Carnivorous plants are proof that the theory of evolution is either wrong or greatly flawed. What do you suppose happened, a plant one day thought to itself "you know what I'm sick of all this photosynthesis, I'm going to eat a bug"? What are the intermediate steps, plants that dabbled time to time on a tasty fly but still were normal plants as their day job? I just don't buy it. Not saying I have the answer to the question, just saying it's called the THEORY of evolution for a reason and next century we'll look back laughing at how we actually thought we had it figured out, just like we look back at flat earth and bloodletting, two things they "solved" centuries ago.
Carnivorous plants are proof that the theory of evolution is either wrong or greatly flawed...
Nolan Sanders
Kevin Clark
It helps when making troll threads to pick an example that isn't defused by the first result on google.
Jacob Turner
>Carnivorous plants are proof that the theory of evolution is either wrong or greatly flawed
sage and hide bait threads
Xavier Bell
> the first result on google.
Hmm let's take a look
sarracenia.com
> The evolution of carnivorous plants is not well known. This is not because there is anything really mysterious going on, it is just that carnivorous plants do not have very rigid parts which are likely to get fossilized, nor do they make huge numbers of leaves each season to increase the chance of one being fossilized. I have no doubt there are great fossils of carnivorous plants someplace, but we just have not yet found them.
So not only can you not form your own argument, your snide "just google it" millennial battlecry has betrayed you. Sad generation, can't even question the world around them, since everything has been figured out by the all knowing internet.
Samuel Long
Come back when you learn the definition if the phrase "scientific theory".
Andrew Rogers
*sigh*, here honey, i googled it for you and got the first result.
academic.oup.com
Its really sad that you spend so much time researching these bait topics that google doesn't even give you real science results anymore.
William Baker
>*sigh*
>honey
>responds seriously to bait thread, even though he claims to know it's a bait thread
heeeeeeelllllooo reddit!
Joseph Butler
>autism, the thread
Carson Sanchez
>be plant
>have capability of producing waxes and resins
>evolve sticky surface
>suddenly, insects start dying in droves on you
>suddenly you're sitting in a mountain of corpses, providing a new pool of nutrition
>time to optimize
John Johnson
>mfw I slept on a beach in New York when I was 8/9
Daniel Diaz
>This observation suggests two alternative mechanisms for the evolution and diversification of carnivorous plant lineages. The ‘energetics hypothesis’ posits rapid morphological evolution resulting from a few changes in regulatory genes responsible for meeting the high energetic demands of active traps. The ‘predictable prey capture hypothesis’ further posits that complex traps yield more predictable and frequent prey captures.
I won't knock it before I read it but this sounds like some speculative, appeal to ambiguous theory bullshit that doesn't address the actual issue of how the selective process to develop the trap features actually occurred
Camden Cruz
I'm very interested to know how many people here actually got that reference
Veeky Forums is one of the more /mu/ boards in my experience
Elijah Gutierrez
>not understanding the definition of a scientific theory
>only proving that you don't understand evolution instead of proving that it's wrong
>posting bad "evolution is a theory" bait
Brayden Robinson
0/10
trying too hard bro
Jeremiah Baker
Just read the whole article (clearly you didn't). It does not address the question of intermediate steps or early stages of evolution whatsoever. You are a great example of a typical STEM student millennial, you are unable to actually explain anything, you automatically assume your assumptions on things you don't understand must be correct and therefore must be explained on Google or wikipedia, and if it's not you get upset and start name calling. Your generation complains of not being able to get a job despite having gone into massive debt for a degree, it's not because the job market is oversaturated, it's because the quality of your education is so low that you are incapable of doing anything without pulling out your phone to consult the internet.
Brandon Green
I never said that article explains everything kid. I was just showing that google gives actual results about the topic.
And why are you roleplaying as a non-millennial? or are you a generation Z? in that case arnt you a little young to be on the Chon?
Xavier Diaz
>lack of evidence is evidence
This is how they think, everybody. Point at them. Point at them and laugh.
Jackson Turner
Guy who keeps "carnivorous" plants here -- they don't "eat" bugs, they trap them and kill them and let them decompose for nitrogen, they live in nitrogen-poor soil. Essentially, they are killing them for fertilizer. For their supper, they photosynthesize like everybody else.
Fun Fact: Venus Flytraps only occur naturally within about 75 miles of Wilmington, NC.
Joseph Brown
That's pretty fucking old to be sleeping on the beach,.
Eli Stewart
This
"Carnivorous" plants are only carnivorous in the sense that the source of energy and nutrition comes from animals. Literally every other carnivorous trait is missing.
Christian Collins
Wait...Holy shit...Could God actually exist?
JESUS CHRIST
Hudson Roberts
You do realize that absence of evidence IS evidence of absence, right?
Absence of proof is not proof of absence, but absence of evidence is always evidence of absence. How much evidence it provides varies, but it's always greater than zero.
Noah Campbell
In what way is 10.67 months, 'old'
Tyler Carter
Not necessarily. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence when the chance of absence is sufficiently low.
Specifically, if the chance of evidence being absent is greater than double the chance of absence.