Joined: Jan. 2008
Nick Matzke sounds just a tiny bit exasperated.
|Even under an ID hypothesis, plant carnivory ought to have some function, right? Itís not exactly revolutionary to suggest that the function of *carnivory*, i.e. *eating things*, is probably to *get nutrients*. Gimme a freakiní break here!|
The only reason you guys are objecting to these basic points is that you just hate Darwin and somehow have got it in your head that the association between carnivorous plants and low-nutrient situations is some kind of evolutionary/Darwinist conspiracy. But that just ainít so.
If you follow the discussion, that's exactly what's going on. In essence, they're arguing that there's no benefit for the plant in being carnivorous. †But no one asks why, if that were true, a supposedly intelligent designer would've made them carnivorous. Probably because
god the designer works in mysterious ways.
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner