THE DOMINANCE OF PLANTS
It seems to me that the basic form of life on earth are plants and that the entire animal domain, including humans, could be described as occupying a kind of parasitic role in that it depends on and lives off the plant kingdom. The truth is that humans, and all animals, need plants much more than they need us. Animals and insects serve plants by transporting their seeds, pollinating them and, aerating the soil and in return they feed us and generate oxygen for us.
Since the beginning of civilization, humans have purposely or inadvertantly spread plants by transporting their seeds to new locations and, in return, have used plants for food, clothing and, shelter. In most cases, it does not kill the plant when part of it is eaten by a human or animal but if we harm plants, it eventually ends up doing more harm to us. Biologically, the plant kingdom is certainly the most important on earth. it could exist without us but we could not exist without it.
THE ADVANTAGES OF PLANTS
.
If we were as efficient as plants, we would not need to work, move or, even to think. We could get all the energy and nutrients we need from simply lying in the sun and breathing. Suppose you visited a country where the people had no need to work or think because they had the sun running everything. Wouldn't you think that country was much more advanced and it's people more fortunate then yours? Well, that is how plants live.
.
Animals have a far greater struggle to survive than plants and have the disadvantage of requiring much more to live. Plants have found a niche where they have practically no danger of starvation, except for an occasional drought. They have no need to worry about shelter.
Plants have much more capacity to be wounded or injured and recuperate than animals.
.
Which do you suppose is in greater peril, an animal with a broken leg or a tree with a broken branch? If cut down, most plants will grow back as long as the roots are left intact. Suppose there was an animal that could be decapitated and a new body would grow back from it's head? If an animal eats another animal, that animal is gone forever. But in most cases, a plant eaten by an animal will grow back.
.
.
If we were as efficient as plants, we would not need to work, move or, even to think. We could get all the energy and nutrients we need from simply lying in the sun and breathing. Suppose you visited a country where the people had no need to work or think because they had the sun running everything. Wouldn't you think that country was much more advanced and it's people more fortunate then yours? Well, that is how plants live.
.
Animals have a far greater struggle to survive than plants and have the disadvantage of requiring much more to live. Plants have found a niche where they have practically no danger of starvation, except for an occasional drought. They have no need to worry about shelter.
Plants have much more capacity to be wounded or injured and recuperate than animals.
.
Which do you suppose is in greater peril, an animal with a broken leg or a tree with a broken branch? If cut down, most plants will grow back as long as the roots are left intact. Suppose there was an animal that could be decapitated and a new body would grow back from it's head? If an animal eats another animal, that animal is gone forever. But in most cases, a plant eaten by an animal will grow back.
.
THE NATURE OF ANIMALS
.
Animals are a much more complex form of life than plants, but it is a redundant complexity. Plants are actually a much more efficient form of life. Animals, and humans, are grossly over-complex in order to get what they need to live. Plants are simply designed to let the necessities of life come to them. Plants have no brains, limbs or, senses because all of their requirements are delivered to them and there is no need for such things.
.
EVOLUTION
.
The truth that is brought to light by an unbiased examination of the plant and animal kingdoms is that the idea of all of this coming about by random evolutionary processes without the creation of God is impossible. While changes in species due to adaptation to the environment do happen, the entire development of life on earth as it is today could not possibly have occurred by evolutionary processes.
.
For life to have developed by godless evolution, the more complex forms of life would have to be significantly better suited to survival and reproduction, which is all that really counts in evolution, than simpler forms of life. Under the tenets of evolution, complex forms of life evolve over time from simpler forms because the higher forms, which happen to be born with advantages, such as better eyesight or intelligence, making them more likely to survive long enough to pass on their genes, making the advantageous trait a part of the genetic makeup.
.
This discussion of plants and animals here is a refutation of that idea. How could the more complex animals evolve from the simpler plants, which we know came first? Animals must spend their lives hunting for food, most require shelter and a significant injury almost always means death. It is known that few animals in the wild live out their natural life spans.
.
Plants, in stark contrast, have to do nothing to survive. They get all they need from the sun, the rain and, the carbon dioxide in the air. If damaged, they usually survive. Most plants can grow back if cut off to the roots. The vast majority of plants live out their natural life span. Which form of life is really better suited to the environment?
.
I have to wonder if humans are really capable of accurately evaluating the supposed development of life on earth. We are too much a part of the process ourselves. We naturally think of ourselves as at the top of the heap. We put our emotions into evolution. We think that being the smartest creatures makes us the beings best-suited to the environment, but it absolutely does not. All that evolution cares about is the ability to survive long enough to reproduce and pass along the genes. Whether any creatures know that 2+2=4 is completely irrelevant unless it furthers that end.
.
THE WHOLE PLANET
.
My position is that life on the planet was designed as a whole. This is in diametric contrast to evolution, in which no species has any concern for any other. All that counts is living long enough to reproduce and spread the genes.
.
The existence of animals actually makes no evolutionary sense at all. Plants live by a simple efficiency while animals are much more complex but still live a much more precarious existence than plants. The complex cannot evolve from the simple unless it makes them much more likely to survive and pass along their genes, which it certainly does not.
.
Rather, animals were created by God for a certain purpose. There is only a limited number of atoms on earth that can participate in the biosphere. I see life on earth as having been created to keep those bio atoms in circulation by means of the food chain involving plants and a wide variety of animals. Life is created so that too many bio atoms will not be locked up in one species, thus putting strict limits on life. That is not the way God wanted it.
.
Animals are a much more complex form of life than plants, but it is a redundant complexity. Plants are actually a much more efficient form of life. Animals, and humans, are grossly over-complex in order to get what they need to live. Plants are simply designed to let the necessities of life come to them. Plants have no brains, limbs or, senses because all of their requirements are delivered to them and there is no need for such things.
.
EVOLUTION
.
The truth that is brought to light by an unbiased examination of the plant and animal kingdoms is that the idea of all of this coming about by random evolutionary processes without the creation of God is impossible. While changes in species due to adaptation to the environment do happen, the entire development of life on earth as it is today could not possibly have occurred by evolutionary processes.
.
For life to have developed by godless evolution, the more complex forms of life would have to be significantly better suited to survival and reproduction, which is all that really counts in evolution, than simpler forms of life. Under the tenets of evolution, complex forms of life evolve over time from simpler forms because the higher forms, which happen to be born with advantages, such as better eyesight or intelligence, making them more likely to survive long enough to pass on their genes, making the advantageous trait a part of the genetic makeup.
.
This discussion of plants and animals here is a refutation of that idea. How could the more complex animals evolve from the simpler plants, which we know came first? Animals must spend their lives hunting for food, most require shelter and a significant injury almost always means death. It is known that few animals in the wild live out their natural life spans.
.
Plants, in stark contrast, have to do nothing to survive. They get all they need from the sun, the rain and, the carbon dioxide in the air. If damaged, they usually survive. Most plants can grow back if cut off to the roots. The vast majority of plants live out their natural life span. Which form of life is really better suited to the environment?
.
I have to wonder if humans are really capable of accurately evaluating the supposed development of life on earth. We are too much a part of the process ourselves. We naturally think of ourselves as at the top of the heap. We put our emotions into evolution. We think that being the smartest creatures makes us the beings best-suited to the environment, but it absolutely does not. All that evolution cares about is the ability to survive long enough to reproduce and pass along the genes. Whether any creatures know that 2+2=4 is completely irrelevant unless it furthers that end.
.
THE WHOLE PLANET
.
My position is that life on the planet was designed as a whole. This is in diametric contrast to evolution, in which no species has any concern for any other. All that counts is living long enough to reproduce and spread the genes.
.
The existence of animals actually makes no evolutionary sense at all. Plants live by a simple efficiency while animals are much more complex but still live a much more precarious existence than plants. The complex cannot evolve from the simple unless it makes them much more likely to survive and pass along their genes, which it certainly does not.
.
Rather, animals were created by God for a certain purpose. There is only a limited number of atoms on earth that can participate in the biosphere. I see life on earth as having been created to keep those bio atoms in circulation by means of the food chain involving plants and a wide variety of animals. Life is created so that too many bio atoms will not be locked up in one species, thus putting strict limits on life. That is not the way God wanted it.
No comments:
Post a Comment