Three Ways that Plants Defy Darwin’s Mechanism

[Anguspure]

Another great article from the usual suspects:

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/three-ways-that-plants-defy-darwins-mechanism/

Plants have no brains and limited mobility, yet they have mechanisms to thrive in place. One mechanism involves the prevention of inbreeding. The trick defies Darwin’s theory. Darwin had already called the origin of flowering plants (angiosperms) an “abominable mystery.” If he had known what Austrian scientists found, it likely would have brought on more of his notorious stomach aches.

News from Austria’s Institute of Science and Technology (IST) explains how flowering plants prevent inbreeding. As we know, inbreeding limits diversification and leads to genetic decay. When you think about it, a flower produces its own gametes: male pollen and female ova. Self-fertilization, though, would create all the associated problems of inbreeding for a plant species. People know better than to marry their relatives, but how can a blind flower, with no brain or eyes, recognize “self” so as to prevent fertilizing itself? It’s a trick that both gametes have to cooperate on. A mutation in the pollen that enables it to recognize self won’t help if the ovum doesn’t get a corresponding mutation. The Austrian IST researchers were curious about this and decided to take a look....
...But if evolutionists think neo-Darwinism could account for this beneficial trait, they need to remember what Douglas Axe says in his chapter in the new volume, Theistic Evolution. Axe again points out the “fundamental failing” with natural selection (as he did in his earlier book, Undeniable).

It’s this: evolution is “clueless” about inventing things. Natural selection “shows up only after the hard work of invention has been done.”

The only inventions we know about by experience come from inventors. An invention is a “functional whole,” Axe says. The “hard work” of invention requires having a goal or plan, and then organizing components at multiple hierarchical levels to work together to fulfill that plan.

Self-recognition systems, mutual symbioses and heat stress prevention are amazing inventions. Why must we endure stories of how they “might have” evolved, when Darwinian mechanisms are already disqualified? Axe says that “the outcome of accidental causes is guaranteed to be a mess,” and so attributing the origin of functional wholes to accident is “completely out of the question.” Science should go with the cause we know is necessary and sufficient to account for inventions: intelligence.

 

[SkyWriting]

Another great article from the usual suspects:

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/three-ways-that-plants-defy-darwins-mechanism/

Plants have no brains and limited mobility, yet they have mechanisms to thrive in place. One mechanism involves the prevention of inbreeding. The trick defies Darwin’s theory. Darwin had already called the origin of flowering plants (angiosperms) an “abominable mystery.” If he had known what Austrian scientists found, it likely would have brought on more of his notorious stomach aches.

News from Austria’s Institute of Science and Technology (IST) explains how flowering plants prevent inbreeding. As we know, inbreeding limits diversification and leads to genetic decay. When you think about it, a flower produces its own gametes: male pollen and female ova. Self-fertilization, though, would create all the associated problems of inbreeding for a plant species. People know better than to marry their relatives, but how can a blind flower, with no brain or eyes, recognize “self” so as to prevent fertilizing itself? It’s a trick that both gametes have to cooperate on. A mutation in the pollen that enables it to recognize self won’t help if the ovum doesn’t get a corresponding mutation. The Austrian IST researchers were curious about this and decided to take a look....
...But if evolutionists think neo-Darwinism could account for this beneficial trait, they need to remember what Douglas Axe says in his chapter in the new volume, Theistic Evolution. Axe again points out the “fundamental failing” with natural selection (as he did in his earlier book, Undeniable).

It’s this: evolution is “clueless” about inventing things. Natural selection “shows up only after the hard work of invention has been done.”

The only inventions we know about by experience come from inventors. An invention is a “functional whole,” Axe says. The “hard work” of invention requires having a goal or plan, and then organizing components at multiple hierarchical levels to work together to fulfill that plan.

Self-recognition systems, mutual symbioses and heat stress prevention are amazing inventions. Why must we endure stories of how they “might have” evolved, when Darwinian mechanisms are already disqualified? Axe says that “the outcome of accidental causes is guaranteed to be a mess,” and so attributing the origin of functional wholes to accident is “completely out of the question.” Science should go with the cause we know is necessary and sufficient to account for inventions: intelligence.

Without proper planning, biology would be worthless.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

EDIT: I misread the title as planets. Whoops.

Trying to use plants to somehow disprove evolution is... well, stupid, since plants are basically clones of themselves. That's why stuff like potato blight is so dangerous to them.

 

[Anguspure]

EDIT: I misread the title as planets. Whoops.

Trying to use plants to somehow disprove evolution is... well, stupid, since plants are basically clones of themselves. That's why stuff like potato blight is so dangerous to them.

Incorrect.
Read the article and you will learn something that you did not know.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Incorrect.
Read the article and you will learn something that you did not know.

Read it. All I see is non-scientists whining about how the fact that scientists saw something they didn't previously understand, got together and figured out why it happened. Nothing there that disproves evolution.
Grow up. And also: stop just posting these articles from Evolution News and then just leaving them. If there's something you want to discuss about them, say what it is you want to discuss about them.

 

[Jimmy D]

(My opinion on the piece echoes Warden's BTW)

 

[essentialsaltes]

Natural selection “shows up only after the hard work of invention has been done.”

Natural selection “shows up only after the unavoidable fact of variation has occurred.”

 

[sfs]

Incorrect.
Read the article and you will learn something that you did not know.

Still posting things you don't understand and can't defend, huh?

 

[Sanoy]

For what it's worth I have liked these. I have learned something each time that I might not otherwise have learned.

 

[tas8831]

Another great act of plagiarism and spam-trolling. Reported. Again.

Another great article from the usual suspects:

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/three-ways-that-plants-defy-darwins-mechanism/

Plants have no brains and limited mobility, yet they have mechanisms to thrive in place. One mechanism involves the prevention of inbreeding. The trick defies Darwin’s theory. Darwin had already called the origin of flowering plants (angiosperms) an “abominable mystery.” If he had known what Austrian scientists found, it likely would have brought on more of his notorious stomach aches.

News from Austria’s Institute of Science and Technology (IST) explains how flowering plants prevent inbreeding. As we know, inbreeding limits diversification and leads to genetic decay. When you think about it, a flower produces its own gametes: male pollen and female ova. Self-fertilization, though, would create all the associated problems of inbreeding for a plant species. People know better than to marry their relatives, but how can a blind flower, with no brain or eyes, recognize “self” so as to prevent fertilizing itself? It’s a trick that both gametes have to cooperate on. A mutation in the pollen that enables it to recognize self won’t help if the ovum doesn’t get a corresponding mutation. The Austrian IST researchers were curious about this and decided to take a look....
...But if evolutionists think neo-Darwinism could account for this beneficial trait, they need to remember what Douglas Axe says in his chapter in the new volume, Theistic Evolution. Axe again points out the “fundamental failing” with natural selection (as he did in his earlier book, Undeniable).

It’s this: evolution is “clueless” about inventing things. Natural selection “shows up only after the hard work of invention has been done.”

The only inventions we know about by experience come from inventors. An invention is a “functional whole,” Axe says. The “hard work” of invention requires having a goal or plan, and then organizing components at multiple hierarchical levels to work together to fulfill that plan.

Self-recognition systems, mutual symbioses and heat stress prevention are amazing inventions. Why must we endure stories of how they “might have” evolved, when Darwinian mechanisms are already disqualified? Axe says that “the outcome of accidental causes is guaranteed to be a mess,” and so attributing the origin of functional wholes to accident is “completely out of the question.” Science should go with the cause we know is necessary and sufficient to account for inventions: intelligence.

 

[Anguspure]

Read it. All I see is non-scientists whining about how the fact that scientists saw something they didn't previously understand, got together and figured out why it happened. Nothing there that disproves evolution.
Grow up. And also: stop just posting these articles from Evolution News and then just leaving them. If there's something you want to discuss about them, say what it is you want to discuss about them.

@tas8831
The articles from Evolution News (Discovery Institute) are free to share, and are interesting for anybody who wishes to follow the ID argument.
So there is no plagiarism on my part.

Further more the content is relevant to the discussion taking place here and is only recieved by recipients who choose to subscribe to alerts of new content on the forum. So spam is not an issue either.

I have debated this stuff in the past and no doubt will do so in the future but for now, for the most part, I am happy to observe the discussion that these articles inspire on this forum.

I am currently sitting in the shores of a lake in N.America enjoying the summer sun with my family.
The attacks against the content observed, on every posting I have made, are so very typical of the circles that the evolutionary crowd run around in are hardly worthy of chasing at the moment. Please forgive me.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The articles from Evolution News (Discovery Institute) are free to share, and are interesting for anybody who wishes to follow the ID argument.
So there is no plagiarism on my part.

Further more the content is relevant to the discussion taking place here and is only recieved by recipients who choose to subscribe to alerts of new content on the forum. So spam is not an issue either.

I have debated this stuff in the past and no doubt will do so in the future but for now, for the most part, I am happy to observe the discussion that these articles inspire on this forum.

I am currently sitting in the shores of a lake in N.America enjoying the summer sun with my family.
The attacks against the content observed, on every posting I have made, are so very typical of the circles that the evolutionary crowd run around in are hardly worthy of chasing at the moment. Please forgive me.

I noticed that you didn't respond to anything I said in the post you've responded to.

 

[Anguspure]

I noticed that you didn't respond to anything I said in the post you've responded to.

Noticing that you havn't modified your view on plant reproduction either.
Plants do not clone themselves.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Noticing that you havn't modified your view on plant reproduction either.
Plants do not clone themselves.

I didn't say that the plants clone themselves. I said that they are essentially clones. Virtually all flowering plants are, for example.

ETA: And why would I need to modify my view on plant reproduction based on something from a notably non-scientific source?

 

[HitchSlap]

Another great article from the usual suspects:

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/three-ways-that-plants-defy-darwins-mechanism/

Plants have no brains and limited mobility, yet they have mechanisms to thrive in place. One mechanism involves the prevention of inbreeding. The trick defies Darwin’s theory. Darwin had already called the origin of flowering plants (angiosperms) an “abominable mystery.” If he had known what Austrian scientists found, it likely would have brought on more of his notorious stomach aches.

News from Austria’s Institute of Science and Technology (IST) explains how flowering plants prevent inbreeding. As we know, inbreeding limits diversification and leads to genetic decay. When you think about it, a flower produces its own gametes: male pollen and female ova. Self-fertilization, though, would create all the associated problems of inbreeding for a plant species. People know better than to marry their relatives, but how can a blind flower, with no brain or eyes, recognize “self” so as to prevent fertilizing itself? It’s a trick that both gametes have to cooperate on. A mutation in the pollen that enables it to recognize self won’t help if the ovum doesn’t get a corresponding mutation. The Austrian IST researchers were curious about this and decided to take a look....
...But if evolutionists think neo-Darwinism could account for this beneficial trait, they need to remember what Douglas Axe says in his chapter in the new volume, Theistic Evolution. Axe again points out the “fundamental failing” with natural selection (as he did in his earlier book, Undeniable).

It’s this: evolution is “clueless” about inventing things. Natural selection “shows up only after the hard work of invention has been done.”

The only inventions we know about by experience come from inventors. An invention is a “functional whole,” Axe says. The “hard work” of invention requires having a goal or plan, and then organizing components at multiple hierarchical levels to work together to fulfill that plan.

Self-recognition systems, mutual symbioses and heat stress prevention are amazing inventions. Why must we endure stories of how they “might have” evolved, when Darwinian mechanisms are already disqualified? Axe says that “the outcome of accidental causes is guaranteed to be a mess,” and so attributing the origin of functional wholes to accident is “completely out of the question.” Science should go with the cause we know is necessary and sufficient to account for inventions: intelligence.

In other news, no one gives a $chight what creos think about science.

 

[Job 33:6]

One thing that isnt talked about too often is the fossil record of plants. You actually get early vascular plants in the silurian. Cooksonia for example is a very primitive plant transitional with no leaves or seeds or flowers, and it had rhizomes. Then beyond the silurian you have the appearance of things like ferns in the devonian. Simultaneously you have the advance of terrestrial invertebrates through the silurian and into the devonian, along side the plant succession, with things like millipede burrows and liverwords that small insects likely consumed.

The first seed bearing plant fossils appear later in the devonian. And beyond that, we dont even see flowering plants until the mesozoic. But there are many plant transitionals throughout the fossil record.

To say that plants did not undergo evolution or descent with modification would beg the question of why a seeded plant had never been found beyond the devonian, or why primitive looking vascular plants occupy the oldest rocks? Or why flowering plants are not found in rocks beyond the mesozoic. Why are there no vascular plants in the ordovician? Among other things.

Just as there are no rabbits in the cambrian, just the same, there are no angiosperms in the silurian.

Just as there is a succession of fossil animals throughout the record, and an order therein, there is also a succession of plant fossils, going from...less derived to more derived, over time.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The only inventions we know about by experience come from inventors. An invention is a “functional whole,” Axe says.

That is a wholly inadequate definition of "invention".

The “hard work” of invention requires having a goal or plan, and then organizing components at multiple hierarchical levels to work together to fulfill that plan.

Evidence in support of this assertion? Let me guess - the creationist's usual anthropomorphism of natural processes.

 

[Jimmy D]

One thing that isnt talked about too often is the fossil record of plants. You actually get early vascular plants in the silurian. Cooksonia for example is a very primitive plant transitional with no leaves or seeds or flowers, and it had rhizomes. Then beyond the silurian you have the appearance of things like ferns in the devonian. Simultaneously you have the advance of terrestrial invertebrates through the silurian and into the devonian, along side the plant succession, with things like millipede burrows and liverwords that small insects likely consumed.

The first seed bearing plant fossils appear later in the devonian. And beyond that, we dont even see flowering plants until the mesozoic. But there are many plant transitionals throughout the fossil record.

To say that plants did not undergo evolution or descent with modification would beg the question of why a seeded plant had never been found beyond the devonian, or why primitive looking vascular plants occupy the oldest rocks? Or why flowering plants are not found in rocks beyond the mesozoic. Why are there no vascular plants in the ordovician? Among other things.

Just as there are no rabbits in the cambrian, just the same, there are no angiosperms in the silurian.

Just as there is a succession of fossil animals throughout the record, and an order therein, there is also a succession of plant fossils, going from...less derived to more derived, over time.

Seeded plants could outrun the vascular plants?

 

[tas8831]

@tas8831
The articles from Evolution News (Discovery Institute) are free to share, and are interesting for anybody who wishes to follow the ID argument.
So there is no plagiarism on my part.

Ah, so you do not know what plagiarism is.


You see, you have, in almost every one of your spam-troll threads, copy-pasted, verbatim, parts of the articles you refer to, often intermixed with your own comments, without indicating that you had done so - no quotation marks, no indents, no italics - just copy-pastes. The first couple threads I read of yours, since there was no actual attribution, I had concluded that the words were yours until I clicked the link and saw that you were just pasting blurbs from the articles without indicating as much.

That, pal, is plagiarism.


Add to this the fact that on the rare occasions that you do actually respond to comments, you tend merely to refer back to the essay, and it is pretty clear that you are just spamming and trolling.

The attacks against the content observed, on every posting I have made, are so very typical of the circles that the evolutionary crowd run around in are hardly worthy of chasing at the moment. Please forgive me.

IOW - sfs had you pegged.

 

[sfs]

The attacks against the content observed, on every posting I have made, are so very typical of the circles that the evolutionary crowd run around in are hardly worthy of chasing at the moment.

Odd. When you did attempt to respond to my "attack" on one of your posting, you demonstrated no grasp of the material, understanding of the science behind it, or ability to defend the claims you had quoted. So I'm going to go on suspecting that you're actually refraining from defending them because you can't.

Please forgive me.

It's harder to forgive when you won't stop the behavior.