Ray 'Bananas' Comfort
His latest piece of disinformation is his claim that the Venus flytrap, Dionaea muscipula, is an example of irreducible complexity because the trap mechanism could not have evolved. In the Creationist lexicon, ‘irreducible complexity’ is code for ‘the Christian god did it’, so the Bible is literal truth’.
Comfort has no qualifications in biology, or any science subject yet feels qualified to tell his marks that millions of working biomedical scientists have got things all wrong and he knows best. Posturing as an expert is a familiar Creationist tactic intended to deceive, or, as a Christian would put it, an example of bearing false witness. Nevertheless, he should be capable of even the most cursory of fact checking in the age of the Internet, but doesn't feel he needs to, as he knows his target marks never check what he says, so he'll probably get away with it. It’s the tactic of the snake oil salesman.
Had he bothered with fact-checking, however, he would have discovered the freely available scientific evidence that flatly contradicts and gives the lie to his claim. Not only is the evolutionary pathway of the Venus flytrap known, but it is a very nice example of Darwinian evolution.
But then Creationists cult leaders, like their members, have no interest in the truth. Their mission is to mislead those who eagerly send them money for disinformation that makes them feel important, with a special relationisp with the Creator of the Universe who made it all with them in mind.
And Comfort laughs all the way to the bank.
An earlier ploy by Comfort was to tell his followers that there is no gravity in space [sic], so this proves God wrote the Bible [sic]. A more famous one was to claim the banana is specially designed to fit in the hand as you eat it, knowing his cult won't understand the role of selective breeding in plant cultivation. As others have pointed out, it is equally well designed to fit in other orifices too.
Mind you, Comfort's own ignorance sometimes comes back to bite him, like the time he complained about the pain of an impacted wisdom tooth for which he needed surgery, not realising wisdom teeth and the problems we have with them is both evidence for evolution and against intelligent design, but then Comfort was blissfully ignorant of those things.
The evolution of carnivory in plants is a specialised form of foliar feeding where the plant derives nutrients through its leaves in addition to any it obtains through its roots. It generally occurs in conditions where the soil is deficient in nutrients, such as in acidic bogs where water soluble nutrients, especially nitrates, leach out of the soil. It is believed to have occurred independently six times in the angiosperms, based on extant species, and possibly more in carnivorous lineages now extinct.
But it's not the evolution of carnivory itself that Comfort is trying to fool his marks with, but the 'snap-trap' mechanism which captures the prey.
As Comfort could have discovered in just a few minutes had he bothered to, the evolution of this mechanism probably occurred in a common ancestor of Dionaea and the closely related, Aldrovanda. Two studies in 2002 and 2003 and a further study in 2009, have shed light on how this occurred:
Venus flytrap (time lapse)
Habit photographs of Dionaea muscipula Ellis and Aldrovanda vesiculosa L., which capture and digest small animals with modified snap-trap leaves. (a) Dionaea is a terrestrial species. (b) Aldrovanda is a rootless, submerged aquatic.
Related insectivorous plants. The circumboreal sundew, Drosera rotundifolia (a), has three to eight small leaves covered with simple stalked tentacles that capture insects via a sticky ‘fly-paper’ trap. Drosera falconeri (b) from northern Australia has stalked glands on the margin of the leaf blade, sessile glands in the center and prominent blade-like petioles resembling those of Dionaea. Selection to capture larger and more active prey within Drosera may have also favored elongate leaves to curl around their prey as in Dionaea's closest relative, Drosera regia (c), and long, rapidly triggered snap-tentacles lacking mucilage as in Drosera pulchella (d). The snap-trap itself evolved once in the ancestor of both the aquatic plant Aldrovanda vesiculosa (e) and its sister species Dionaea muscipulis (f). Photo credits and permissions from: (a) Juza (http://www.juzaphoto.com); (b) B. C. Barnes, Florida Carnivorous Plant Society; (c) V. Brown; (d) photographer E. Pöhlmann and S. and I. Hartmeyer (http://www.hartmeyer.de/Schnelltentakel_D.htm); (e) L. Adamec; and (f) B. Rice (http://www.sarracenia.com).
AbstractOf course, Comfort knows he can rely on his marks either avoiding reading anything scientific altogether because the last thing they want is information that might causwe them to think they might be wrong, or if they do pluck up the courage to read it, won't understand it. However, he could have checked before making his claim. If he had done so, he would have found the following, supported by the research mentioned above:
The snap-trap leaves of the aquatic waterwheel plant (Aldrovanda) resemble those of Venus' flytrap (Dionaea), its distribution and habit are reminiscent of bladderworts (Utricularia), but it shares many reproductive characters with sundews (Drosera). Moreover, Aldrovanda has never been included in molecular phylogenetic studies, so it has been unclear whether snap-traps evolved only once or more than once among angiosperms. Using sequences from nuclear 18S and plastid rbcL, atpB, and matK genes, we show that Aldrovanda is sister to Dionaea, and this pair is sister to Drosera. Our results indicate that snap-traps are derived from flypaper-traps and have a common ancestry among flowering plants, despite the fact that this mechanism is used by both a terrestrial species and an aquatic one. Genetic and fossil evidence for the close relationship between these unique and threatened organisms indicate that carnivory evolved from a common ancestor within this caryophyllid clade at least 65 million years ago.
Abstract
The sundew genus Drosera consists of carnivorous plants with active flypaper traps and includes nearly 150 species distributed mainly in Australia, Africa, and South America, with some Northern Hemisphere species. In addition to confused intrageneric classification of Drosera, the intergeneric relationships among the Drosera and two other genera in the Droseraceae with snap traps, Dionaea and Aldrovanda, are problematic. We conducted phylogenetic analyses of DNA sequences of the chloroplast rbcL gene for 59 species of Drosera, covering all sections except one. These analyses revealed that five of 11 sections, including three monotypic sections, are polyphyletic. Combined rbcL and 18S rDNA sequence data were used to infer phylogenetic relationships among Drosera, Dionaea, and Aldrovanda. This analysis revealed that all Drosera species form a clade sister to a clade including Dionaea and Aldrovanda, suggesting that the snap traps of Aldrovanda and Dionaea are homologous despite their morphological differences. MacClade reconstructions indicated that multiple episodes of aneuploidy occurred in a clade that includes mainly Australian species, while the chromosome numbers in the other clades are not as variable. Drosera regia, which is native to South Africa, and most species native to Australia, were clustered basally, suggesting that Drosera originated in Africa or Australia. The rbcL tree indicates that Australian species expanded their distribution to South America and then to Africa. Expansion of distribution to the Northern Hemisphere from the Southern Hemispere occurred in a few different lineages.
Summary
Among carnivorous plants, Darwin was particularly fascinated by the speed and sensitivity of snap-traps in Dionaea and Aldrovanda. Recent molecular work confirms Darwin's conjecture that these monotypic taxa are sister to Drosera, meaning that snap-traps evolved from a ‘flypaper’ trap. Transitions include tentacles being modified into trigger hairs and marginal ‘teeth’, the loss of sticky tentacles, depressed digestive glands, and rapid leaf movement. Pre-adaptations are known for all these traits in Drosera yet snap-traps only evolved once. We hypothesize that selection to catch and retain large insects favored the evolution of elongate leaves and snap-tentacles in Drosera and snap-traps. Although sticky traps efficiently capture small prey, they allow larger prey to escape and may lose nutrients. Dionaea's snap-trap efficiently captures and processes larger prey providing higher, but variable, rewards. We develop a size-selective model and parametrize it with field data to demonstrate how selection to capture larger prey strongly favors snap-traps. As prey become larger, they also become rarer and gain the power to rip leaves, causing returns to larger snap-traps to plateau. We propose testing these hypotheses with specific field data and Darwin-like experiments. The complexity of snap-traps, competition with pitfall traps, and their association with ephemeral habitats all help to explain why this curious adaptation only evolved once.
Proposed evolutionary history
Carnivorous plants are generally herbaceous, and their traps the result of primary growth. They generally do not form readily fossilizable structures such as thick bark or wood. As a result, there is no fossil evidence of the steps that might link Dionaea and Aldrovanda, or either genus with their common ancestor, Drosera. Nevertheless, it is possible to infer an evolutionary history based on phylogenetic studies of both genera. Researchers have proposed a series of steps that would ultimately result in the complex snap-trap mechanism:[57][58]
- Larger insects usually walk over the plant, instead of flying to it,[63] and are more likely to break free from sticky glands alone. Therefore, a plant with wider leaves, like Drosera falconeri,[57] must have adapted to move the trap and its stalks in directions that maximized its chance of capturing and retaining such prey—in this particular case, longitudinally. Once adequately "wrapped", escape would be more difficult.[63]
- Evolutionary pressure then selected for plants with shorter response time, in a manner similar to Drosera burmannii or Drosera glanduligera. The faster the closing, the less reliant on the flypaper model the plant would be.
- As the trap became more and more active, the energy required to "wrap" the prey increased. Plants that could somehow differentiate between actual insects and random detritus/rain droplets would have an advantage, thus explaining the specialization of inner tentacles into trigger hairs.
- Ultimately, as the plant relied more on closing around the insect rather than gluing them to the leaf surface, the tentacles so evident in Drosera would lose their original function altogether, becoming the "teeth" and trigger hairs — an example of natural selection utilizing pre-existing structures for new functions.
- Completing the transition, the plant eventually developed the depressed digestive glands found inside the trap, rather than using the dews in the stalks, further differentiating it from genus Drosera.
- Phylogenetic studies using molecular characters place the emergence of carnivory in the ancestors of Dionaea muscipula to 85.6 million years ago, and the development of the snap-trap in the ancestors of Dionaea and its sister genus Aldrovanda to approximately 48 million years ago.[64]
Dionaea muscipula
No mystery, and no magic required - which of course is exactly the opposite of what Ray Comfort and his fellow Creationist cult leaders want the dupes who send them their money to believe.
Disguised in his claim is of course that old favourite fallacy of Creationist frauds - the false dichotomy fallacy. Not only does Comfort mislead his audience but he then relies on their parochial ignorance and bias in assuming that the only available alternative, if his false claim is true, is that the locally-popular god did it - exactly what his eager marks wanted to hear. Attack the science or claim it can’t explain something and voilà! God proven! No need for evidence!
But as usual with these Creationist claims, by invoking a sentient designer, Comfort stupidly hasn't realised that he's presenting this imaginary entity as a malevolent sadist who casually make its creation suffer, in this particular case, with the slow death of the captured insects, rather than designing these plants to live in an environment where soil nutrients are not in short supply. Because his income depends on it, Comfort is quite prepared to present the cults deity as a casual, amoral sadist rather than have his dupes believe structure like the 'snap-trap' of the Venus flytrap evolved by the operation of entirely natural, amoral, utilitarian processes with no magic deities involved, as science has explained.
Ray Comfort may be a naturalized US citizen (?) but he is a Kiwi (New Zealander) by birth and upbringing.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what relevance that has, though I can imagine why any American would be embarrassed that he's a naturalised American.
DeleteIts bad enough that much of the animal kingdom and much of humanity is carnivorous. On top of all this carnage and killing the creator also made dangerous planet. There are hundreds of them besides the Venus Flytrap.
ReplyDeleteMore disgusting there are reports of dangerous plants from South America and Madagascar that eat more than just insects.Some of them kill and eat vertebrates as well, including unwary humans. Its not surprising at all if one is familiar with Nature. The creator is violent, malevolent monster who made a violent, dangerous world. Evil.
There are hundreds of species of carnivorous plants. I have seen one trap and eat a live monkey.Disgusting. Its like something from a horror movie.What kind of demented demon created this?
DeleteThere are numerous poisonous plants and poisonous berries. Some of these poisononous berries look like edible ones.This is extreme malevolence and evil. Its demonic.The creator made poisonous berry lookalikes similar to blueberries and similar to currants. Its as if the creator is trying to confuse us and trick us. Thats demented and evil.
One of the most horrible plants is the demonic Manchineel tree. Not only are all parts of it poisonous but merely touching it is dangerous. Pure evil personified. How are creationists going to explain such a horrible creation? The embarrassments are going to keep coming for the creationists to explain away. The creation and the Natural order is so screwed up and flawed that they have to constantly make execuses to justify the creator. The Original Sin of Adam and Eve is one of the execuses. So Adam and Eve eating a forbidden apple has the power to cause poisonous plants, violence and killing, diseases and parasites, mold, mildew, venoms, poisons, birth defects and miscarriages, tsunamis, typhoons, cyclones, and human evil. This is out of touch with reality. This is a stupid myth trying to pass off as reality. Lets just say for the sake of argument that its true. Its still very unfair, unjust, insane, stupid, and most of all CRUEL to punish and ruin the entire creation for the sin of two people. Thats not a loving God.. Thats not a merciful God. Its an unreasoning, unforgiving, cruel, stupid God who has no common sense and no conscience. Its embarrassing.