Huge genetic study redraws the tree of life for flowering plants
"Using genomic data from more than 9500 species,
biologists have mapped the evolutionary relationships between flowering plants"
"Around 90 per cent of land-dwelling plants are ones that flower and bear fruit, called angiosperms. These flowering plants are essential in maintaining Earth’s ecosystems, such as by storing carbon and producing oxygen, and make up the bulk of our diets."
(Kinda necessary for life yo)
“Our very existences are dependent on them,” says William Baker at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, in the UK. “That’s why we really need to understand them."
"After their emergence around 140 million years ago, angiosperms quickly flourished,
surpassing the flowerless gymnosperms as the world’s dominant plant type.
The abrupt appearance of flowering plant diversity in the fossil record has stumped scientists for the past few centuries,
(Cause they are choosing to believe a lie)
with Charles Darwin calling it
an “abominable mystery”.
("Abominable"
causing moral revulsion.
(for him maybe)
Similar:
loathsome
detestable
hateful
odious
obnoxious
despicable
contemptible
damnable
cursed
accursed
diabolical
disgusting
revolting
repellent
repulsive
offensive
repugnant
abhorrent
reprehensible
atrocious
horrifying
execrable
foul
vile
wretched
base
miserable
horrible
awful
dreadful
appalling
abysmal
brutal
nauseating
horrid
nasty
disagreeable
unpleasant
distasteful
terrible
shocking
godawful
beastly
chronic
"Now, the tree of life confirms that around 80 per cent of major flowering plant lineages that are still around today were part of this early boom in angiosperm diversity. “We can’t say we’ve solved this ‘abominable mystery’, but we can at least say that there really is one,” says Baker."
SO?
"a valid argument against his theory"
and The ANGIOSPERM "Big Bloom" as an
“abominable mystery”?
How many more
"sudden emergences of Biogenetic life"
(and the information it takes to create it)
did he need to see to come up with his theory?
"In the Origin of Species, Darwin depicted the history of life as a gradually unfolding, branching tree, with the trunk representing the first one cell organism and the branches representing all the species that evolved from these first forms.* In this view novel animal and plant species arose from a series of simpler precursor and intermediary forms over vast stretches of geologic time. Darwin argued vigorously for this view.
*Darwin, On the origin of Species (1964) pages 129-130.
Apparently?
Contradicting the information
right in front of you
that is
DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE,
isn't something unique to todays "scientist."
Push an agenda much there Charles?
In spite of a shit ton of evidence
to the contrary?
If you understand?
That evolution is what happens to life?
(Through natural selection, mutation etc)
And that it did not happen
on the time scales Darwin believed?
And you understand that evolution never describes how anything ever came into existence
To start with?
(Be it life or the universe)
Then you are far ahead
in your understanding
of our natural world
than most people ever will be.
Thank God.
He gets all the Glory.
No comments:
Post a Comment