I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

Alate_One

Well-known member
How about the fact — an actual fact this time — that Darwinists had to push back their belief about the latest supposed arrival of certain types of plants?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3788615/

Remember the point that you're trying to disguise?
Not disguising anything. I think you need to look in the mirror.

In the linked article, they found angiosperm LIKE pollen, not pollen that looks identical to any specific modern angiosperms (which are everywhere and inescapable today) or in anything close to the quantity of angiosperm pollen existing today. I just left my lab window open once in the spring and found an obvious yellow-green layer of angiosperm pollen all over our lab benches.

Having to look extremely hard to find pollen that looks "like" modern angiosperms clearly shows the composition of plant life has changed dramatically over time. The message of all of the fossil record is dramatic differences between the living organisms in the distant past and those of today.

Entire forests of tree Lycophytes, which don't exist anymore.

7593649c78f817ac551ad0e8ea32c36a.jpg


And we don't see any modern trees growing alongside them. Almost like those modern trees didn't exist yet . . . :rolleyes:
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
A late one;
So if the Pax whatever and so on is turned off in fruit flies, than they don’t have eyes...
Animals lose anatomy over time through mutation quite often, but do you have an example where a creature has gained any anatomy that wasn’t already present in the genome?
Would you consider a lobe finned fish walking on land "gaining anatomy"?

If the fins evolved fingers, would that be "gaining anatomy"?

How about Tiktaalik? It was discovered to have a pelvis after the initial description.
tiktaalik-comparison.png
 

mtwilcox

New member
Would you consider a lobe finned fish walking on land "gaining anatomy"?

If the fins evolved fingers, would that be "gaining anatomy"?

How about Tiktaalik? It was discovered to have a pelvis after the initial description.
tiktaalik-comparison.png

Yeah, I would say fins turning into fingers would be considered “gaining anatomy”, but do you have evidence that happened?

Like say, a tiktaalik with fingers to compare to your tiktaalik with fins...?

Of course, I meant a modern observable mutation, but you knew that.

I know how much you evolutionists love the tiktaalik. : )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
Tiktaalik_Chicago.JPG



=M=


================================

Check out this sweet animal!!!


Hey! It must be a descendant of the tiktaalik!!!

I wonder how much longer it will take for mudskippers to evolve fingers and feet...

See;
I can write crazy evol gibberish too... doesn’t mean it’s true... lol!!!
 
Last edited:

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yorzhik said:
But I was trying to help your case by sticking to the simpler example. If you really want to add more complication to the system, it's your rope.
It's the complexity of the system that allows it to work.
Admitting the machinery of life isn't simple should make you question the ability of random changes to build such machinery the more complex we discover it to be. And adding epigenetic factors isn't magic that makes the system simpler, it's an added layer of complexity that should make you question random changes+natural selection.

Do you really think scientists are dumb enough to think those represent ages? Or ever thought that?
The pronoun "those" refers to what? Rock layers? You are about to mention things that appear "after a certain point in the fossil record". How is "after" determined in the fossil record if not from rock layers?

How about the fact that Flowering plants and bees appear only after a certain point in the fossil record?
You mean they only appear after a certain rock layer? How do they determine what timeframe that is?

Yorzhik said:
That was the point I was making. 'Fewer changes' is easier than 'more changes'. Easier was required to try and keep the idea of common descent alive because mutating ATCG to create features was looking harder and harder to the point of impossibility.
Alate_One said:
Not even remotely accurate.
The main point is completely accurate. DNA cannot mutate novel functions for itself. Adding epigenetic factors makes it more difficult to mutate novel functions for itself.

HOX genes are old enough I am not sure we know their origin.
So we are supposed to believe they came from an ultimate common ancestor via mutation and natural selection without evidence.

Regardless, even if HOX genes themselves were specially created, that would still include every bilaterally symmetrical organism on earth as having a common ancestor. Clearly you don't believe in that, do you?
HOX genes are that universal? Like as universal as ATP systems? Are you sure you want to believe that? Because HOX genes are even more complex than ATP systems.

The protein (PAX6) that signals the creation of the human eye, works perfectly for creating the drosophila eye.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAX6
So are you trying to say that some other system mutated into PAX6? Unless you assume, with no evidence other than themselves, they evolved from a common ancestor this wouldn't mean anything to Dawkin's claims.

Do you see the problem?

You keep insisting these parts of *function* are just "looks". It's as if any physical evidence can be just waved away, as "looks".

"Looks" implies that it is a superficial similarity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mitochondria do not just look like bacteria, they behave like them. And even more amazingly they behave the same way in virtually every eukaryotic organism!

Why give them a circular chromosome like bacteria? That's hardly a superficial character when the chromosome in the nucleus is linear.
I thought "circular" referred to its looks. But if you want to go with "virtually every eukaryotic organism" has the same mitochondria, we can go down that road too.

I think we're talking past each other at this point. I don't see any evidence for a worldwide flood.
Then you aren't giving the evidence the same consideration that you give evidence for believing things like "the sun is hot relative to the earth" or "if I throw this ball into the air it will come back down".

If you can find one, look for a map of the major sediment layers. Then look at the world today.

Look at the Cumberland Basin. It's not only the polystrate fossils, but the roots common descentists claim are there are not the kind of roots that would actually be on a living plant. And then the justification for saying "they are formed by rare to infrequent brief episodes of rapid sedimentation" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil has no basis in differences above or below the polystrate fossil. Then look at the shear size of the Cumberland Basin deposit and you realize the event was as big, at it's very least, to cover the entire eastern seaboard of Canada. Somehow an event like that, if that's all we could find in sediments, would have been at least noticed worldwide.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Admitting the machinery of life isn't simple should make you question the ability of random changes to build such machinery the more complex we discover it to be. And adding epigenetic factors isn't magic that makes the system simpler, it's an added layer of complexity that should make you question random changes+natural selection.
You would think that this would at least slow them down... but no, their faith is strong.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
No skepticism? No curiosity? Did they get their natural affinity for learning as a child beat out of them by school?
Probably. Wouldn't dismiss the idea, considering how bad the schools are these days at teaching anything at all...
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
Admitting the machinery of life isn't simple should make you question the ability of random changes to build such machinery the more complex we discover it to be. And adding epigenetic factors isn't magic that makes the system simpler, it's an added layer of complexity that should make you question random changes+natural selection.
I don't see any reason to say a complex system means random changes are worse than a simpler one. The complex system has a lot more redundancy and can tolerate a lot more noise and damage than a simpler one.

I think that's why your simplified models of DNA function don't work.

You mean they only appear after a certain rock layer? How do they determine what timeframe that is?
The simplest way is to know that the rocks on top are older than those on the bottom.

To cross date obviously scientists use radiometric methods or using electromagnetic field reversals.

The main point is completely accurate. DNA cannot mutate novel functions for itself. Adding epigenetic factors makes it more difficult to mutate novel functions for itself.
I haven't really said anything about epigenetics up till this point so I'm not sure where you're getting it from. Epigenetics don't make new functions, pretty much by definition.

HOX genes are that universal? Like as universal as ATP systems? Are you sure you want to believe that? Because HOX genes are even more complex than ATP systems.
Depends on what one means by "ATP systems" as there are many, many ways to make ATP.

HOX genes are universal to all bilaterian animals, that much is a fact. They are used in slightly different ways in different organisms and show many rounds of duplication, depending on the organism.

Ray finned fish actually have more copies of HOX than we do. Got a good explanation for that?

So are you trying to say that some other system mutated into PAX6? Unless you assume, with no evidence other than themselves, they evolved from a common ancestor this wouldn't mean anything to Dawkin's claims.

Do you see the problem?
What other reasons is there for the eyemaking protein, for such radically different eye types to be cross functional? Especially when many other proteins are not.


I thought "circular" referred to its looks. But if you want to go with "virtually every eukaryotic organism" has the same mitochondria, we can go down that road too.
Circular DNA isn't just looks. It radically changes how the DNA functions and replicates. Circular DNA eliminates the end replication problem that Eukaryotic chromosomes have. Mitochondria and chloroplasts don't just look like bacteria, they still behave like bacteria.

Look at the Cumberland Basin. It's not only the polystrate fossils, but the roots common descentists claim are there are not the kind of roots that would actually be on a living plant. And then the justification for saying "they are formed by rare to infrequent brief episodes of rapid sedimentation" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil has no basis in differences above or below the polystrate fossil. Then look at the shear size of the Cumberland Basin deposit and you realize the event was as big, at it's very least, to cover the entire eastern seaboard of Canada. Somehow an event like that, if that's all we could find in sediments, would have been at least noticed worldwide.
Flood layers are easily identified by graded bedding. We don't find one giant flood layer of graded bedding worldwide.

Yes some sediment layers were deposited rapidly, but others weren't. And many layers reflect *different* deposition conditions.

I can see that where I live, there are many layers of limestone (not a flood layer), which is overlain by sandstone (not a flood layer) and if you go farther south you can find the underlying eroded granite (also not a flood layer).
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
You would think that this would at least slow them down... but no, their faith is strong.

No skepticism? No curiosity? Did they get their natural affinity for learning as a child beat out of them by school?

Probably. Wouldn't dismiss the idea, considering how bad the schools are these days at teaching anything at all...

You three seriously pegged the irony meter on this one.

I've been bringing plenty of new information into these discussions and all you want to do is dismiss and ignore it. Skepticism isn't just rejecting what doesn't conform to a worldview, it is looking at any new information in light of all of the other information that's available.

One doesn't take one piece of data and throw out all the other contrary data because the other data makes you feel better.

That'll explain why you're exactly addressing the challenge that was issued. :rolleyes:

That wasn't even a sensible response to a tangential idea of what I said.

You claimed that the reference you posted proved that Angiosperms have been around for ages, but the problem is, you're looking at small amounts of pollen and pollen that's not a recognizable modern angiosperm.

If you're looking for support for the hypothesis that the earth is only 4,000 to 10,000 years old, you would expect the types of pollen in ALL sediment layers to be reasonably similar, without any major groups of plants that are alive today missing.

Except we don't see that at all in the rock layers all around us. When we find fossil plants they're very often of plants that don't exist anymore and the plants we see here today are not fossilized with them.

How else do you explain that type of data other than the composition of the plant life on earth has changed massively over time?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You claimed that the reference you posted proved that Angiosperms have been around for ages.

No, I didn't. If you look at the challenge that I was building on, my point is obvious. Instead, you have gone down rabbit hole after rabbit hole.

Here it is: "The more we find out, the quicker we realize that the timeframes for evolution are getting squished impossibly small."
 
Last edited:

Alate_One

Well-known member
No, I didn't. If you look at the challenge that I was building on, my point is obvious. Instead, you have gone down rabbit hole after rabbit hole.

Here it is: "The more we find out, the quicker we realize that the timeframes for evolution are getting squished impossibly small."

What I answered you, did address this. Let me be more clear for you.

The idea of timeframes shrinking to "impossibility" doesn't follow from your reference at all. The authors specifically state that there isn't a continuous record with more angiosperm pollen, so it probably doesn't mean angiosperms themselves existed in the Triassic. Really the evidence being only pollen. We don't know what kind of plants produced it other than it looks basically like Angiosperm pollen, but not like any modern angiosperms and not even exactly like pollen from the cretaceous.

So what is the better interpretation of this finding? That maybe some relative of Angiosperms (or something else that happened to have pollen like them) existed in the Triassic? Or all of evolution is wrong and we'd better just give up. :rolleyes:

After all the statements about being skeptical in this thread I think it should be pretty obvious what the answer is.

Again, if you want to support your ideas, it's pretty obvious what the predictions would be. We should find Mangroves, Oaks, Maples and other modern trees fossilized alongside Lepidodendron scale trees and Archeopteris.

But you can't find those, because it didn't happen and they're separated by millions of years.

Your only recourse is to cherry pick data and pick at the edges of "look at the unexpected stuff evolutionists found". News flash, no scientist knows everything, but the data are not consistent with a recent creation with everything found together in a mishmash left behind by a global flood.

If you read:

The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence, you'd know that early Christian geologists figured this out a long time ago.
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
Yeah, I would say fins turning into fingers would be considered “gaining anatomy”, but do you have evidence that happened?

Like say, a tiktaalik with fingers to compare to your tiktaalik with fins...?

Of course, I meant a modern observable mutation, but you knew that.
Going from Tiktaalik to an amphibian isn't something that's going to happen over a human lifetime. But you knew that, right?

Hey! It must be a descendant of the tiktaalik!!!
Nope. Any scientist with a basic understanding of anatomy would know that Mudskippers are ray finned fish, a sister group to all lobe finned fish, including tiktaalik.

I wonder how much longer it will take for mudskippers to evolve fingers and feet...
It could happen, *if* there was a loss of all other land living vertebrates. Fish came onto land during a time where the only other land living creatures were arthropods (insects, millipedes, spiders and scorpions). And if something with an internal skeleton, teeth and a solid jaw meets an arthropod, you can imagine what could happen. There would be very powerful selection for animals that could live and feed on land. Lots of unexploited food sources (arthropods) and few predators compared to the aquatic environment.

So unless that specific situation is repeated, it's unlikely mudskippers will go a much farther than where they are because there are far superior land living vertebrates around now.
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Proverbs 20:12 (KJV): The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the LORD hath made even both of them.
Romans 1:18-22 (NASB): 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,


Kind regards
Trevor
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yorzhik said:
Admitting the machinery of life isn't simple should make you question the ability of random changes to build such machinery the more complex we discover it to be. And adding epigenetic factors isn't magic that makes the system simpler, it's an added layer of complexity that should make you question random changes+natural selection.
I don't see any reason to say a complex system means random changes are worse than a simpler one. The complex system has a lot more redundancy and can tolerate a lot more noise and damage than a simpler one.

I think that's why your simplified models of DNA function don't work.
You didn't even address the comment. The comment wasn't whether one could more easily mutate a simpler system or a more complex system to death. The comment was whether it was easier to build a system via mutation+NS that was simpler or more complex. It should have been obvious to you that the more complex system is harder to build. And not only is the system more complex the more we look into it, but you are adding system redundancy to the system making it even MORE complex. And don't think systems outside of and interacting with DNA are going to make the system simpler... 'cause it will make the compete system even more complex.

At least you should question, or have a modicum of curiosity, as to how random mutation+natural system can accomplish that.

But instead of looking into it, biologists like you repeat the dogma of similar looks and similar function. While biologists like Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer look at the molecules and show you how it can't be done.

Yorzhik said:
You mean they only appear after a certain rock layer? How do they determine what timeframe that is?
The simplest way is to know that the rocks on top are older than those on the bottom.

To cross date obviously scientists use radiometric methods or using electromagnetic field reversals.
I'm sure you meant those on the bottom are older.

You said "Do you really think scientists are dumb enough to think those represent ages? Or ever thought that?"

So are you saying scientists are dumb or that "those" is a pronoun that refers to something no one is talking about?

I haven't really said anything about epigenetics up till this point so I'm not sure where you're getting it from. Epigenetics don't make new functions, pretty much by definition.
I only mean control systems outside DNA. It's something we have to pay attention to if we are going to try and model how well random mutations+natural selection can build increadibly complex DNA systems (with redundancy!).

HOX genes are universal to all bilaterian animals, that much is a fact. They are used in slightly different ways in different organisms and show many rounds of duplication, depending on the organism.
Intuition should tell you that building these HOX genes has to be somewhat specific. Aren't you curious how this is a problem for RM+NS? Common descentists don't ever address this.

Ray finned fish actually have more copies of HOX than we do. Got a good explanation for that?
There's a few explanations. Broken copy systems, or us not understanding enough about HOX genes to see how that kind of design change can help function. Perhaps something else. Why do you think that's a problem for the YEC model?

What other reasons is there for the eyemaking protein, for such radically different eye types to be cross functional? Especially when many other proteins are not.
You keep bringing up systems like this as if it's a problem for the design model. It worked, therefore it was used repeatedly. And if it wasn't, you'll have to get into the designers head as to why they would do something one way when your idea is that they should have done it another. It's a philosophical argument. I'd love to get into philosophical arguments why universal common ancestry is wrong, but science is enough to show common descent is wrong.

Circular DNA isn't just looks. It radically changes how the DNA functions and replicates. Circular DNA eliminates the end replication problem that Eukaryotic chromosomes have. Mitochondria and chloroplasts don't just look like bacteria, they still behave like bacteria.
Similar looks or functions is still a subjective measure on what "descended" from what.

Flood layers are easily identified by graded bedding. We don't find one giant flood layer of graded bedding world wide.
You have to be kidding me. You are this ignorant of every flood model? You think the world just sat in water for a year? That's essentially what you'd have to think to say this.

Yes some sediment layers were deposited rapidly, but others weren't. And many layers reflect *different* deposition conditions.
So when you say rapidly, what kind of timeframe are you talking about and what is the difference in layers that tells you what was laid fast and what was laid slow?

I can see that where I live, there are many layers of limestone (not a flood layer), which is overlain by sandstone (not a flood layer) and if you go farther south you can find the underlying eroded granite (also not a flood layer).
How does one get a limestone or sandstone layer that isn't laid down by water?

Did you find that sediment map? I bet you didn't.

Oh, and granite seems to be the rock that was the foundation of the continents before the flood happened.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The idea of timeframes shrinking to "impossibility" doesn't follow from your reference at all.

Of course it does. And I wasn't even making the claim, just providing an actual on-topic reference.

The authors specifically state that there isn't a continuous record with more angiosperm pollen, so it probably doesn't mean angiosperms themselves existed in the Triassic.

Of course they bow to Darwinism. However, moments prior, they wrote:

"The described pollen grains show all the essential features of angiosperm pollen."

So while we know you want there to be a progression from "basal" to "more modern," the evidence doesn't indicate that. The evidence shows that "all the essential features of angiosperm pollen" are present every time "earlier" stuff is found.

Really the evidence being only pollen. We don't know what kind of plants produced it other than it looks basically like Angiosperm pollen, but not like any modern angiosperms and not even exactly like pollen from the cretaceous.

Except that it "shows all the essential features of angiosperm pollen."

So what is the better interpretation of this finding? That maybe some relative of Angiosperms (or something else that happened to have pollen like them) existed in the Triassic? Or all of evolution is wrong and we'd better just give up. :rolleyes:

Your suggestions are ridiculous. You need to stop overreacting to the evidence and just put it in its proper place. Of course this paper doesn't overthrow evolution. It's just an example of the challenge that was issued.

Again, if you want to support your ideas, it's pretty obvious what the predictions would be. We should find Mangroves, Oaks, Maples and other modern trees fossilized alongside Lepidodendron scale trees and Archeopteris.

We have pollen. :idunno:

Why should we expect to find entire trees deep in sediment laid down by a catastrophic global flood?

Is this another "rabbit in the precambrian" piece of nonsense?

You can't find those, because it didn't happen.
Just like you can't find wet roads after that rain last night. :rolleyes:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Are you just going through the Wiki list of logical fallacies and making sure you commit each one?

The data are not consistent with a recent creation [and] a global flood.

Of course they are.

If you read Walt Brown's In the Beginning, you'll find a compelling case.
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
Of course they bow to Darwinism. However, moments prior, they wrote:

"The described pollen grains show all the essential features of angiosperm pollen."

So while we know you want there to be a progression from "basal" to "more modern," the evidence doesn't indicate that. The evidence shows that "all the essential features of angiosperm pollen" are present every time "earlier" stuff is found.
Angiosperm pollen. Do you know what pollen is? Do you know how small it is and how minimal the features are?

Your paper is cited in a newer review of the subject:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6055841/

Relevant quote below:


Monosulcate pollen, such as that produced by early‐branching lineages of extant angiosperms, is known at least as far back as the Valanginian (Brenner, 1996), and pollen exhibiting subsets of definitive crown‐angiosperm characters is known as far back as the Middle Triassic (Cornet, 1986; Doyle & Hotton, 1991; Taylor & Taylor, 2009; Hochuli et al., 2013), but these are difficult to discriminate from pollen produced by stem‐angiosperms or gymnosperms (Doyle & Hotton, 1991), and hence they have not been used to constrain divergence time analyses.



Why should we expect to find entire trees deep in sediment laid down by a catastrophic global flood?
Because we find whole fossil trees sometimes?

636577648282004834-Crystal-Forest-credit-NPS.jpg


Mind you those are found in Arizona and represent a group of trees not found in the northern hemisphere anymore.

Is this another "rabbit in the precambrian" piece of nonsense?
If now extinct and modern trees existed at the same time, why don't we find them together? And yes why not a rabbit, or a whale or a mosasaur or something like that in the precambrian (or cambrian for that matter)?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Angiosperm pollen. Do you know what pollen is? Do you know how small it is and how minimal the features are?

Why are you so confident that this pollen cannot be angiosperm. :idunno:

Remember: "The described pollen grains show all the essential features of angiosperm pollen."

Your paper reiterates that: "These are difficult to discriminate from pollen produced by stem‐angiosperms ... and hence they have not been used to constrain divergence time analyses."

Because we find whole fossil trees sometimes?

Did you read the question I posed? Do you intentionally ignore the words that showed I was very aware of fossil trees?

If now extinct and modern trees existed at the same time, why don't we find them together?

Because the trees you call "extinct" are not substantially different from what we have today. Remember how the papers we are looking at back that up?

"These are difficult to discriminate from pollen produced by stem‐angiosperms."

Why not a rabbit, or a whale or a mosasaur or something like that in the precambrian (or cambrian for that matter)?

Why would you expect those to be buried deep in sediment laid down by a global catastrophe?

Try to understand: This question assumes that fossils actually exist. :rolleyes:
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
Why are you so confident that this pollen cannot be angiosperm. :idunno:
I'm not. Why are you so confident it is?

Your paper reiterates that: "These are difficult to discriminate from pollen produced by stem‐angiosperms ... and hence they have not been used to constrain divergence time analyses."
You just cut the critical part of the quote to make it say something it doesn't.

"...but these are difficult to discriminate from pollen produced by stem‐angiosperms or gymnosperms"

So they don't really know if it's angiosperm pollen or not because if it is, it represents primitive angiosperm pollen which is far less distinct from gymnosperm pollen (a far more ancient group of plants).




Because the trees you call "extinct" are not substantially different from what we have today. Remember how the papers we are looking at back that up?

"These are difficult to discriminate from pollen produced by stem‐angiosperms."
Do you think Pollen is the only evidence we have? :nono:

I wasn't talking about your pollen-only plants at all. I was talking about Lepidodendron, a tree that exists as fossil forests, with no modern trees (angiosperms included) mixed in.

Lepidodendron forests aren't late Triassic age, but Carboniferous.

p72.png



Why would you expect those to be buried deep in sediment laid down by a global catastrophe?
Why not?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I'm not. Why are you so confident it is?

Because of the paper you provided. :idunno:

You just cut the critical part of the quote to make it say something it doesn't.

"...but these are difficult to discriminate from pollen produced by stem‐angiosperms or gymnosperms."

See? They're very similar. Why are you so confident that they cannot be pretty much the same thing?

So they don't really know if it's angiosperm pollen or not because if it is, it represents primitive angiosperm pollen which is far less distinct from gymnosperm pollen (a far more ancient group of plants).

Nope.

That's your Darwinism speaking. We're interested in the evidence.


Physics.
 
Top