Oh, this one's easy.
Avacado - Lauraceae
This family includes plants such as cinnamon, sassafras, camphor, and bay laurel.
Legumes - Fabaceae
This family includes the culinary favorites of beans, peas, and lentils, as well as livestock favorites like clover and alfalfa. However it's
extremely diverse, including the aforementioned herbs and vines, and also the large acacia trees of Africa, the locusts of Eurasia and North America,
and others you may not expect such as kudzu, violets, and mimosa.
Bananas - Musaceae
If they're right about finding this family, it's actually a pretty big find - Musaceae is, as far as we know, restricted to the old world - Africa
and Southeast Asia. If found in South America, it could put the origins of this particular family way way way
back into the past, pre-dinosaur.
At any rate, this family comprises three genuses. I imagine that this find may add an extinct fourth to the family. Of course, since this family has
no living relatives native to the region, I'd question the article's claim that it's a "dominant plant"
Palms - Arecaceae
These are... Well, palms. They're all over the damn place, though probably originated in the former supercontinent Gondwanaland.
I can't really expect people who don't even understand the book they plot their entire existence around to actually know a lick about Botany
All right, Darwinists: you say evolution is a fact, and fossils are the evidence. Where is the evolution? 58 million years have gone by in
your scheme, and we have the exact same families of plants today. There isn’t enough difference to concern the most fervent young-earth
creationists (notice that ICR celebrated this find as confirming of a young earth and global flood).
Actually, we "Darwinists" have found that genetics is a much more effective source of evidence for evolution. Fossils are tertiary. Sort of like
"Exhibit Q" on the evidence table. Handy, but even without them, we'd still have plenty to go on.
I suggest you learn the difference between the various taxonomic terms before coming in with this stuff.
Surely if natural selection was acting for such a huge amount of time, we should expect to see some evolution. Remember, you believe that a
cow turned into a whale in less than half that time. We love fossils and evidence, but give us a reason other than your own bluff to take your
storytelling scheme seriously.
Actually, not a cow. Molecular evidence and a damn near unbroken line of transitional intermediary fossils point towards hippopotamuses and whales
sharing a common ancestor. This is different from a hippo "turning into" a whale, but just like I don't expect you to "get" botany, I don't have
high hopes for your language skills, either.
It's important to note that natural selection is not a constant. A species suitably adapted to its environment really has no pressures that would
cause a new species to diverge from it, until the situation changes
. This is how the hair louse became the body louse roughly ninety thousand
years ago (twice!) - due to humans losing lots of body hair but inventing clothing - and yet, a creature like the Coelocanth, living in an environment
that's been consistent for millions of years, hasn't changed much from its ancestral form.
Of course, there's always genetic drift as I described above - you can rest assured that these plants they've found, though probably members of
extant families, are not clones (we can be VERY sure in the case of Musaceae
, what with hte dearth of native south American bananas...)
[edit on 3-11-2009 by TheWalkingFox]