You really can't make this stuff up! No matter how stupid you think the IDiots are, they can always surprise you. Yesterday it was Denyse O'Leary who provided us with some comic relief on Uncommom Descent: Either tomato plants have a brain or nature is designed.
I'm beginning to think that Uncommon Descent is a spoof site designed make Intelligent Design Creationists look silly.
It's working.
11 comments :
I'm open to the idea that tomatoes have brains, but I think all evidence points to Uncommon Descent lacking any such organ.
On the actual subject of the terpenes, perhaps simple terpenes are rare because they're too small and could impact cell function in some unappreciated? They `gum up the works,` in a less than literal sense of the phrase. Or is that too adaptionalist of me?
From the article:
And because the researchers can’t talk about it, they have to personify nature.
That is something I have noticed as well. Evolutionists personifying Nature
But I have presented the idea that Nature is a living, intelligent being, so evolutionists are talking my kind of language. And they are correct!
I love that their background art (for the logo) is the bacterial flagellum. The argument that it's irreducibly complex has been debunked so thoroughly that I'm almost surprised there aren't t-shirts, a la Crockoduck.
BUT, obviously tomatoes have brains. Didn't anyone else see this documentary?
I imagine that the more "complicated" terpenes have been selected for because they are more effective deterents against predation.
OldSynner said...
"I imagine that the more "complicated" terpenes have been selected for because they are more effective deterents against predation."
Hello OldSynner.
I notice that you use the passive voice ("have been selected for").
How would you put that in the active voice.
Passive/aggressive anonymous:
Random mutations in the genome of the plant resulted in some individual plants producing more "complicated" terpenes that resulted in lower predation and greater reproductive success thus ensuring that the responsible gene(s) appeared in a greater proportion of the descendant population.
You are actively encouraged to read a few sources on evolutionary theory.
I've randomly bolded a few words in this post to make you feel at ease.
steve oberski, your answer is still in the passive.
Is nature the actor in this scenario? If not, what is the actor?
Think of it this way - what actor is bringing about the actions that you are describing?
Random mutations (changes) are actions. What actor brings them about?
Is it Nature?
Anonymous, a must see documentary that answers all your questions.
steve oberski has evaded the question.
Can anyone else answer it?
Evolutionists are stumped by so many basic questions.
Here we are looking at the simple question as to what is the actor in the purported claim of evolutionary change?
Nobody here can answer the question. If they did, they would have to to say Nature. And they would be correct.
And that is exactly the point I have been making.
Nature is the actor that brings about the changes.
So each time you see evolutionists say something like the following passage, take them at their word. It is indeed Nature that is acting.
"They have shown that during the evolution of these compounds nature doesn’t settle for the ‘low-hanging fruit’ but favours rarer, harder to synthesise forms, giving pointers that will help in the search for potent new drugs."
Anonymous,
Mutations can be caused by chemical and physical (e.g. ultraviolet radiation) factors. So, I guess those would be the "actors," as you put it. Yes, we consider these things to be part of nature. There's nothing new about that.
Post a Comment