We officially disapprove of the the first one. 😉

Assuming the natural images are not doctored: The usual Darwinesque explanation is that natural selection acting on random mutation causes them to slowly assume this form because even five percent of it would scare off a predator. Really? Would anyone but a human recognize some of these forms or assess their significance? That is, has anyone studied that question for each of them in depth? Or is it just more schoolbook Darwinism?
Or… if it is just random noise in which a human happens to see significance, what are the probabilities? If they are not computable, why not? If it is true that most species in the world are still undiscovered, chances are we will be seeing more examples.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
The usual Darwinesque explanation is that natural selection acting on random mutation causes them to slowly assume this form because even five percent of it would scare off a predator. Really?
No, not really. Has anyone ever made this claim?
That’s right wd400, you tell her. If people don’t like the first Darwinian alibi there is always another alibi waiting! 🙂
“nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin(ism) can be described as scientific”
– Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote was as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture
Although, Darwinists find a striking resemblance to the hominids when they look at themselves in the mirror.
Who would have thought that orchids had a similar fixation on the ape family? We should call them – Darwinist orchids, perhaps? 😉
Of related note:
Irreducible Complexity (18 steps) of the Venus Flytrap are listed in the following article:
Verse and Music:
Flyleaf: Cassie (Music Video AND lyrics :])
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhA6bJ1SIHo