[__ Science __ ] Debunking Evolutionary Timelines for Flowering Plants

[AIG.com]

The evolutionary model is not clear about when flowering plants arrived on earth. Evolutionists remain unsure when the angiosperms emerged.

Continue reading...

 

[Barbarian]

Revealed: The First Flower, 140-million Years Old, Looked Like a Magnolia​

Scientists have reconstructed the ancient plant and figured out how it reproduced
Although most species of plants on Earth have flowers, the evolutionary origin of flowers themselves are shrouded in mystery. Flowers are the sexual organs of more than 360,000 species of plants alive today, all derived from a single common ancestor in the distant past. This ancestral plant, alive sometime between 250m and 140m years ago, produced the first flowers at a time when the planet was warmer, and richer in oxygen and greenhouse gases than today. A time when dinosaurs roamed primeval landscapes.

But despite the fact dinosaurs went extinct 65m years ago we have a better idea of what an Iguanodon looked like than of how the ancestral flower was built.

This is partly because these first flowers left no traces. Flowers are fragile structures that only in the luckiest of circumstances can be transformed into fossils. And, as no fossil has been found dating back 140m or more years, scientists have only had a limited sense of what the ultimate ancestor would have looked like. Until now.

A major new study by an international team of botanists has achieved the best reconstruction to date of this ancestral flower. The research, published in Nature Communications, relies not so much on fossils as on studying the characteristics of 800 of its living descendant species.

Revealed: The First Flower, 140-million Years Old, Looked Like a Magnolia

Scientists have reconstructed the ancient plant and figured out how it reproduced

www.scientificamerican.com

However, the age of flowering plants is not a mystery. We find evidence of flowering plants before the dinosaurs existed (Devonian/Silurian periods) and by the Cretaceous, they were widely distributed:

​

The role of mid-palaeozoic mesofossils in the detection of early bryophytes.​

The role of mid-palaeozoic mesofossils in the detection of early bryophytes.

Recently discovered Silurian and Devonian coalified mesofossils provide an additional source of data on early embryophytes. Those reviewed in this paper are considered of some relevance to understanding the early history of bryophytes while highlighting ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Palaeobotanical redux: revisiting the age of the angiosperms

https://www.nature.com/articles/nplants201715.epdf?sharing_token=TSmnsLoebndRlMmVP-em19RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MGNsXTlpaQIdQpmQIy38IpjG9KxNAenpldo9bk8_xekGtHvdplWmB55H_dE_vBRhpAwONnD98ZY7WgWYsy0jTEZQozx1TSuiJrtaJlYzxUTw%3D%3D

As usual, AIG's quote-miners skimmed the literature and missed important evidence. And thereby got it all wrong, once again.

 

[KV-44-v1]

There is no evidence the earth is millions year old - except for the manmade dates that contradict. Certainly no solid evidence.
Nobody has ever verified those dates to be correct.
How would you know for sure that NOTHING interefered with the dates, like solar radiation?
Explain Dino soft tissue, that supports 6000 years and world flood?? Athiests buckle under this new finding.

 

[follower]

Athiests buckle under this new finding.

For decades, or has it been over a century, every time a new evil theory is produced, and proven wrong,
the athiess do no buckle/ they do not give in. Not all anyway. Whatever spurs them on to sin , they just sin more, and make up more stories. Then the cycle repeats= they are proven wrong each time, then they just sin more and come up with new stories, that get proven wrong or were already proven wrong, again and again.
So no amount of truth, no amount of any kind of evidence, will stop the sinners.

 

[Barbarian]

Explain Dino soft tissue, that supports 6000 years and world flood?? Athiests buckle under this new finding.

It's not tissue, as the scientist who discovered it, wrote. It's the remains of some RBCs, which still had a little heme (fragment of hemoglobin molecules) in the rock. Chemists point out that organic molecules can exist for many millions of years, if stabilized by iron. (which is in RBCs).

But that's not the cool part of Schwietzer's discovery. You see, scientists tested the heme, and found that it was more like that of birds than like that of other reptiles, once more confirming the finding that birds are actually dinosaurs.

But YE creationists do not give in. Whatever spurs them on to reject Gods word and make up more stories. They are proven wrong each time, but come up with new stories, that get proven wrong or were already proven wrong, again and again.

So no amount of truth, no amount of any kind of evidence, will convince them that God's word is true as it is.