What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Venus-flytrap

  • Thread starter eplants02
  • Start date
  • #21
Travis,

I must refer you to Seminoles post as he brought this out quite well.



</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
1. a nutrient deficiency in the soil had to be recognized.
2. the ability for insects to provide the lacking nutrients had to have been understood.
3. the fact that insects could be captured and digested to gain these missing nutrients needed to be realized.
4. a trapping mechanism that can swiftly and efficiently grab and hold,then digest and adsorb insects needed to be designed.
5. the trapping mechanism having the ability to discriminate between worthwhile insects and those not worth capturing /holding for digestion and also between nonliving foreign objects needed to be designed.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>


If each of these things took a million years each. There would be no benefit to the plant for 5 million years. This messes up the theory of evolution because for 5 million years there was no benefit to the plant, so there was no reason for it to survive longer than any of the other plants. Also I think that God created nature to be the servant of man and he in turn was to care for it.
 
  • #22
I don't know, I have a hard time believing one day a vft popped up with traps?
confused.gif
Also, they may not of been around for millions of years maybe the past thousand or hundreds of years.  When did we discover the venus flytrap?
confused.gif
I still agree with Seminoles point of view, too.
smile.gif


Travis

add on:
Everyday, every plant, every animal, and any other life form is evolving to meet a changing world.
 
  • #23
I'm not saying the VFT just popped up.  I'm saying that God created it on the third day with all the other plants of the field.  Not by magic, but by His power.


Edit:
I have a hard time believing that something as intricate and beautiful as the VFT was created by chance!
 
  • #24
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Everyday, every plant, every animal, and any other life form is evolving to meet a changing world[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Travis-

I believe what you are referring to in this statement is adaptation rather than evolution.  I think this is true.  An example of this is a tiger that has been forced to the north from its habitat will grow a thicker fur coat to survive the colder temperatures.  Or a sarr. native to florida which usually grows in strong sun, high temps. and high humidity, will grow in a northern state will weaker sun, cooler temps. and low humidity.  The tiger and pitcher plant are able to survive because God gave them the ability to adapt to different conditions of the environment.  While the two are slightly different than they were in their native habitat, they have not started to evolve into a new species.

Just my opinion.
smile.gif


         -buckeye
 
  • #25
Evolve, evolved, evolving. 1. To change or develop gradually. 2. Biol. To develop by evolutionary processes. 3. To work out: develop -evolve a system-

Adapt - To adjust or become adjusted to a specified use or situation.
biggrin.gif
smile.gif
 
  • #26
Hmm, not sure I should even been posting in this. Oh weell, here I go. (Standard disclaimer of this is my belief and you are ont obligated to believe it yourself.)

I've always had trouble with evolution. The thought of random changes developing over millions of years leading up to sentient beings capable of pondering the random changes over millions of years leading up to their being, seems kind of degrading (In my opinion) I guess everyone wants to feel special in some way and this must be my way.

I've tended not to favor evolution though after my dad's speech on the woodpecker (you may have heard this before.) My father was a chemical engineer for the Air Force, so I always considered him "science minded" and so thought it was odd for him to say something anti-evolution (so to speak)

Here it is:
If you start the woodpecker as just an average bird. It develops a sharp beak that it can pound into a tree to extract a bug. (Change 1) So it slams it beak into the tree and crushes it's skull, the bird dies. Well you get one that gets the beak and a thicker skull (Change 2) and it slams it's head into the tree to get the bug, it's thicker skull maintains it's shape but it's brain slams into it's skull and you get vegetable bird. So it develops a cushion to protect it's brain (change 3) It slams it's beak into the tree, skull and brain are fine, but it can't extract the bug, so it develops a longer tongue (change 4).

That is 4 changes for this species to survive that would have to happen randomly at the same time. Wouldn't it have been simpler for the bird to stay the way it was and eat seeds?

I just see life as way too complex for evolution.
tounge.gif


As far as "Studies have shown..." that is too close to Urban Legend pattern for me. (Urban Legends say "My friend told me about this one guy in this one town..." ) I prefer to have more to go on, such as Who, What, When, Where, How, and Why. (Thanks for the links, btw
smile.gif
) to make the evidence more credible (though for the side of Creationism it is more in looking for the experiments that disprove the hypothesis.)

Anywho, that is just my thoughts. Take them for what you will. (Beside everyone already tells me I'm Crazy
biggrin.gif
)
 
  • #27
It looks pretty much like this topic is between Christianity and Evolution. I am a strong Christian. I'll talk about </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is more evolving over time (evolution) to meet the changing enviroment. Due to the lack of nutrients in the soil vft's (sundews, neps, sarrs, yada, yada) developed methods of catching insects for added source (an aid not requirment to live). I believe in the "Theroy of Evolution" and Nature always wins too . I also believe capslock and Seminole's point of view. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

In my view I find it quite impossible that a vft could possibly evolve. First: The Svage garden even says that a vft could live in those conditions but not reproduce. So if the first generation were "mutated" to fit those conditions in a small way, because in evolution it takes millions of years to evolve very much; they still could not reproduce yet. Only if they were the way they are now; could the have reprodeced further and evolve. Also, someone metioned mutated vfts. They have not started to evolve; they were genetically altered in tissue culture. You could allow it to cross, but the chances of it evolving into something better are 0-0.

And last thing, if things are evolving wouldn't they find new creatures that started evolving millilons of years ago? Instead species are dissapearing and no species are appearing.

Just my two cents. If I offended anyone I appologize, I am just stating my beliefs.

Respectfully,
Wes
 
  • #28
This is my last post on this subject...
wink.gif
I am a Christian but also think plants/animals adapt and evolve to fit the changing environment. Look at ppl we have adapted to a way our way of life (houses, cars, and planes) while evolving smaller heads and walking straight up. We are also finding new species and plants every year (unfortunately by cutting down forest for new land is killing many more). I think evolution is something that takes years and years (not necessarily millions or thousands) and not a simple human life span. My thought is we have been around for a spec compared to earth which has been around for billions of years. I think things change, adapt, and evolve to better them selves over time.

I also believe 99.9% of you on religion and how plant/animals are created. That is the great mystery of the flytrap and enjoy your opinions.
biggrin.gif
I am going to bow out and take a listen.
smile.gif
I in no way want to change your mind if you believe a certain way but always enjoy hearing them. I also believe I believe way too much
wink.gif
k/d.

Travis
biggrin.gif
 
  • #29
I too am a Christian and this will be my last post on the subject as it seems to have exhausted its resources.  I do have to disagree with Travis at one point though.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Look at ppl we have adapted to a way our way of life (houses, cars, and planes) while evolving smaller heads and walking straight up. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
   Man has been the same shape with the same head size since the world began.  The "neanderthal man" is nothing but a poor guy who had a disease ( I forget what).  There are people today who have this disease which gives them a mishapen head and spine.  
    Still the VFT can adapt (from the bogs to a greenhouse), but it is not going to develop and evolve new trapping methods because it suddenly realizes that most insects fly! It will stay a VFT till the end of this world, (which I won't go into&#33
wink.gif
.
    As to the earth being around for billions of years, it is impossible for very scientific reasons.
   1)  The moon's distance from earth is increasing by 2 inches a year.  Only two billion years ago, the moon would touch the earth.  Starting now, it would only be 5 more billion before it is out of sight!

   2)  The sun is receding by 1/10th of a percent every century, or  one percent every 1000 years.  If the sun existed only 100,000 years ago it would be TOUCHING the Earth. Very Very HOT!  This is 1/10 of one billion years, not even enough time for one evolution.  

   3)  The earth's magnetic field has been decaying regularly since it was first measured in 1835.  Dr. Thomas Barnes has shown with careful calculations that the earth's magnetic field would equal that of a star (where no life can exist) in only 10,000 years.  Life on earth could not have existed earlier than 10,000 years ago.

My belief is that the earth (and VFTs) was created between 6000-8000 years ago.  This seems like a small number when compared to evolution's theory, but it really isn't when compared to history.  Why do our records go back to only about 5000 BC and no farther?

  It seems to me that all the evidence points to Creationism over Evolutionism, but that is only my opinion.  Y'all are entitled to your own free expresssion of belief.  I have really enjoyed debating this subject and if others would like to take up where I left of, I would gladly watch.

Respectfully,

SF
 
  • #30
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Man has been the same shape with the same head size since the world began.  The "neanderthal man" is nothing but a poor guy who had a disease ( I forget what).  There are people today who have this disease which gives them a mishapen head and spine.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

snowyfalcon-

I think the disease you are thinking of is the same thing the famous Joseph Merrick, aka the elephant man, had.

Here's the article i found on my encyclopia if anyone's interested:

Joseph (Carey) Merrick; (1862-1890): 

Englishman disfigured by a disease that caused overgrowths over his skin and bone surfaces.

His head was 3 ft (.9 m) around, with large bags of skin hanging from it, the jaw so deformed he could not speak clearly. One arm ended in a 12-in. (.3-m) wrist and a finlike hand. His legs were similarly deformed, and a defective hip made him lame. He escaped from a workhouse at 21 to join a freak show, where a London physician, Frederick Treves, discovered him and admitted him to London Hospital. He died in his sleep at 27 of accidental suffocation. His disease was probably the very rare Proteus syndrome.

Just thought some might want to know.
smile.gif



          -buckeye
 
  • #31
In the end it all boils down to our believe and faith. Be it in the theory of evolution or creationism. Or something in between. Through it all we must choose our own path.

alien.gif
 
  • #33
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (buckeye @ July 17 2003,9:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
HI All,

<Natural selection says that only the strongest will survive>

I think Natural Selection says that only the "fittest" survive which is not the same as the "strongest" at all. The idea that Natural Selection says the "strongest" survive is the result of the warped ideas of SOCIAL Darwinism, a non-scientific sociological theory the British (and even people today) used to pseudo-scientifically justify their brutal, greedy and racist Empire.

Bobby
 
  • #34
Hi All,

I think one of the things that is missing from this debate is genetics. Modern Evolutionary studies are in so many ways bio-chemical genetic studies. The old Darwin vs Christ (God) paradigm has long since given way to much more finely tuned and specific inquiries. Evolution can never be understood from looking backwards at a series of species "results". It is being understood from its building blocks (genetics) up. If one wishes to view a SUPER-natural god as the "creator" of life and as evolution as the machine that god built to run life on earth -- great. If one wishes to view life as a purely NATURAL process that we are only now barely able to begin grasping -- great. Ultimately, It is unimportant WHO or WHAT gets credit for the inception. What is important is that we understand how nature functions. Does creationism provide us with an ongoing question and answer process as to how nature functions? No. It provides a seducive, absolutist and supernaturally poetic -- all questions can stop -- ANSWER that can never be proven or even investigated as it is pure belief -- and rightly so. Does Evolution provide us with a question and answer process that can be investigated as to how nature functions? Yes. By its very nature Evoltion is an ongoing question and by tapping into the deepest and most meaningful reality of humanity -- our ability to question (Adam myth in Genesis) -- it has provided us with ever increasing fruit year after year: knowledge. Ultimately, the choice is not between Darwin and Christ (God) but between belief as a basis for knowing or science as a basis of knowing. I choose science as I want to know when dealing with the natural world. I choose belief when I wish to confront the mystery of conscious life -- our "humanity". To me, they are separate systems and both suffer immeasurable harm (not to mention the harm we suffer) when these unrelated systems of knowing are falsely forced together like opposing teams in some cosmic football game.

Bobby
 
  • #35
Question for Snowy Falcon,

lets say you live in Ft. Lauderdale, and you get in your car, and get on I-95 and start driving south towards Miami.

Savanna Georgia is 466 miles behind you on I-95.
as you are driving south towards Miama, were you in Savanna Georgia 7 hours ago?

if yes, why.
and if no, why not?

Scot
 
  • #36
No, of course not. You started in Fort Lauderdale and head south, Savanna is north.
 
  • #37
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Does creationism provide us with an ongoing question and answer process as to how nature functions? No. It provides a seducive, absolutist and supernaturally poetic -- all questions can stop -- ANSWER that can never be proven or even investigated [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'> Really?? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">absolutist[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'> Yes, I do believe in absolutes, but so do you and every other person in this whole world. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> supernaturally poetic[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
confused.gif
I'm sorry that you see the Bible as a poetic book. Sure there are Psalms and praises to God, but the whole thing is history. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">all questions can stop[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'> Really??? . So I can always have an answer to every question (even on those math tests
tounge.gif
)??? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ANSWER that can never be proven or even investigated[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'> So I can never prove that God exists? The whole world cries out that there is a Creator. How can something as intricate as the human eye be created by chance?

Respectfully,
SF
 
  • #38
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SnowyFalcon @ July 20 2003,7:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, of course not.  You started in Fort Lauderdale and head south, Savanna is north.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Exactly,
you just proved why your moon and Sun arguements are invalid.
You were never in Savannah to begin with.
So starting nowhere NEAR Savannah means you cant interpolate backwards and arrive at the conclusion that you WERE in Savannah 7 hours ago simply because you are traveling away from it right now..

The moon was never next to the Earth to begin with,
The Sun was never next to the Earth to begin with..

well that was easy!
wink.gif
biggrin.gif

2 myths down, 98 to go..

(the remaining 98 are just as easy..)

Scot
 
  • #39
here is some reading on the Human eye..

http://www.2think.org/eye.shtml

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vision.html

http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye.html

and here is a creationist view on why the human eye disproves evolution..

http://www.revelationwebsite.co.uk/index1/menton/b2.htm

read it carefully and note he gives NO actual evidence to support his viewpoint!! none whatsoever..
his arguement is basically "the eye could not evolve by chance, because I say so"
also a lot of irrelevant drivel that has noting to do with the eye at all, like his meaningless scrabble excercise..

hardly convincing science..

97.

Scot
 
  • #40
Suprisingly lucid analysis from biggun110. I can't say I have much more to add than what he has already written.

Capslock
 
Back
Top