If plants cannot evolve from bacteria, then evolution logically cannot be possible.
Now let’s consider how evolutionists explain the existence of plants on earth. This is another example of layers of controversies. First we have no explanation of how photosynthesis ever began, and photosynthesis is just one part of plants. Even though we do not know how photosynthesis began, we are told that where it began must have been in cyanobacteria. This would give something the ability to do photosynthesis somewhere on earth, but it is not a plant.
The evolution of plant life gets much less attention than the evolution of animal life and human life. However, the plants of the earth have extraordinary diversity and complexity. Like all life forms they have DNA with instructions for life, but the chemistry of how they are alive is much different than in animals. These issues and controversies around the evolution of plants brings in even more problems that evolutionists have no answers for.
It is truly a miracle to watch seeds planted in soil and then develop into plants and trees. It is like witnessing the development of a baby from our ‘seeds’. Another wonder of the world is the fact that we cannot live without the plants. This is because plants use carbon dioxide (CO2) that animals produce to make the oxygen (O2) that animals need to survive. In the same way animals use the oxygen that plants produce to make the carbon dioxide that plants need to survive. In this way, plants and animals are completely dependent on each other, so evolutionists need to be able to explain how this all happened. If they now both need each other which one could have come first?
Let’s see what the evolutionists say about it. The journal Scientific American has an article titled, “How the first plant came to be”. In this article of a respected evolutionary scientific journal it is summarized as, “a tiny alga eons ago that swallowed a cyanobacteria and turned it into an internal solar power plant”. The ‘solar power plant’ is talking about photosynthesis that cyanobacteria are able to do by using the energy of the sun. But evolutionists are teaching that an algea ate a cyanobacteria and then this algea could do photosynthesis. If that seems incredible to you, it is! It is called the endosymbiotic theory, which is an entire controversy by all by itself which will be discussed as controversy number 30.
Endosymbiosis is a combination of Greek words which means ‘living together within’. Now usually when one life form eats another life form there is digestion. However in the endosymbiotic theory when an algea ate a cyanobacteria, the cyanobacteria was not digested, and rather became part of the algea and then they both lived together as one new life form that then could do photosynthesis, and all of the ‘babies’ from this algea could do it as well. This was the first plant according to evolutionists.
When this idea was first presented in 1906 it was met with “widespread criticism” among evolutionary biologists according to this Scientific American article. This would be expected because it does not seem possible and does not make any sense. Now however, it is “widely accepted” because no one can come up with any other possibility. Evolutionists are now trying desperately to come up with some support for the endosymbiotic theory. It remains a “theory” because it is not proven. So both the origin of photosynthesis and the origin of endosymbiosis are separate controversies, and these are only two of the many things that are unexplained with the origin of plants.
Evolutionist researchers have recently published an “article (that) focuses on the latest advances in our understanding of the origin and spread of plastids”. The plastids are a group of plant cell organelles which include chloroplasts where photosynthesis is done. In the respected evolutionary journal Current Biology this article titled, “The Puzzle of Plastid Evolution” summarizes our knowledge about this as, “A comprehensive understanding of the origin and spread of plastids remains an important yet elusive goal in the field of eukaryotic evolution”. It is “important” because evolution cannot be true unless this can be explained, and it is “elusive” because evolutionists cannot explain it. Evolutionists know they cannot explain it and say so in their own journals.
Another recent attempt to review the topic was the article “Origin and evolution of plastids and photosynthesis in eukaryotes” published in the journal Cold Springs Harbor Perspectives in Biology. When discussing when this might have happened it is reported that “Establishing when during geological time the endosymbiosis occurred remains elusive”. So, this is not known. We would also want to know which organisms this happened to (who) and this is described as “The phylogenetic affinities of the host remain obscure.” So, this is also not known. It would be important to understand how it happened and this is described as “It is not exactly clear how DNA is released from the endosymbiont and then integrated into the host nucleus”.
That is an understatement! It is not exactly clear? This is beyond unreasonable. Evolutionists have absolutely no idea how plants possibly could exist. They are convinced that evolution is true so they come up with theories to try to explain it, only to have every theory or idea ever thought of be contradicted once we develop technology to know more. These descriptions are just repetitive of other discussions on the topic such as “the cellular processes that shaped this initial plastid genesis remain largely unknown” as was reported in the journal Current Biology in the article, “A modern descendant of early green algal phagotrophs”. Evolutionists simply do not know the origin of plants and cannot explain the existence of plants!
Plants cannot live without photosynthesis and we are told that this must have been through endosymbiosis. However concerning endosymbiosis we want to know the answers to the important questions of when, who, and how. There are no answers. We are told it is “elusive”, “obscure”, “not exactly clear”, and “largely unknown”. This is the language of the highest level of intelligence and knowledge in plant biology that is published in the evolutionary scientific journals.
This (again) is not the creationists arguing with the evolutionists, this is the evolutionists not having any answer at all.
The origin of plants is a necessary condition for evolution to be true. Yet, it is a published fact in peer reviewed scientific journals that the origin of plants is unexplained.
You do not need to be a marine botanist to be convinced:
If plants cannot evolve from bacteria, then evolution logically cannot be possible.