Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is this evidence for design in plants?

arroba Email

At ScienceDaily (March 30, 2011), we learn that “Like Products, Plants Wait for Optimal Configuration Before Market Success”:

Just as a company creates new, better versions of a product to increase market share and pad its bottom line, an international team of researchers led by Brown University has found that plants tinker with their design and performance before flooding the environment with new, improved versions of themselves. 

The issue: When does a grouping of plants with the same ancestor, called a clade, begin to spin off new species? Biologists have long assumed that rapid speciation occurred when a clade first developed a new physical trait or mechanism and had begun its own genetic branch. But the team, led by Brown postdoctoral research associate Stephen Smith, discovered that major lineages of flowering plants did not begin the rapid spawning of new species until they had reached a point of development at which speciation success and rate would be maximized. The results are published in the American Journal of Botany.

“Evolution is not what we previously thought,” said Smith, who works in the laboratory of Brown biologist Casey Dunn. “It’s not as if you get a flower, and speciation (rapidly) occurs. There is a lag. Something else is happening. There is a phase of product development, so to speak.”

It is going to be hard to spin this one as Darwinian evolution because evolution, on that view, is not supposed to have a purpose or strategy.

Either humans are simply big-brained apes whose misfiring neurons explain strategy and purpose or there is a design in life, an intelligence in the universe.

Aedgar, Aedgar, United Unions of North America and the World Generally has already sent a rep to advise the plants of their rights. Get ready to pay $5 per square windowbreaker. * windowbreaker: A squarish tomato bred to be so hard that it can easily break windows, foisted at one time on the Canadian market. Take 'em all and fight with the Union. We get better tomatoes now, from Mexico. Real ones. O'Leary
"evolution is not what we previously thought". . . Meaning it's not blind but guided. It's more akin to the "evolution" of computers or automobiles. A new "product" is woodshedded, tinkered with and perfected based upon the pros and cons of previous "models" before being released to the "market". Then the "old model" is removed from the "market". Funny because that is exactly what one faces upon examining fossil records. I realize I am a lowly musician/graphic designer but even I can see how the evidence keeps mounting. Continuing to place things in this "blind watchmaker" paradigm is bordering on delusion. When will they realize how detrimental it really has become to us all? MedsRex
"Just as a company creates new, better versions of a product to increase market share and pad its bottom line, . . . plants tinker with their design and performance before flooding the environment with new, improved versions of themselves." If I take this statement to its logical conclusion then companies should hire plants to create better versions of their products to increase market share. The plants would tinker with the design and performance of each product before flooding the marketplace with the new and improved versions. The bottom lines of these companies would by all means be padded since they would not have to pay these plants salaries or benefits. Their only demands would be good soil, access to be natural light, tap water and a few drops of Miracle-Gro every couple of weeks. These companies would then have achieved the ultimate in environmental friendliness: a completely green R&D Department. aedgar
Yeah, this office is getting so busy, the memos often cross. Interesting take, thanks. O'Leary
Denyse: I posted this same basic article on March 28th. Here's the link: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/defoliating-darwinism/ PhysOrg generally posts article before ScienceDaily. Although I like SD's layout better, they are, as I say, generally two to three days behind PhysOrg. That said, yes, indeed, this is a problem for Darwinism. We had predicted here years ago that as whole genome analysis became fairly routine, that Darwinism would either be vindicated, or faced with tremendous challenges. Our prediction was that WGA would allow comparison of entire genomes over large swaths of species, and that, based on this analysis, either there would be evidence of "front-loading", or of Darwinian mechanisms slowly at play. This reconstruction of the phylogenetic tree is basically saying that "features" are "front-loaded"; that is, they simply appear, and THEN radiate outward, and not, as Darwin anticipated, a radiation leading to divergence. Maybe that's the best way of stating it: here we see divergence, then radiation; not radiation, leading to divergence. Darwin, as usual, loses the battle with facts. PaV

Leave a Reply