Intelligent Design

The tale of how plants became meat eaters

Spread the love

This happened, even though there is supposed to be no intelligence in nature:

About 70 million years ago, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, a genetic anomaly allowed some plants to turn into meat eaters. This was done in part, with a stealthy trick: repurposing genes meant for their roots and leaves and using them instead to catch prey, a new study finds.

Diane Lincoln, “Here’s how plants became meat eaters” at LiveScience

Paper. (open access)

Did Michael Behe ever claim anything as exotic as this? Isn’t Darwin’s house collapsing?

18 Replies to “The tale of how plants became meat eaters

  1. 1
  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Carnivorous Plants – Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, retired director Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research,
    Excerpt: Moreover, it appears to be hard even to imagine clear-cut selective advantages for all the thousands of postulated intermediate steps in a gradual scenario, not to mention the formulation and examination of scientific (i.e. testable) hypotheses for the origin of the complex carnivorous plant structures examined above.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2020/02/aquatic-bladderworts-michael-behes-irreducibly-complex-mousetrap-in-nature/

    Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig: The Origin of Carnivorous Plants, Pt. 2 – audio podcast
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....3_15-07_00

    Geneticist W.-E. Loennig replies to Darwinist Nick Matzke on Carnivorous Plants: – September 2011
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-heats-up/

    Irreducible Complexity, 18 steps of the Venus Flytrap are listed in the following article:

    The Venus Flytrap, an Improbable Wonder that Baffled Darwin – Oct. 14, 2013
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....77891.html

  3. 3
    ET says:

    Wow. Venema definitely doesn’t understand ID. And he clearly doesn’t understand the claims of mainstream evolutionary biology.

  4. 4
    Querius says:

    It just kills me how the author personifies the intentions of evolving plants as in the following:

    This was done in part, with a stealthy trick: repurposing genes meant for their roots and leaves and using them instead to catch prey, a new study finds.

    How clever of those stealthy plants. In addition, this process is linear and quite simple:

    The second step in their journey to carnivory occurred once the plants began . . .

    And then, after a third step involving “commandeering” certain genes, those rascally plants were home free! Piece of cake! The researchers were able to determine that it was simply a three-step process.

    Who would have guessed? LOL

    -Q

  5. 5
  6. 6
    jawa says:

    Any news from Dr Cronin on his attempt to get the coveted Evo2.0 OOL $10M prize?
    🙂

  7. 7
    BobRyan says:

    Being a Dawinist must be easy. Throw out reason and logic, ignore the evidence and demand everyone accept what they say is fact. Apparently, they missed the whole part about science being based on what is known at any given time, which means no hypothesis or theory can ever be called a fact. Remove reason from science and you can claim anything you wish to be true.

  8. 8
    jawa says:

    BobRyan,
    Maybe they just didn’t read the memo? 😉
    Perhaps their email filters are setup to screen out any message that has no clear function and catalogue it as “junk”?

  9. 9
    martin_r says:

    “how plants became meat eaters”

    this Darwinian just-so-story reminds me on another even more absurd fairy tale:

    how a wolf-size mammalian creature transformed into giant blue whale weighting 150 tons.

    it is like in some mental hospital…

  10. 10
    martin_r says:

    what a lay Darwinian (e.g. Seversky) does not know, is, that the Plants-Became-Meat-Eaters miracle should have happened multiple times independently in various plant lineages…

    Most miracles happen in evolutionary biology…

  11. 11
    martin_r says:

    Querius @4

    when you read something like this, it sounds like the authors are careless 5 yo children …

    it is unbelievable that these guys are getting paid for this…

  12. 12
    Querius says:

    What? They’re also getting paid??? lol

    -Q

  13. 13
    Belfast says:

    ‘This might hint …. supports the notion …. Taken together, our findings suggest ….could play a role …..If this is the case, they could be …’
    All in one paragraph.
    I couldn’t find the source — I assume it is “extinct”.
    Copies the whole genome then goes to work on it —- why bother copying?
    No explanation of the spur for the frenzy of mass copying, maybe it inadvertently expressed a Shazam! gene.

  14. 14
    Querius says:

    The thing that rankles me most is the obligatory speculation using a word like possibly, perhaps, likely, and worst of all, “musta.” The forced solution to any problematic discovery that might affect evolution slows down or even halts to scientific inquiry on the subject. Examples:

    Those shellfish musta found a way to climb up the mountain over millions of years . . .

    And then the dead fish musta sank to the bottom of the lake and over hundreds of years were covered with sediment before being fossilized.

    To not evolve over 65 million years, coelacanths musta been located in an area of the sea sheltered from evolutionary pressures.”

    -Q

  15. 15
    tjguy says:

    If people really knew the details of what they need to believe to maintain faith in evolution, I think we would have a lot more defectors! It’s like abiogenesis. You can talk a good story and make it sound as if there is a good chance it could actually happen, but when you look at the details, – what it really means to believe – you realize there is no way in the world it could have happened.

    So many stories like this in biological evolution – scientists can make it sound simple, rational, believable, but when you look at the details, you realize it’s no where near as simple as they make it sound. And they themselves do not know if it happened that way because they always fill their papers/hypotheses with words like, could, maybe, perhaps, is thought to have, probably, somehow, suggests, looks like, etc. These are NOT words of science. No one would get in a rocket ship and risk their life if it was built with ideas that could be true, are thought to be true, probably are true, may be true, etc.! That level of accuracy is just not trustworthy and neither are evolutionary just so stories like this one.

  16. 16
    jawa says:

    Tjguy,
    Excellent point.

  17. 17
    martin_r says:

    Tjguy @15

    indeed, an excellent point. A lay Darwinist has no idea what he actually believes in.
    Darwinian theory of evolution = a convincing lie

    Tjguy, i read lots of mainstream papers, so let me also add some words/phrases very often used in by Darwinists in their evolution-mainstream papers:

    “… somewhat puzzling …”
    “… intriguing …”
    “… unexpected….”
    “… it challenges the long-held view…” (<–these days used very often)
    "…other than though …."
    "…older than though …."
    "…younger than though …"

    perhaps someone may add even more …

  18. 18
    martin_r says:

    Tjguy @15

    and let me add one more quote FROM A MAINSTREAM PAPER – it is also very funny
    (I came across this one only recently, it is from 2007)

    “CHALLENGING DARWIN’S THEORY OF SEXUAL SELECTION”

    ““May a biologist in these polarized times dare suggest that Darwin is a bit wrong about anything ? Even worse, does a biologist risk insult, ridicule, anger, and intimidation to suggest that Darwin is incorrect on a big issue ? We have a test case before us. Darwin appears completely mistaken in his theory of sex roles, a subject called the ‘theory of sexual selection’.””

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/20028107?seq=1

Leave a Reply