Adding to the debate was sequencing the genome of seagrass. Biologists didn't like what they saw in it, and made several amazing assertions based entirely on their worldview, not on evidence. It re-evolved? Has missing genes? Sounds more like personal preference than actual science. Here's a thought: plants didn't evolve on land or under water because they were created. That makes the best sense of the evidence.
It's fairly easy to explain the evolution of plants, animals, or people if one presupposes that Darwinian evolution is a scientific fact. For example, evolutionists assume that flowering plants (phylum Anthophyta) evolved from non-flowering plants perhaps 160 million years ago. Several problems secular scientists face are that they don't know where this massive and diverse group of plants came from, how they arrived, or when they supposedly evolved. Does new seagrass research help solve these problems?To read the rest, click on "Seagrass Re-evolution".
Biologist Futuyma wrote, "The angiosperms, or flowering plants probably originated in the late Jurassic…." These words, penned by biologist Solomon, sound similar: "The origin and early evolution of flowering plants continue to challenge botanists."
One might think fossils would clear up this mystery, but one research team wrote, "Although the information is very incomplete, the fossil record suggests that the flowering plants first appeared about 160 million years ago…." And other plant experts admit, "In spite of extensive research the origin and temporal and spatial distribution of early flowering plants are still a matter of debate."
Purveyors of evolution cannot account for plants. A genome sequencing of seagrass gave the conclusive answers of "probably". In other words, assumptions and personal preference instead of actual science.