Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A New Plant Defense: Switch the Flowering Time


A new amazing strategy has been discovered to add to the list of defenses plants use against herbivores. It has long been known, for instance, that plants detect the secretions from caterpillars and respond with toxins and chemicals that slow the caterpillars’ digestion. Now a new defensive strategy has been discovered: the altering of the flowering time. This has been observed in a tobacco plant which produces new morning-opening flowers when attacked by larvae of the hawkmoth pollinator.  Read more

Dawkins does use the term "Holocaust denier". It was in the first couple pages and he uses it to equate it to evolution deniers. This is not used against ID but used again young earth creationists and I said he was anti young earth creationist in several places. Dawkins implies in places that creationists are against any evolution, including what can happen quickly in a few years. Which I understand is not true. My point with this, is that a lot of what he presents is no threat to young earth creationist even though he is highly critical of them And nothing so far is of any threat to ID though he disparages them in a couple places. jerry
"Including that part about ID being on a par with holocaust denial." I don't remember seeing it in the book. He uses the term "history-deniers" to refer to young earth creationists in a derogatory tone. The term "creationist" is used frequently but intelligent design only about a handful of times. Many of his comments are stupid and some are meant to be sarcastic. He in no way is friendly to ID but the science in the book is what I am talking about. So far he hasn't made a dent in ID which I find interesting since this is supposedly the gold standard of naturalistic evolution books. jerry
And my conclusion after 180 pages is that it is entirely ID friendly.
Including that part about ID being on a par with holocaust denial. Mung
Here is food for thought for both pro ID and anti ID. I am about half way through Dawkins' book, The Greatest Show on Earth and I find it a fascinating book. Dawkins is a great writer. And my conclusion after 180 pages is that it is entirely ID friendly. It is very much an anti young earth creationist book but as far as ID is concerned he could be one of our authors here. I brought this up because Dawkins spent the major part of one chapter talking about pollination of various flowers by insects and birds. Dawkins believes that animals and insects and flowers too cause artificial selection just as humans do with dogs, cattle, birds etc. I am not sure I agree with all his conclusions on this topic but even if I did, it is not anti ID and makes for thought provoking reading. It no way dents the challenge that naturalistic cannot generate the information for major changes in capabilities. Maybe some of our anti ID proponents should get the book and read through it and see how it challenges ID if at all. You can get for a Kindle for $10 and if you want to can read it without getting the actual Kindle by downloading the free Kindle reader on your PC. There is no reader for the Mac yet and the PC computer version is limited. My wife has a Kindle and I downloaded it even though I have the print copy just so I could search it. Anyway I highly recommend the book and he has some interesting ideas but anything he says that might be anti ID is pure speculation. He has a long discussion on Lenski's bacteria and makes a claim that the evolving of the processing of citrate disproves irreducible complexity which is a joke of a claim. But that is the best he can do in the first 180 pages. You can see how desperate he is at times to belittle the creationists that he makes some absurd claims. But he does provide a good description of the dating process for the various strata around the world and how the fossils are laid out in each. Is it possible that pro ID and anti ID can read the same book and agree on the many things. Something about the wolf will live with the lamb. I identify with the wolf on this site because I look on the anti ID as lambs coming here for the slaughter. jerry
Religion drives science, and it matters.
Exactly how did religion drive the science reported here? Seversky
Have you really come to doubt variation happens?
You and I are one, no? Just don't tell my wife. Heinrich
Nakashima, Get real. Hunter is obviously not debating variation. He is taking issue with the idea that 1. there is enough variation to lead to this very helpful and complex trait and 2. presumably (according to darwinism) there were other very complex (and improbable) variations (or maybe "mutations" is a better word) that were, nevertheless, not fit for the environment and thus failed. It is not just a simple change in flowering time. In his full post he explains: "A mutation occurred that just happened to activate a benzyl acetone release mechanism, which just happened to attract the hawkmoth pollinator. And another mutation just happened to design a system that detects caterpillar secretions. Then another mutation just happened to couple with the detection system to produce and release chemicals, to slow the caterpillar digestion, as well as toxins. Then another mutation just happened to create the system to switch the flower design so it opens in the morning." Collin
Re#1: I assume you are using the term 'to think' in a way that is different from the commonly understood usage. I'm just not certain why you would do so. Are there no better terms to describe what is going on in the plant? hrun0815
Dr Hunter, For every winner there are untold myriad losers. This, for what it's worth, is evolutionary theory. A game of fact-free story telling all funded by the taxpayer. I'm really surprised, in this post it seems that you are not just questioning the efficacy of selection, you are questioning the reality of variation itself. Have you really come to doubt variation happens? Nakashima
This much I know is true: The plants would usually, of course, respond in just the way you say. They do not think, but something in them thinks. So there is built-in information. O'Leary

Leave a Reply