He produced manuals on botany, describing every kind of plant, from the cedars of Lebanon to the hyssop that grows on walls. He also produced manuals on biology, describing animals, birds, insects, and fish.
(1 Kings 4:33) NET Bible
This is narrative that’s designed to establish the evolution premise that the Angiosperms are the most developmentally advanced kinds of plants, and so therefore have the most recent origin.
“Angiosperms rise to dominance in Upper Cretaceous. First recognition of angiosperm pollen, leaves and flowers in Lower Cretaceous. Monocots and dicots present.”
The weakness of this argument is that there are also less advanced forms in the sediments. However, the kinds of plant communities which are widespread today are dominated by Angiosperms, and these are the habitats which are assigned to the Cretaceous. It’s another little microcosm of circular reasoning. Fossil assemblages with an abundance of angiosperms are attributed to the lower/upper Cretaceous because that’s what fits the evolution narrative. This has nothing to do with the dates of rocks. This is about is arranging fossils in a sequence of perceived morphological complexity against the backdrop of a fabricated geological timescale.
Monocots and dicots are the two main types of Angiosperm. “Angiosperms rise to dominance” and “monocots and dicots present” is redundant fluff. “Modern groups of insects” is more circular reasoning. If you assume that monocots and dicots are an advanced state of development, then the insects which are adapted to those plants and their communities also have to be at an advanced state of development.
There’s some Paleodoublespeak here because we’re not observing the rise of anything, certainly not the Angiosperms, the fossils clearly show the destruction of ecosystems, habitats and biodiversity.
Matty (Headwind) 