“Poems are made by fools like me,
But only God can make a tree.” 1
Even though Darwin investigated the Plant Kingdom, his conjectured transitional chain of organic life seems to have given primary attention to the Animal Kingdom. While media hype touts dinosaurs-to-birds and molecule-to-man scenarios, evolution’s grand scheme gives short shrift to the origin of plants.
Scraggly Bristlecone pines, stalwarts of the Plant Kingdom,
thrive high at the upper edge of the Sierra Mountains tree line with rings
suggesting an age reaching more than 4,000+ years.
Although Darwin claimed plants and animals descended from “one primordial form” his imaginary “Tree of Life,” paid little attention to showing connection with trees, bushes, flowers and grasses.
“Analogy would lead me…to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype…I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.” 2
Taking the guru at his word, we are to believe a giant redwood descended from the same simple cell ancestor as a monarch butterfly?
The chance hypothesis buys into the abstraction that the first living cell managed to create itself from non-living matter. Darwin took another leap of faith, promoting the impossible-to-prove thought that all plant and animal life evolved from the same make-believe, common ancestor.
Charles D., the most oft-quoted proponent of the chance hypothesis since 1859, pledged allegiance to the myth that trees and humans share descent from “one primordial form” —an unproved and unprovable speculation. No stranger to the Plant Kingdom and confronted with a genetic “mystery,” he struggled to find a niche for trees and shrubs in his grand scheme.
The naturalist spent long hours with his botanist son researching plants, but his 1859 Origin of Species, featuring “descent with modification,” fails to identify the precise genetic junction where strawberry plants and giant sequoias allegedly deviated from hummingbirds and elephants after having split from that original, self-created “primordial form” and redesigned themselves by “variation and natural selection.”
Reciting lofty-sounding words and phrases prove nothing.
If Darwin’s rash conjecture is to be believed, just where are the mega-millions of transitional life forms that needed to lend credibility to the thesis that trees and animals came from that “one primordial form?” Where’s the genetic trail confirming a bristlecone pine and a monarch butterfly share a common ancestor? Where’s the fossil intermediate? And what did he, she, or it, look like?
Even open-ended deep time years of “slight successive variations” are hopelessly inadequate to account for this enormous chasm of genetic discontinuity. Verifiable scientific evidence that the Animal and Plant Kingdoms both evolved from that identical “mother cell” doesn’t exist.
Or instead, were these two discontinuous living formats introduced during creation week, mutually co-dependent components of a vibrant, global ecosystem?
Could animals survive without grass, berries, fruit, vegetables, nuts, flowers, shrubs and trees?
Could either Animal or Plant kingdom function without the simultaneous presence of the other?
This is an excerpt from a chapter of the 2016 Edition
of “Three Days Before the Sun”, now available
from leading online retailers.