i completely agree.

Whyyyyyyyyyy

I "believe" in evolution much in the same way I "believe" that the acceleration of a falling object due to gravity is 9.2 m/s^2 and how I "believe" in water being wet.

evolution---because i don't believe in God and i think it's physically impossible for "him" to create human life. plus, the evidence that evolution exists is much greater than that of creation.

Creation.

Its like gravity. It exists, and it doesnt care if you believe in it, or not. So jump off the 2nd floor and believe you can fly, cause gravity will have the last laugh.

OK, verbal warnings to the both of you above me for completely disregarding the previous 31 pages of arguments.

Evolution. There is actual scientific evidence that supports this theory.

I believe that the Creation story is not literal, but instead is full of symbolism that is connected to advice for living a good life.

I have other reasons, but they're mostly connected to religion, so I'll spare you.

DO NOT SPARE TUIHTUIHTUI!!!!

For one to evolve, one must be created....

You have a point, unless we were all evolved from little bacteria.
Which probably evolved from...uh. Rocks.

Wow, OK, seriously.
Read the thread.

If that was directed toward me, sorry. But I really really didn't feel like looking through all 30 pages, so I commented on the last post.

Creation

You many think Evolution has all the answers, but they have absolutely none for plants. Have you ever realized all evolutionists talk about with any confidence is always animal related? They never have come up with a really 'good' for an answer to plants...

And to make this clear - neither belief can be proved through scientific expirementation (my evolutionary Botany book actually says that, too.)

Are you kidding me?

Gregor Mendel much?

There's plenty of other examples, but Gregor Mendel is one of the main evolutionary thinkers you learn about in a freshman Biology course, and lower, in fact, and all of his studies are based on botany.

the reason textbooks say this is so they can be approved in christian centered states, like alabama.

Yeah I really don't feel like reading the thread either, I just post my short thoughts and leave.

Funny thing is, it contradicts itself in the next paragraph by saying, "Evolutionary ideas can be proven expirementally." I just laughed. I thought 'At least get your thoughts straight.' My Botany teacher even pointed it out and laughed... it is funny, you have to admit.

Yeah, I suppose they would do that to get approved, but my other science books have not gone to the trouble to do that. For Botanists, it would be hard to be an evolutionist... there isn't any sufficient hypothesis as to how plants developped - so my guess is he is very confused. kinda funny...

When my book tried to explain evolution through plants, it couldn't stay on topic. It kept shifting back to animals to prove it's point...... It's a book about plants..... When I saw that they kept saying "This might of happened" and "This has a possibility" all it told me was 'I don't know, but this sounds good.' The reasons weren't organised in any fashion (but then again, the ideas were so abstract that they couldn't have been), and they didn't make any sense according to current plant life. Botany is one aspect where evolutionary theory is sorely lacking.

I'm not so sure that is true. The modern evolutionary synthesis explains both the evolution of animals and plants. Out of the tons of dozens of examples of observed speciation over the last century, more than half are examples of plant speciation. The mechanisms at work when an animal evolves are more alike than different when compared to those mechanisms at work in a plant.

Gregor Mendel, "The Father of Genetics" was mentioned. From his law of inheritance was born genetics. His laws were based off of the study of inheritance of traits in pea plants. The foundation of genetics and the largest contribution to a modern evolutionary synthesis was invoked by a man's study of heredity in plants. Just as Gregor Mendel's findings were being revisited and understood as revolutionary to evolutionary theory in the 20th century, a man named George Ledyard Stebbins, Jr. was born. Mr. Stebbins would go on to be considered one of the most important botanists of the 20th century, partly because of his focus on explaining evolution in plants. His most recognized publications was entitled Variation and Evolution in Plants and is a detailed, scientific investigation into the subject.

If anything, the discovery of heredity, and the amount of observed speciation in plants is one aspect of evolutionary theory which has become a near driving force. I can't see the same weakness as yourself.

I guess my cristian morals and backround have always taught me that we were created by god but there is in fact no evidence. Then again you cant see god but you know he's there, It just one of those things you just know but arent sure of. In my mind there has always been the thought of evolution even though that theory was crumbled. Heh im confused now. thanks topic starter!

How was the Theory of Evolution crumbled and what exactly do you mean by "crumbled," in the first place?

Yes, Gregor Mendel extensively contributed to science with his hybridization of pea plants - it's been a great milestone for botany, that is for sure. Genetics has gone leaps and bounds since him - he was a great mind. Evolutionists use genetics as the backbone to their arguement, and it is most definitely understandable. There was one crucial hole that I found in their reasoning, however - the increasing complexity and differentiation of plants.

Straight from the textbook (Stern, Kingsley R., Introductory Plant Biology ed. 7, California State University. WCB McGraw-Hill; 1997) - Okay, this makes some sense... but look at the italicized words (added by me). At least to me, I'm not going to play the odds at "may," "seldom," and "depending." But ignoring that, hybridization often produces sterility. The odds that it may take place and that it wouldn't produce sterility is too steep.

The other tenet to botanists' theories is reproductive isolation.

If? I don't know if this is just me, but it sounds like they don't know for sure if this even occurs... But I laughed again - the first example was with animals. Besides that, the examples they gave were certainly valid, but they never connected it with a solid fact. For lack of better words ... All it seemed to be was guessing for the sake of it.

Botanists go onto explain isolationism in regards to different genes being limited to specific locations as a cause to the subtle but yest stark differences in certain plants. Sounds good to me, but this paragraph was the clincher...

Once again.... guessing and odds. I just don't like basing my though processes on that.

Isn't he the Father of Genetics?

I'm confudizzled.

You seem to only be examining the possibility of hybridization. Hybridization does not have to occur, in plants or animals, for evolutionary change to occur. Genetic variation from mutation and natural selection are far more potent in evolutionary change.

It seemed that my textbook based a lot of it's info on hybridization. Oh well.

Anyway, natural selection does occur - I agree with that principle. But mutations are largely harmful - unharful ones do occur, but they are rare - and even then, they have hardly made any stark change. I know, they say it happens over time. But then again... odds. They are huge.

Actually, the scientific understanding of genetic mutation is that they are largely neutral. The great majority of mutations do not do harm nor do they help an organism. At the same time, harmful and beneficial mutations are relative to the organism and it's enviroment. So, what may be harmful in one enviroment at one point in time, may actually be beneficial in another enviroment at another point in time and vice versa. The odds really are not as large as you think. And, at the same time, we have observed a great deal more speciation in plant life than animal life.