Questions for Creationists (pt. 8) can you answer these?

Question

Explain my work:
As a botanist, I spend a lot of time identifying plants. Often, species of plants interbreed with other species (but only slightly). That is, some species (A) may interbread with Species (B) 10% of the time, but it only interbreeds with species (C) 1% of the time. Why does this happen? What does this mean for the "kinds" that so many creationist point to? In other words, why does hybridization happen?

For clarification: most creationists maintain that species do not evolve. Yet hybridization is evidence that things are always in the process of evolving. In general, species that are closer to one another will interbreed more, those that are less close, will intrebreed less. Eventually, you get to a point in time where the two will not interbreed (like corn and roses) and they are very distinct species (or in this case classes).

I should also clarify... plants of DIFFERENT SPECIES interbreed in varying percentages (usually less than 10% of the time). Plants of the same species, but of different subspecies (and varities) usually breed between 10 and 90% of the time.

So 10 respondents and no one has really understood the question, let alone try to answer it.

The question is WHY DOES THIS HAPPEN?

Answer 1

Hybridization is the natural consequence of proximity.

Answer 2

Wait. I'm sorry, but how does this disprove Creation?

I'm going to lay you arguement out in notation then you explain how it makes sense:

A. It has been demonstrated that certain plants can breed with each other.
B. It has been demonstrated that this occurs in varrying degress, depending on the similarity of the plants
C. It has been demonstrated that this can result in new varieties of plants
D. Given A B and C the world was surely not created.

Answer 3

Cristians do not argue that microevolution is false only that macroevolution is false. while im not familiar with what youve mentioned i am aware that microevolution is true. God has made things with the ability to adapt. as you may have learned life is degenerative. nothing is getting better. scientists point to viruses changing as proof but that only prooves things are getting worse not better. if macroevolution was true they would have had it backwards were devolving. look at the REAL evidence and draw a conclusion based on it. keep in mind microevolution does not equal macroevolution. also it is impossible to prove the past. think long and hard about that before calling somthing science

Answer 4

When I was a kid I learned how to graft one type of plant to another, I'd have a apple tree with one limb growing oranges. I realize it's not exactly the same thing your referring to but it was fun.

I wouldn't call this evolution anymore than I would a mutt as a dog, most hybrids don't survive in the long run. It's just us playing God.

Answer 5

you're confusing the issue.
as a creationist that reads a lot of science texts, i do believe in evolution. i use the term "creationist" merely because i believe there was something before the big bang, and because there SEEMS to be an underlying structure to the entire universe.
we're not all "fundamentalist".

Answer 6

A plant is still a plant. It's not going to evolve into anything else.

Answer 7

I am not the target of your question. Obviously micro evolution is a fact even in the "Human species"

Here is one for you. If our genetic code is almost identical to the great apes. Who came from who?

Answer 8

that's not evolution; that's crossbreeding. completely different thing. a mule is not "evolution" (it can't even procreate), it's crossbreeding of a horse & donkey.
and what does that have to do with creationism? many creationist believe that god created mankind & animals. since then, they have adapted to life on earth.

Answer 9

Hmm, I remember you asked these questions months ago...am I right?

Answer 10

Just look at that first answer-is that not shameful but so very typical of the mentality you're dealing with?