SCIENCE OR PHILOSOPHY? Chapter 9 Jul 14, 2002 ... Large-bodied organisms are more likely to fossilize than small ones. .... or because they were too rare or local in distribution. ...
~leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter9.html
Asking about life - Google Books Result by Allan J. Tobin, Jennie Dusheck - 2005 - Science - 960 pages
For example, most insects are too small and delicate to be preserved, ... ichthyosaur fossil, ER Degginger/Bruce Coleman, Inc.; fossil flower, ...
books.google.com/books?isbn=053440653X...
[DOC] Geology Activities: Rocks File Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTML
Since then, the fossil record of jellyfish is quite sparse, .... In fact, most paleontologists believe that its brain was too small to ... More than 100 years ago, Charles Darwin called the origin of flowers an "abominable mystery". ...
gk12.utmsi.utexas.edu/pdf/geo_ori.doc
** What's the chance they got the fossil of any plant, through all of its life stages? However, the most important thing that Anti-Theist Darwinists would prefer to overlook is this, despite there being a 3.5 billion year gap in the fossil record which perplexed even Darwin, the Genesis account tells there was an introduction of the sun *after* plants had already been introduced on land, and for that very cause, its safe to assume a vast majority of species probably went EXTINCT, adapted to living in a dark, damp, sunless world and were forced to re-evolve. Already, below they confess that land-plants made a comeback as little as 470 million years ago!
Excuse me, but if CHARLES DARWIN himself had a hard time swallowing that 3.5 billion year gap in the fossil record, then I have no apology for doing it myself.
** Below, they confess land plants have been around for 470 Million years. This is not counting their soft-bodied ancestors from whom they evolved!!
** Anti-Theists presume, because they haven't found the fossils, they didn't exist, but nothing could be farther from the truth. At least wisegeek is honest and admits "...or longer..." because perhaps they're not in denial like some Anti-Theists are, that land plants had earlier origins... and those origins are shrouded in mystery among the Vendian and Precambrian.. soft-bodied and left few to no fossils.
You might think that flowering plants (angiosperms) have been around forever, but they haven't. Though land plants have been around for 470 million years or longer, the earliest evidence of flowering plants, in the form of the fossil Archaefructus liaoningensis, dates to just 125 million years ago, in the early Cretaceous period. This means that flowering plants have only existed for about a quarter of the time of land plants in general. Fossil evidence of pollen, considering indicative of flowering plants, is a bit older, dated to about 130 million years ago.
The evolution of flowering plants was a long time in coming, but today, they are the most successful group of land plants, found on every continent but Antarctica, and on remote islands thousands of miles from the mainland. The abrupt appearance and success of flowering plants was so extreme that Charles Darwin called it an "abominable mystery." However, since Darwin's time, more fossils have been found that reveal a series of intermediate steps before full-fledged flowers.
The evolution of plants is generally one where groups that exploit fundamental evolutionary innovations, such as vascular tissue, bark, seeds, or flowers, have the tendency to almost completely replace more primitive plants when they really get going. Furthermore, these evolutionary innovations tend to emerge in the most complex plants at the time. Accordingly, flowering plants evolved from the most sophisticated seed plants, which themselves had replaced most seedless plants about 370 million years ago, during the late Devonian.
Flowers are a very successful evolutionary innovation because they permit a more complex range of interactions with other organisms, opening up various symbiotic partnerships, especially with pollinating insects such as bees. The constant exchange of pollen between plants, facilitated by bees, helps flowering plants to stay genetically diverse and resistant to disease or other hardship.
Flowering plants diversified into the two main groups, monocots and dicots, just 5-10 million years after they initially evolved. By the end of the Cretaceous, 65.5 million years ago, half of today's main groups of flowering plants had evolved, and they accounted for 70% of global plant species. The success of flowering plants around this time had caused scientists to speculate the the dinosaurs may have gone extinct by eating flowers. This was before scientists came to agree that the dinosaurs went extinct from an asteroid impact.
~ wisegeek.com/when-did-flowering-plants-evolve.htm
The Vendian Period was filled with ancestors to the modern plants... little is known about them. The fossil record yields so little fossil material, because even modern plants don't fossilize well (that's your foremost problem), but secondly, its putting the cart before the horse to deny evolution itself, saying (plant) Algae arrived on the scene, 3.5 billion years... went nowhere, miraculously jumps to creating animals, and then "modern plants" evolved after the animals.
That's absurd.
Are the Darwinists there, denying reasonable evolution, or did you erroneously believe the only purpose science exists for, is for you to twist it to suit your own agenda to make war on God and deny Genesis?
Dealing with soft-body vendian organisms... an extinct ecosystem which has yielded nearly no fossils... no insight into those organisms that went extinct (scientists themselves can't tell what for certain they were), but the few fossils that remain, resemble plants... the ancestors of plants, long before animals came on the scene.. the closest explanation to date, was that modern lichens will leave fossils similar to those found in the Vendian, (which also are notorious for "shutting down" for long periods of time, a strange reaction to water and light and can live 4000+ years),
3.5 billion years of a gap (even with Precambrian Fossil Fuel telling another story)... is just too much for any reasonable person to swallow. Besides this, plants had a head-start on evolution, _long_ before animals, and to this day, algae, fungi, bacteria, plants... fill _every_ conceivable niche in the earth, where animals do not and can not.
The absence of fossils, does not mean the organisms did not exist. But wait, that's how Anti-Theists deduced that God doesn't exist. For Posterity, an Anti-Theist once told me, "Common Sense has nothing to do with Science."
----
Let me throw this in as a fore-note, before its overlooked as one of the important subjects to consider in what Epoch Three of Genesis is referring to (and Anti-Theists will go out of their way, to omit or avoid) :
How do spores and seeds differ? | Answerbag.com
May 12, 2006 ... How do spores and seeds differ? Basically, spores are produced by non-flowering plants, while seeds are produced by flowering plants.
~ answerbag.com/q_view/55633
Seeds versus Spores: Evolutionary Strategies for Plant ...
Fungi, mosses, lichens, and ferns are among the plants that produce spores rather than seeds as their vehicles of reproduction.
botany.suite101.com/article.cfm/seeds_versus_spores
WikiAnswers - What is the difference between a spore and a seed Earth Sciences question: What is the difference between a spore and a seed? They are both asexual means of reproduction. The key difference is that seeds ...
wiki.answers.com/
Genesis doesn't differentiate between spores and seeds.. now does it?
Ancestors to the modern plants...
Where was the mention of flowers in Genesis. Seems the "scientifically illiterate" Hebrew, who stole his creation story from "Babylonian Mythology" would've thought to throw flowers in there.
Mistletoe Management Guidelines--UC IPM
Jan 17, 2008 ... After the mistletoe seed germinates, it grows through the bark and into the tree's water-conducting tissues, where rootlike structures ...
~ ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7437.html
HERE'S ANOTHER JUST ANOTHER SOFT ORGANISM (PLANT ANCESTOR) THAT THRIVES IN THE DARK... REPRODUCES WITH SPORES:
"...Another mushroom oddity is the fact that this plant actually thrives in the dark, unlike almost every other plant..."
Fungus... Algae, etc were first on Earth.. Yes? Hello? ANY DARWINISTS OUT THERE LISTENING... or are you ignoring science?
NOTE TOO: THE BIBLE REFERS TO MALE REPRODUCTION FLUIDS AS "SEED" TOO. GEEPERS.
Mushrooms are listed as a vegetable, but are actually a fungus. This essentially means that it is an edible "plant" without roots, flowers, seeds or leaves. Another mushroom oddity is the fact that this plant actually thrives in the dark, unlike almost every other plant. There are approximately 38,000 different mushroom varieties, and of course not all are edible. In fact some are poisonous, and so I recommend you only eat mushrooms that came from sources you have the utmost confidence in. Many of these mushroom varieties grow in the wild, but most of the mushrooms you find at the market are now grown in "controlled" environments. This controlled growing method produces literally billions of tiny spores, which has increased production of the most common mushrooms like the white button mushroom.
Mushrooms distribute spores in different ways. Some have gills under the caps that release spores. Others have pores under the caps. Still others, like the puffballs, eject clouds of spores when they break open.
Identifying mushrooms requires a basic understanding of their macroscopic structure. Most are Basidiomycetes and gilled. Their spores, called basidiospores, are produced on the gills and fall in a fine rain of powder from under the caps as a result. At the microscopic level the basidiospores are shot off of basidia and then fall between the gills in the dead air space. As a result, for most mushrooms, if the cap is cut off and placed gill-side-down overnight, a powdery impression reflecting the shape of the gills (or pores, or spines, etc.) is formed (when the fruitbody is sporulating). The color of the powdery print, called a spore print, is used to help classify mushrooms and can help to identify them.
~ lycos.com/info/mushrooms--spores.html
You can start by simply doing a little reading. Aside of fragile bone structure in birds, snakes, even whale limbs (partially composed of cartilage), some things just don't fossilize well.
2007 September It's the 21st Century, Stupid!
Plants don't fossilize well. As you can imagine, flowers even less so. So how can the existence of a flower from millions of years ago be proven? ...
http://itsthe21stcenturystupid.wordpress.com
But what's interesting ... *chuckle* ... Genesis Epoch Three doesn't mention flowering plants at all. How odd, it tends to agree with science/paleontology, in this regard.
HOW VERY ODD FOR "MERE MYTHOLOGY". Genesis is completely absent of mention of flowers. It mentions the herb... but no flowering plants.
Flowers, Angiosperms, are recent introduction into the fossil record.
Angiosperms
Flowers, which are the reproductive structures of an angiosperm and consist of four whorls of modified leaves (from outside in): ...
biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio106/angio.htm
Do pay close attention to the literal text in Genesis Epoch Three, and its lack of mentioning a flower.
However, it does mention "tender" grass... which correlates with algae. Ah, where are the fossil traces of algae?? What, 3.5 billion years and all Paleontology is left with is a side effect of algae? formation on rock... testifying that the algae was there, but not the actual algae. And why? Because, plants don't fossilize well.
Science knows this.
Environments and fossilization
"Without further explanation one might get the idea that fossils will occur wherever sedimentary rocks have been formed. This is clearly not the case. Relative to the abundance of sedimentary rocks on Earth, those that contain plant fossils are very rare indeed. This implies that plant fossils are formed under very special environmental conditions. It is not sufficient to have a body of water, a source of inorganic sediments, and plant or animal remains to make a fossil. We all know that when an organism dies under normal conditions in nature, that organism decays. This happens because of the activity of bacteria and fungi, especially those that are aerobic."
~ Paleobotany and the Evolution of Plants (Second Edition), Wilson N. Stewart and Gar W. Rothwell
Or try this on for size,
While many of scientists have commented about the "missing links" in the fossil record, H.S. Ladd of UCLA observes, "Most paleontologists today give little thought to fossiliferous rocks older than the Cambrian, thus ignoring the most important missing link of all. Indeed the missing Pre-Cambrian record cannot properly be described as a link for it is in reality, about nine-tenths of the chain of life: the first nine-tenths." (Geological Society of America Memoir, vol. II, 1967, p.7.)
And regarding that 9/10th of the missing links in the fossil record,
[PDF] Paleo-piracy endangers Vendian (Ediacaran) fossils in the White ... File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Vendian organisms outside Russia. Impressions of Vendian metazoans in the rocks are very rare. ..... Localities of the Vendian soft-bodied fauna of ...
paleopolis.rediris.es
For paleontology to fully understand that epoch in Earth's geological history, it's a huge blank, a mystery, science isn't even sure what those organisms were that they _do_ have fossils for. But one thing is certain, they have admitted algae existed and the literal text in Genesis states, "tender" grass (grass is for a covering), emerged. Then considering those "unidentified organisms," of the Vendian, theorized to have all been soft-bodied... how odd... no defenses from the sun? Evolution sure felt the need to protect itself just a few million years later, forming shells, and harder structures, hard enough to fossilize!
But they have confessed reluctantly, algae and bacteria (along the line of PLANTS) existed for as long as 3.5 billion years! This still is not addressing the scant fossils they have of the period, which look like ... PLANTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Of course Atheistic Darwinists won't dare touch the subject, knowing that all the facts add up to some legitimate reason to doubt, aside of the fact that we're not speaking of evolutionary changes since the time of the Cretaceous... but a whopping 3.5 billion years of an empty fossil record! Lots of changes can occur in THREE AND A HALF BILLION YEARS... but how quickly, "Evolution," gets tossed out the window by any Darwinist... when its there to rationalize common sense. At all costs, Anti-Theist Darwinists only twist science, to plant doubts in any mind... when Genesis 1 speaks of trees, the Anti-Theist wants images of MODERN, DAY tall skyscraper sized trees to pop into mind, hard-wood varieties... and the harder, the better, giant, huge, hard trees.
But this is simply not how evolution works, now is it?
Evolution starts out small... and, since the first things on earth (admitted by science itself), algae and earliest bacteria forms, is super-small and microscopic, we can thus discount any crazy notion that huge Sycamores "popped" up on Earth.
Rather, take a look at the more plausible variety of early life on Earth, and its still with us, to this day. The debates are on the web, fungus or plant... plant or fungus? Just when does the line blur between what's plant and what's fungus. Science use to be more simplified, classing everything as either plant or animal, but with the passing of time, scientists have reclassified organisms into more narrow classifications.
Here's the problem, Science teaches life began with *one* original cell, and branched outward.. isn't that right, Charles Darwin. So, since we know Algae was some of the first, then the next evolutionary development on the list, are going to be PLANTS, not animals, but PLANTS!!!!
Fungi provide potential for combating dwarf mistletoe - Canadian ... Mar 7, 2007 ... Not to be confused with Christmas mistletoe, dwarf mistletoe is a parasitic plant that causes swelling of tree stems and irregular branching ...
cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/news/107
Plp407 Lecture 14 -:- Virtual online flashcards - Share and study ... List 5 ways that dwarf mistletoe is different from true mistletoe: Dwarf is non-photosynthetic; lacks true leaves; is host specific; usually on conifers; ...
cueflash.com/Decks/PLP407_Lecture_14
The World of Northern Evergreens - Google Books Result by E. C. Pielou - 1988 - Travel - 200 pages
Both diseases are caused by fungi, two different fungus species on the two sets of hosts. ... DWARF MISTLETOE Fungi are not the only parasites on conifers. ...
books.google.com/books?isbn=0801494249...
[Study function of endophytic fungus in parasitism process of ... - 10:40am
CONCLUSION: Endophytic fungus of mistletoe can secrete cellulase and assist the haustorium of mistletoe to breakthrough the cell walls as well as ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18831195
Hello.... how quickly Darwinists forget, things like fungi, bacteria, and soforth... Evolve.
Therefore, life on the planet as it were 3.5 billion years ago, through the mysterious, dark era of the Vendian... are not what they appear to be, today.
Look at that mistletoe, complete with berries... branches... leaves... and if you've ever handled a mistletoe plant, you'll see just how soft and flexible it is. That's not to forget its non-photosynthetic characteristic. These organisms required very little light, to grow.
But how tall does a tree need to be, to qualify as a "tree". Height evolved too. Did it not? Beginning with a single cell (tiny, finite, small..) and billions of years later, the planet produced the giant dinosaurs. The size of those creatures didn't come about overnight, as some Anti-Theists would like to suppose, but occurred in transitions... over time, slowly evolving. So Charles Darwin would've taught.
The same applies to the evolution of trees.
RECAPPING
#1. Vendian Organisms were soft-bodied, leaving rare, and usually no fossils.
#2. Even modern varities of plants, adapted to standing up to the heat of the sun, still don't fossilize well. Only in rare exceptions will modern plants leave a fossil!
But lastly, How tall does a berry-bearing tree need to be, to qualify as a tree?
No further comment necessary, in that regard. Point established.
Now, subtract about 500 Million years of Darwinian Evolution... and return to the grandfather of berry-bearing trees, and their soft-bodied original form and you get an insight into what life looked like, in the Vendian. Only, much, much smaller scale.
The blueberry tree by itself, is a really bad example to go on, by itself, like everything else, it has evolved!! Life was very different, 3.5 billion years, when the first tender "grass" (algae) and on through the geological ages of plant-life evolving. Even to this day, there are examples of Protozoans -- are they plants, or are they animals?? This gives insight into what the planet was covered in, during Epoch Three, of Genesis, and the Vendian period, back to 3.5 billion years ago, when the first Algae (proven, indisputable) made its appearance on earth.
Google : cyanobacteria algae
Google : cyanobacteria algae plants
Cyanobacterial metabolites with bioactivity against photosynthesis ... Kulik MM (1995) The potential for using cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) and algae in the biological control of plant pathogenic bacteria and fungi. Eur. ...
~ springerlink.com/index/N0216U2343354457.
PHOTOSYNTHETIC CYTOCHROMES c IN CYANOBACTERIA, ALGAE, AND PLANTS. The cytochromes that function in photosynthesis in cyanobacteria, algae, and higher plants have, like the other photosynthetic catalysts, been largely ...
~ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
Atheistic Darwinists, who have an agenda to make war on God and people of faith, will stretch and skew science however they will, to make certain every hope is smashed to a pulp, and the laws of God, done away with.
But... it won't happen. They over-estimated themselves... the Lord Jesus Christ, will return as has been promised, and I shouldn't waste time repeating it, but researchers already discovered bacteria photosynthesizing around deep sea hydrothermal vents in the Pacific, therefore, Genesis is entirely possible based on the evidence, for the existence of plants and... that includes (soft-structure) TREES, to survive in the total absence of sunlight.
How quickly Anti-Theists skew science, ommitting crucial pieces of information required to get the full spectrum of how biology and botany work, as a reminder, Protozoans, related to plants... an insight into the Vendian, when Photosynthesis was confined to hydrothermal vents, and the sun had not began its nuclear fusion...
Methods of Deriving Nutrition and Reproduction
Protozoa obtain their food supply through three methods:
1. Holophytic protozoa obtain nutrients through photosynthesis.
2. Holozoic protozoa depend on plants and animals for food.
3. Saprophytic protozoa asorb organic matter through the cell wall.
the Earth certainly sustained plant-life, in abundance. Aside of the admission that
#1. The atmosphere was loaded with heavy carbon dixoide levels, ideal for the proliferation of plant life, and,
#2. The amount of fossil fuel in the Earth, has helped geologists to realize, "life" had existed (in a much greater abundance) than previously assumed... but the fossil record itself, is absent due to SOFT BODY... PLANT life.
Discovery Channel, Atlas of the Prehistoric World, ©1999
Never mind that
1. The atmosphere was loaded with Carbon Dioxide, ideal for plants to proliferate.
2. The soft-bodied plans, theorized by scientists that would leave few to no fossils.
3. Never mind that almost all fossils of the Vendian have zero stomachs or mouths, and resemble some kind of forerunner of modern plant-life.
4. Never mind that science itself has already admitted that algae has been around for a whopping 3.5 billion years, and algae is closer related to plants, than animals...
Never mind all the obvious road-signs, pointing to PLANT ANCESTORS...
Anti-Theists can't admit the obvious, because *pain.. pain* it might lend credence to the account in Genesis.
Discovery Channel, Atlas of the Prehistoric World, ©1999
If it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, dips into ponds like ducks, doesn't have intestines or mouths like animals, and has a structure just like a modern plant leaf, it's probably a PLANT ANCESTOR.
Gee whiz. But as one anti-theist and self-proclaimed Darwinist told me once, "Common sense has nothing to do with science."
No comments:
Post a Comment