Plants evolve
" Professing to be wise, they have become fools.
Professing to be scientific, they have become converts to the cult of Darwin.
Bits of fossils are used as shiny pendulums to hypnotize them into thinking “Thisssss issss scienccccccce”
while the teacher drugs them into euphoria about how much better they feel
now that they have kicked out “religion”
and that nasty old God of the Bible they might have learned about as kids.
But this is not the experimental science of Joule or Faraday.
It is a new Aristotelianism taught with authoritarianism.
Plants evolved because it is their nature to evolve.
Since the student now ‘knows’ that plants evolved (because that is their nature), wee bits of data work as props to illustrate the dogma."
There is only one problem with the missing link...
It’s missing.
This thread will get pulled due to a lack of a link, but in the meantime that sentence is not what I was taught in school 40 years ago.
What I was taught is that because of radiation and other environmental influences, random mutations in genes occur, and if these random mutations result in a biological advantage, the mutated plant thrives and reproduces the mutation.
In politically correct science the assertion is everything.
Brawndo! It’s got Electrolytes! It’s what plants crave.
It takes a lot more faith to say “it evolved” than to say “it was created”. A complex universe creating itself, regardless of how many millions of years you give it, is absurd. On the other hand, evidence for designed and created is everywhere.
Darwin explains some changes in the plant and animal life over the past few million years. But it does not at all explain all the changes. Why does Australia have almost all the marsupials in the world. While possums are found in lots of places. How do large cats, Kangaroos and bears and other mammals have the same pockets to hold their young. They did not evolve from a single source.
Why do Octopus, fish, bugs and humans all have two and only two eyes on either side of your head. There is no single ancestor. The reality is that Darwin can explain small changes. Even changes that become big over time. But there is something else at work. Its likely that part of evolution started off earth. The primordial ooze explanation is not founded in science. It is a guess at best. A scientific place holder until they figure out what really happened.
so-called Darwinian evolution needs no explanation: after all, it was just a really, really, really, really, improbable series of random accidents ... as science, Darwinian evolution is a complete dead-end because because there it has no causality ... Darwinian evolution is fundamentally no different than the old, discredited theory of spontaneous generation: both theories ultimately posit that life arose spontaneously from dirt, rocks, and water ...truly, belief in the THEORY of Darwinian evolution is nothing more or less than a matter of faith; that is, belief in Darwinian evolution is religion, not science ...
It's criticizing a paper about some obscure fact of plant biology for not being a paper attempting to prove evolution. As if every biology paper needed to prove evolution in order to say anything.
Of course the paper takes evolution for granted! It's a biology science paper about that adaption of certain plants. Evolution is a fact of biology that's not in question here. It would be absurd for the paper to do anything other than what it does.
The idiot writing this critique thinks you can't publish a biology paper without proving evolution each time.