Plants can be attacked by fungi, bacteria, viruses and insects and so, not surprisingly, plants have a variety of defense strategies. These strategies are initiated by hormones--chemical signals that are widespread in biology. New research is telling us more about the complex interactions between these signals in the plant Arabidopsis thalania. As one science writer explains:Various plant hormones work together to specifically fend off attacks. ... By 'consulting' with each other plant hormones determine which defence mechanism they shall set in motion. ... three plant hormones - salicylic acid (SA), jasmonic acid (JA) and ethylene (ET) - cooperate with each other to initiate the correct defence response. ... JA is under the control of SA but if JA and ET cooperate then JA no longer 'listens' to SA. ... Switching on the defence mechanism requires a lot of energy from the plant and can go to the cost of growth and reproduction. It is therefore vital that the plant only initiates the defence mechanisms required.
The plant defense strategies are complex and finely-tuned. Evolutionists of course hypothesize that all this just happened to arise on its own. But that's not all--evolutionists insist that their hypothesis is a fact. They may not have all the details (that's an understatement), but their general idea must be true. So while they don't know how such marvels evolved, evolutionists are certain that they did evolve. This is a serious misrepresentation of the scientific evidence.
Do you know Dennis Venema? He works at Trinity Western University - http://www.twu.ca/academics/science/biology/faculty/venema/ - and he has a good series of lectures at http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/video-presentations/christianity-biology/
ReplyDeleteI bring him up as this essay in particular, and your blog in general, remind me of something he once said. He described his views on Intelligent Design as "Deny the validity of evolution pending infinite mechanistic detail; affirm the validity of ID without providing a mechanism (or testable predictions, evidence, etc)."
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200907/0103.html
No, I do not know Dennis, but I certainly do not require infinite mechanistic detail for evolution any more than I would for geocentrism. It is a gross misrepresentation of science to say that is the main problem with evolution.
ReplyDeleteThe main predicition of ID is that organisms will look the they were designed, which is certainly the case. Why do they say that ID has produced no predictions?
ReplyDelete