Most of this creationist article is gobbledygook, but I do wonder if there is such a chart. I google up plenty of articles like this but I can’t seem to find a chart showing how one form diverges into another like the branching tree models used in showing animal evolution.
My decidedly inexpert opinion on this is that the charts you describe actually depict a creationist view of evolution, i.e. a stately progression from the simple to the complex that could well have been the work of some Intelligent Designer. As I understand it, evolution is a lot messier than that. The metaphor of the branching tree is misleading; a more apt metaphor might be an invasive weed.
No chart but plenty of info here
Well, of course there are charts dipicting the evolutionary relationships of plants. A case in point here: Angiosperms
But creationists are just going to say it’s based on faulty or fraudulent evidence anyway.
Wow. I just read parts of the linked article. Crazy stuff, so much of it either lies or ignorance. Among the falsehoods - that organisms should be arranged from simple to complex , that scientists don’t like to talk about complex chemical defenses by plants, that organisms cannot respond to stimuli if they don’t have nerves. Lots of crap.
If this guy’s claiming to be a cell biologist, he really either slept through a lot of his education or put some big blinders on so he wouldn’t notice.
If their argument for Intelligent Design is that it must be true if our scientists haven’t come up with a better explanation, does this mean that his arguments only work for ignorant societies?
Wow. That article assumes that biologists claim we consciously change our genes in order to evolve. Plants don’t have brains, so how can they evlove? Talk about your strawman argument…