So you want us to talk about fossil plants, well....hey everyone, look over there! A pink flying unicorn!!!11!eleventy!!
/typical evo
Yep, that’s about the extent of their “counter-argument”. Sad, but true.
Not that it will change your mind at all, but ...
The story you cite is from the Institute for Creation Research, which has a specific belief to plug, even if it means re-interpreting the original data to support to forgone conclusions. If you follow the original findings at the U of FL page, you can see that the original researchers say a few things that ICR has picked up on and then speculated upon:
Original plant groups, broadly categorized, are primarily the same;
Neotropical plant species were much less diverse than they are today;
Some species have survived primarily unchanged.
NONE of these research findings contradict the idea of species development. Animal species also fall into the same broad categories: reptiles, fish, amphibia, mammals. That does not mean that individual species have not changed and evolved. Actually, the fact that there is MORE diversity in plant species today is an argument that they HAVE changed and evolved. As the scientists is the UofFl article attest:
“The study’s authors say the relative lack of diversity indicates either the beginning of rainforest species diversification or the recovery of existing species from the Cretaceous extinction event.”
The fact that there are “primitive” forms still found today that are essentially unchanged after millions of years does not mean that no species evolve. There are species in the animal kingdom - cockroaches, sharks, crocodiles - that are essentially unchanged since the Cretaceous Period. Their continued existence, however, simply means that they succeeded in their biological niche. Certainly, other species have developed and evolved since then.
But of course, if you refuse to believe in biological development, and have a specific religious interpretation of a particular religious book that you feel requires you to reject scientific evidence, then certainly any argument made here will not change your mind. It will only open up the arguer to derision and disdain from you.
But those who may read your diary more out of intellectual curiosity than Confirmation Bias might want to go directly to the original info, which is really quite interesting if not theory-upending:
http://news.ufl.edu/2009/10/15/neotropical/