Utrie’s horticulturist has been pestering him for some time to vary his diet (“You can’t just live on minnows, you know.”), and – because Darwinists are always banging on about how Utrie can be entirely explained by their one-size-fits-all theory, he has decided that they are a logical diet supplement.
Our leafy green carnivore expert, W.-E. Loennig. has been trying to pin Matzke down, and writes,
Matzke still doesn’t seem to have carefully studied my extensive paper yet, but he is still complaining that others know nothing on that topic and keeps on talking some nonsense promoting some half-baked ideas.
Among other things he doesn’t seem to be aware of the fact that the associated flora of Utricularia, for example in Middle Europe, consists of species of the following categories of mostly or entirely non-carnivorous plants, showing that carnivory is not a necessary condition to live at biotopes where Utricularia also occurs (2011, p. 25)
In short, natural selection was not “selecting” some plants for eating animals, in a stressed habitat, resulting in the differential survival of their gene pool. Dr. Loennig continues, listing some local non-carnivorous plants that share space with Utrie:
Chlorophyta (Grünalgen): Characeae; Bryopsida (Moose): Sphagnaceae: Sphagnum; Sphenopsida (Schachtelhalmgewächse): Equisetaceae; Angiospermen (bedecksamige Blütenpflanzen): Monocotyledoneae (Einkeimblättrige): Poaceae, Cyperaceae, Juncaceae, Typhaceae, Potamogetonaceae, Najadaceae, Zannichelliaceae, Alismataceae, Hydrocharitaceae, Lemnaceae, Iridaceae, (Orchidaceae); Dicotyledoneae (Zweikeimblättrige): Polygonaceae, Nymphaeaceae, Ceratophyllaceae, Ranunculaceae, Brassicaceae, Haloragaceae, Hippuridaceae, Apiaceae.
And here are species of non-carnivorous plants often associated with Utricularia in Middle Europe (also p. 25):
Die Dreifurchige Wasserlinse (Lemna trisulca), die Kleine Wasserlinse (L. minor), die Vielwurzelige Teichlinse (Spirodela polyrhiza), der Froschbiss (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae), die Steifborstige Armleuchteralge (Chara hispida ssp. rudis), die Vielstachlige Armleuchteralge (C. aculeolata [Syn. C. pedunculata], ssp. papillosa), die Krebsschere (Stratiotes aloides), die Gelbe Teichrose (Nuphar lutea), die Weiße Seerose (Nymphaea alba), der Tannenwedel (Hippuris vulgaris), das Quirlige Tausendblatt (Myriophyllum verticillatum), das Ährige Tausendblatt (M. spicatum), das Schwimmende Laichkraut (Potamogeton natans), das Grasblättrige Laichkraut (P. gramineus), das Rauhe Hornbblatt (Ceratophyllum demersum) und – vor allem weltweit gesehen – noch viele andere (vgl. zu den Pflanzengesellschaften z. B. Casper in Hegi 1975, Slobodda 1988, Runge 1990, siehe auch Lang und Walentowski 2007: Handbuch der Lebensraumtypen.
And above all, – where is Matzke’s explanation of the origin of Utricularia?
The statement that usually many non-carnivorous plant species are associated with carnivourous plants can be shown to be validly extrapolated or generalized for probably all cases – at least I know of no exception of the rule so far in spite of checking many data.
For the associated flora of the well-known Pinguicula see for example the tables.
Alfred Wallace warned Darwin about the problems posed by Utricularia, saying “I feel sure they will be seized on as inexplicable by Natural Selection” and implored him to address these difficulties in a future edition of his book “On the Origin of Species.”
Which Darwin never did.
One can only wonder what Matzke’s response will be.
See also: Carnivorous plants: After eating Darwin, they couldn’t resist further culinary adventures
The plants that eat vertebrate animals
Carnivorous plants: The 200-year headache.
Also: Readers may remember Nick Matzke from: New York Times reports on Darwinist’s article disowned by philosophy journal
Follow UD News at Twitter!