 |
|
|
|
|
The
mystery of the origin of flowers is finally solved!
Charles
Darwin had many problems with his own theory.
He freely acknowledged, for example, that a monstrous
difficulty was the human eye.
He claimed that to suppose that it evolved was
“absurd
in the highest degree”.
Yet, he still believed it.
Another area that troubled him greatly was the
evolutionary history of angiosperms – or, flowering plants.
He called this problem “that abominable
mystery”.
Of
course, let’s give Darwin a bit of a break here. After all, he was just developing the theory, and couldn’t
possibly have all the answers.
He certainly would have to leave many details to others
who were yet to come after he laid the foundation.
So, here we are, over 150 years after Darwin’s book
first appeared, and this is still a big “mystery” to
evolutionists.
|
|
|
Or,
is it?!!…..To
most evolutionists, it still is.
But there are apparently some scientists who are willing
“to boldly go where no scientist has gone before!”
And, there are a lot of people who are
willing to believe them, no matter how preposterous the theory.
So, where did flowering plants come from?
“Paleontologist Robert Bakker proposed an exciting new theory…”
heralds the Encyclopedia of Evolution.
What is this “exciting” theory?
What have educated, intelligent scientists come up
with? Are you
ready? Here goes... “Flowers were invented by
dinosaurs”.
OK,
let's just ignore the obvious for a moment and
look briefly at what Dr. Bakker has to say about this.
He claims that the plant-eating dinosaurs evolved more
quickly than plants.
Furthermore,
he claims that plant-eating dinosaurs evolved from “high
feeders” (trees) to “low feeders” (grass and low-growing
shrubs), and that this change gave the flowering plants the
break they needed to thrive at precisely the time they were
developing.
That's the simple, quick explanation.
Dr. Bakker wonders how others overlooked this obvious
phenomenon. He
calls it “an incredible oversight”.
In
actual fact, what does Dr. Bakker’s theory show?
That dinosaurs “invented” flowering plants?
FAR FROM IT!
His
theory shows no such thing.
Even if it was correct, the only thing it would show is
natural selection at work.
It doesn’t even come close to beginning to explain
the origin of flowering plants, nor does
it consider the implications of the use of the word
"invent"!
How
far does this type of speculation go?
Botanists
have tried to explain the same problem and have come up with
equally ridiculous ideas.
Consider the statement by Anthony Huxley concerning
flowering plants and the insects that were supposedly
“co-evolving” along with them:
“Insects sought food and at first went after
pollen. To
distract them from this, plants developed nectar as a
substitute, while their flowers became increasingly insect
attractive, with scents, colors, and guide patterns.”
Ideas like this sound so
neat and tidy!
I mean, how
perfectly genius of the flowers to be able to figure out what
to do about those terrible, pollen-munching insects!
Nobody criticizes scientists (or anyone
else, for that matter) of having an inquisitive mind.
Asking questions. Observing. Learning.
Attempting to explain. But, let's be reasonable.
Do either
of these sound like “reasonable” explanations (let alone
scientific) for the
origin of flowering plants?
Of course not, but hypotheses like these are the only
explanations evolutionists have, and the
average reader will think that since a scientist came up
with the idea, it must have merit. The problem is compounded by the fact that this type of
proposal gets into the textbooks of our schools and becomes
regarded as fact. It
then becomes very difficult to try to weed this stuff out of
the garden of students’ minds.
Flowering
plants cannot be explained through evolutionary processes.
The whole system, including the insects that pollinate
them, can only be explained in terms of design
– that is, in terms of creation, just as the Bible
says.□
Back
|
|
|
|
