can a cabbage ( yes my beloved vegetable) EVOLVE into a monkey? Is there scientific proof?

Question

They say that EVOLUTION only occurs in living things. A vegetable is a living thing, therefore it could EVOLVE into a monkey? Is there scientific proof?

why is it that evolutionists can not give straight answers but results to verbal abuse? How is that called in logic 101 again? Was it argumentum ad hominem?

Donna, according to my thesaurus to evolve means to develop, change, go forward. So, it should make sense that since a vegetable is a lower form of life it could develop, change, or go forward to a higher form of life like the monkey. Logical, isn't it

Phonix: A nested heirarchy, like "nested if" logic? Sure it can be done, right ?

Epida says: "Evolution means that all modern species ultiamtely (far enough back) share common ancestors, but this does not imply an evolutionary line from one modern species to another"
Question: WHY NOT ? Is there something that prevents it--like a designer who prevented it ?

Answer 1

How many evolutionists does it take to change a light bulb?

None! Just leave it for a few hundred million years and it will change on it's own.

Mark

Answer 2

No. This has absolutely no bearing on whether evolution occured or continues to occur, however.

Both the cabbage and the monkey have accumulated a completely different set of variations since their last common ancestor, probably around 1.6 billion years ago.

For a cabbage to evolve into a monkey, all the changes that have occured in that time would have to be UNDONE, then it would have to follow EXACTLY THE SAME PATH as the monkey genome did.

The first part is the problem: undoing the evolution that led to a cabbage in the first place. Since each change that led to the cabbage created an ADVANTAGE, a reversion of that change would most likely lead to a DISADVANTAGE, so that variation would be selected against and die off.

You should really research "nested heirachies." If you had done so, you'd see the ridiculousness of your question.


EDIT: A response to some of your "Additional Details."

Re: Your comment to Donna. If you are relying on a thesaurus for scientific definitions, no wonder you are so befuddled. That is NOT the scientific definition of evolution. I gave you that in your "0 to 1" question. Evolution is not a directed process. Natural selection does not judge on the basis of "higher" or "lower" life forms. It is merely the result of reproductive success.

Re: Your question to Epida. Yes, there's something that prevents it. It's called "natural selection." (No designer required.) Perhaps you've heard of it? For one modern species to evolve into another modern species, it would first need to LOSE the characteristics it has acquired since separation from the last common ancestor. This is addressed in my original answer. Pay attention.

Re: Your comment to me. You still don't get a nested heirarchy. Nested IFs are a decision structure, not a heirarchy. A nested heirarchy is the natural RESULT of a branching process (like reproduction with variation). But let's look at your example anyway. In a computer program with nested IF statements, the program flow is ONE DIRECTION. Once the execution has branched one direction, it won't jump back out to the containing IF statement and branch a different direction. Even though your analogy is poor, it still defeats your argument.

Answer 3

Theoretically it could be possible with enough time and the right circumstances. If you are really interested in the science behind evolution, you should either do some objective research or start asking in the science sections. If, on the other hand, your intent is to try to argue against proven fact with arguments of incredulity, you will only succeede in displaying your ignorance. Sorry no offense intended, just a statement of fact.

Edit:
Strange that you are trying to quote logic rules but completely ignoring facts and the massive amounts of information out there. In this case I would still recommend that you stop playing at being intellectual and actually do the research.

Edit 2:
Let me put this simply, evolution is a valid scientific theory, debating against it without significant evidence is not only futile but shows a complete lack of the current knowledge base.

Answer 4

No. A cabbage won't evolve into a monkey. They are far too differentiated for that to happen. Nor do scientists claim that. Plants and animals are separate branches of the evolutionary tree. Once a species is going down one branch, it doesn't go back to another; it keeps specializing. Over very long periods of time, new branches form. Thus do we have trees, shrubs and yes, cabbage.

Is there any proof?
Modern science does not talk about proof in a way that would satisfy you. There is, however, tons of evidence and the fact that the theory is consistent, both within itself and with other sciences. i am afraid the same can't be said for creationism. Therefore, mainstream science accepts evolution.

Answer 5

About half of the genes in a modern hman beign are identical with those in a modern banana.

Evolution means that all modern species ultiamtely (far enough back) share common ancestors, but this does not imply an evolutionary line from one modern species to another.

Get any good text book and you can learn the truth.

Answer 6

Well, seeing as how a monkey and a vegetable have very little in common I can see where you're coming from.

This is exactly like saying the Bible is just as credible as the Cat in the Hat. Why not? They are both books? Next time try a better example.

Answer 7

Natural Order's answer here is wrong; the questioner is surely proof of evolution in the other direction, from monkey to vegetable.

Answer 8

evolution is like the branches of a tree, once a path is taken there is only one direction. Branches don't collide or join so cabbages will never became a monkey

Answer 9

Ok, redefining it...

Evolution does not move back and then forward again, so no. There's no way your cabbage could devolve back to single cell organism and then evolve again to a monkey.... also it'd take more time than you have even if it would happen ;)

Answer 10

I guess anything is possible but there is not proof that a vegetable can evolve into a monkey.
If there was scientific proof I have a feeling you would'nt believe it anyways.