Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Genome duplication explains the existence of flowers?

arroba Email

This Slate writer believes she has an important clue in Darwin’s “abominable mystery of flowers” figured out:

The shrub is rare, and grows naturally only in the cloud forests of the island of New Caledonia in the South Pacific. Only a few American conservatories cultivate amborella, which is notoriously difficult to sustain and which flowers unpredictably in captivity. Nonetheless, unprepossessing and persnickety as it is, the plant has attracted a great deal of scrutiny recently. It is likely the closest living relative to the first flowering plant, and according to Harvard professor William Friedman, “a critical missing link between angiosperms and gymnosperms.”

Amborella is in a confused state when it comes to sex, as if transitioning from gymnosperm to angiosperm anatomy. It has separate male and female organs on the same plant, like a conifer. The male flowers have stamens only, but they don’t look like modern stamens—that is, with filaments topped with two pollen-bearing sacs. Instead, the two pollen sacs are carried on the edge of flat and broad petals that look very much like the scales in male conifer cones. But they also have flowers that look like hermaphrodites, with both carpels and stamens. These stamens, however, are sterile, making them staminodes.

Yet they became “instant winners in the survival game.”

Right. Same time. Next year. New theory.

We are obviously missing something. If whole genome duplication performs such wonders, the world would doubtless look very different.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Beautiful Flowers That Look Like Other Things http://memolition.com/2014/06/07/beautiful-flowers-that-look-like-other-things/ here is another amazing orchid. Swaddled Babies (Anguloa Uniflora) - picture http://d3u5xmnnxiuz0w.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/beautiful-flowers-that-look-like-other-things-79036.jpg bornagain77
assorted notes:
Flowering Plant Big Bang: “Flowering plants today comprise around 400,000 species, "To think that the burst that gave rise to almost all of these plants occurred in less than 5 million years is pretty amazing - especially when you consider that flowering plants as a group have been around for at least 130 million years.” Pam Soltis, curator at the Florida Museum of Natural History. Failed Darwinian Predictions About Insects and Flowers - Casey Luskin - April 16, 2014 Excerpt: "the surprise is that insects at the family level were off and running well before the flowering plants made their debut." Dr. Leo J. Hickey, a paleobotanist at Yale University, said: "The results call into serious question some of our conceptions and preconceptions. All of us were quite comfortable with the idea that flowering plants must have had a major effect on insect diversity." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04/cosmos_episode_1084501.html
The story of fig tree pollination is a testimony to Intelligent Design. Since the flowers of a fig tree are inside the fruit, they need the fig wasp to do the pollinating. The female wasp tunnels into the urnlike fruit of one kind of fig through a small hole in the top to lay her eggs in the flowers. The wingless male wasp hatch first and then mates with the female while she is still incubating in her flower. The male soon dies inside the fruit, and never leaves the inside of the fruit. The winged female wasps hatch. As the female wasps leave the fruit through the same tiny opening in the fruit, they pick up pollen that they carry to a second kind of fig. This is the one that will produce seeds for new trees and delicious fruit.
Fig wasp and Fig fruit - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfkiYfrStrU Thank God for Flowers - Hugh Ross - August 2010 Excerpt: Paleontologist Kevin Boyce and climate modeler Jung-Eun Lee,,, recently discovered that flowering plants contribute much more than romance and beauty to humanity’s wellbeing. They uncovered evidence suggesting that without flowering plants, human civilization would not even be possible. Boyce and Lee found that a world without angiosperms (flowering plants) would not only be drab and uninspiring but would also be much drier and hotter and lacking in species diversity. The researchers noted that angiosperms transpire water to the atmosphere about four times more efficiently than other species of plants. Per Reasons to Believe 6 Amazing Orchids That Look Just Like Animals! January 17, 2013 http://www.thefeaturedcreature.com/2013/01/6-amazing-orchids-that-look-just-like-animals.html Wild Orchids of Israel: Seduction of the Long-horned Bee (Irreducible Complexity) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFftHXbjEQA Hammer Orchid and Wasps - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv4n85-SqxQ 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/2013/10/the_venus_flytr077891.html Timelapse video of Flowers and Leaves - video http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life/Flowering_plant#p00lxwrh
It is also interesting to note that plants are far more sophisticated than many people realize:
10 Pieces of Evidence That Plants Are Smarter (More Complex) Than You Think – 2012 Excerpt: 1. Plants communicate with insects 2. Plants have memories 3. Plants create communication networks 4. Plants grow differently in response to sound 5. Plants measure time 6. Plants know up from down 7. Plants know who is family and who isn’t 8. Plants warn each other about approaching enemies 9. Plants use camouflage 10. Plants are escape artists http://io9.com/5901172/10-pieces-of-evidence-that-plants-are-smarter-than-you-think
Verse and Music:
Luke 12:27 "Consider how the wild flowers grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. Tom Keifer "The Flower Song" Music Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u68tl82Ihmk
Contrary to fertile imaginations of Darwinists, the beautiful, exquisite, 'forms' seen in flowers (or anything else), is forever beyond the explanatory power of Darwinists. Not only do Darwinists not have any evidence that 'form' is reducible to mutations to DNA,,
Response to John Wise - October 2010 Excerpt: A technique called "saturation mutagenesis"1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans--because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html The (Electric) Face of a Frog - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VULjzX__OM podcast - Jonathan Wells: Is There Biological Information Outside of the DNA?, pt. 3 - Bioelectric code http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-06-11T16_35_52-07_00
,,not only is 'form' not reducible to DNA mutations, But even if all the biologists, and all the computer scientists, in the world were set on the task of creating a single flower petal from scratch, by creating and stitching/weaving together proteins, they could not accomplish even that 'simple' task for creating a single flower petal:
"The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." - Michael Behe - The Edge of Evolution - page 146 Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162 Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution “Indeed, the work on malaria and AIDS demonstrates that after all possible unintelligent processes in the cell–both ones we’ve discovered so far and ones we haven’t–at best extremely limited benefit, since no such process was able to do much of anything. It’s critical to notice that no artificial limitations were placed on the kinds of mutations or processes the microorganisms could undergo in nature. Nothing–neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization nor any other process yet undiscovered–was of much use.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/swine_flu_viruses_and_the_edge020071.html Francis Collins on Making Life Excerpt: 'We are so woefully ignorant about how biology really works. We still don't understand how a particular DNA sequence—when we just stare at it—codes for a protein that has a particular function. We can't even figure out how that protein would fold—into what kind of three-dimensional shape. And I would defy anybody who is going to tell me that they could, from first principles, predict not only the shape of the protein but also what it does.' - Francis Collins - Former Director of the Human Genome Project http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/collins-genome.html Creating Life in the Lab: How New Discoveries in Synthetic Biology Make a Case for the Creator - Fazale Rana Excerpt of Review: ‘Another interesting section of Creating Life in the Lab is one on artificial enzymes. Biological enzymes catalyze chemical reactions, often increasing the spontaneous reaction rate by a billion times or more. Scientists have set out to produce artificial enzymes that catalyze chemical reactions not used in biological organisms. Comparing the structure of biological enzymes, scientists used super-computers to calculate the sequences of amino acids in their enzymes that might catalyze the reaction they were interested in. After testing dozens of candidates,, the best ones were chosen and subjected to “in vitro evolution,” which increased the reaction rate up to 200-fold. Despite all this “intelligent design,” the artificial enzymes were 10,000 to 1,000,000,000 times less efficient than their biological counterparts. Dr. Rana asks the question, “is it reasonable to think that undirected evolutionary processes routinely accomplished this task?” http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801072093
Dr. Fuz Rana, at the 41:30 minute mark of the following video, speaks on the tremendous engineering effort that went into building the preceding protein which did not even work as good as the proteins found in life:
Science - Fuz Rana - Unbelievable? Conference 2013 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-u34VJ8J5_c&list=PLS5E_VeVNzAstcmbIlygiEFir3tQtlWxx&index=8 Computer-designed proteins programmed to disarm variety of flu viruses - June 1, 2012 Excerpt: The research efforts, akin to docking a space station but on a molecular level, are made possible by computers that can describe the landscapes of forces involved on the submicroscopic scale.,, These maps were used to reprogram the design to achieve a more precise interaction between the inhibitor protein and the virus molecule. It also enabled the scientists, they said, "to leapfrog over bottlenecks" to improve the activity of the binder. http://phys.org/news/2012-06-computer-designed-proteins-variety-flu-viruses.html The Challenge to Darwinism from a Single Remarkably Complex Enzyme - Ann Gauger - May 1, 2012 Excerpt: How does a neo-Darwinian process evolve an enzyme like this? Even if enzymes that carried out the various partial reactions could have evolved separately, the coordination and combining of those domains into one huge enzyme is a feat of engineering beyond anything we can do. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/the_challenge_t059191.html

Leave a Reply