A selection of the sampled Balanophora plants. (a) B. japonica (left and center: Kyushu, Japan; right: Taiwan), (b) B. mutinoides (Taiwan), (c) B. tobiracola (from left: Okinawa, Japan; Taiwan), (d) B. subcupularis (Kyushu, Japan), (e) B. fungosa ssp. fungosa (from left: Okinawa, Japan; Taiwan), (f) B. yakushimensis (from left: Kyushu, Japan; Taiwan), (g) B. nipponica (Honshu, Japan).
Credit: Svetlikova et al., 2025 (CC BY)
In reality, Balanophora are not evolutionary outliers. They are a textbook example of what happens when natural selection acts over long periods on a parasitic lineage.
Where Balanophora fit in the plant kingdom
Molecular phylogenetics places Balanophora firmly within the angiosperms, in the order Santalales. This is the same order that includes mistletoes, sandalwood, and a range of hemi- and holoparasitic plants. Their closest relatives are photosynthetic or partially parasitic species, providing a clear evolutionary gradient from free-living autotrophs to obligate parasites.
This placement is not controversial. It is supported by nuclear, mitochondrial, and plastid gene sequences, as well as by reproductive and developmental traits. Balanophora are deeply nested within the flowering plant family tree, not perched mysteriously at its base.
Angiosperms
│
├── Basal angiosperms (Amborella, water lilies, etc.)
│
├── Monocots
│
└── Eudicots
│
├── Rosids
│
├── Asterids
│
└── Santalales
│
├── Photosynthetic lineages (e.g. Santalum – sandalwood)
├── Hemiparasites (e.g. Viscum – mistletoe)
└── Holoparasites
├── Balanophoraceae (Balanophora)
└── Other parasitic families
│
├── Basal angiosperms (Amborella, water lilies, etc.)
│
├── Monocots
│
└── Eudicots
│
├── Rosids
│
├── Asterids
│
└── Santalales
│
├── Photosynthetic lineages (e.g. Santalum – sandalwood)
├── Hemiparasites (e.g. Viscum – mistletoe)
└── Holoparasites
├── Balanophoraceae (Balanophora)
└── Other parasitic families
Why this placement matters
- Balanophora are deeply nested, not basal.
They are not an early-diverging angiosperm lineage. They sit well within the eudicots, inside an order dominated by parasitism. This is exactly what evolution predicts for a lineage that became parasitic rather than being created as such.
Creationism would expect either:- A distinct, isolated “kind”, or
- No consistent phylogenetic signal at all
Instead, Balanophora fall precisely where descent with modification says they should.
- Transitional relatives exist
Within Santalales you can trace a graded series:- Fully photosynthetic plants Root parasites that still photosynthesise
- Plants with reduced photosynthesis Fully holoparasitic forms like Balanophora
This gradient is phylogenetic, not just ecological. It maps cleanly onto the tree.
- Plastid phylogeny seals the case
Even though Balanophora plastids are massively reduced, the genes that remain:- Cluster with chloroplast genes of Santalales
- Show derived mutations consistent with long-term loss of photosynthesis
- Cannot be explained as independently created organelles
In other words, the plastids themselves remember their ancestry.
Creationism, which insists on fixed, separately created categories, has no principled way to explain why these plants fall exactly where evolution predicts they should.
Reductive evolution, not degeneration
Balanophora dioica
Balanophora tobiracola
This process — known as reductive evolution — is ubiquitous in parasites. It is seen in bacteria, fungi, animals, and plants alike. Importantly, reduction does not mean dysfunction. On the contrary, Balanophora are highly successful within their ecological niche.
For creationism, this is already uncomfortable. The idea that complexity must always increase, or that organisms are optimally designed from the outset, simply does not survive contact with parasitic life histories.
Balanophora involucrata
Perhaps the most damaging evidence comes from Balanophora’s plastids. Although these plants no longer photosynthesise, they retain a highly reduced plastid genome — one of the smallest known in flowering plants. Almost all photosynthesis-related genes have been lost or rendered nonfunctional, yet a handful remain essential for basic cellular processes.
From an evolutionary standpoint, this makes perfect sense. Plastids originated as chloroplasts, and some metabolic pathways remain plastid-dependent. Removing the plastid entirely would require extensive rewiring of the cell, so evolution takes the path of least resistance and retains a stripped-down remnant.
From a design standpoint, the arrangement is absurd. If an intelligent designer merely wanted Balanophora to possess a small number of essential genes, there would be no reason to house them in a specialised organelle at all, let alone one that carries every molecular signature of a degraded chloroplast. The plastids of Balanophora look exactly like what they are: evolutionary leftovers, not purposeful inventions.
Horizontal gene transfer and the myth of “genetic information”
Creationists frequently claim that an intelligent designer must create genuinely new genetic material. Balanophora directly contradict this assertion.
Genomic studies show clear evidence of horizontal gene transfer between Balanophora and their host plants. Genes involved in metabolism and parasitic function have been acquired wholesale from unrelated species and successfully integrated into the parasite’s genome. These genes are not decorative; they are expressed and functional.
This is new genetic material in every meaningful sense, acquired without foresight, intent, or design. It arises naturally from prolonged physical and physiological intimacy between parasite and host — precisely the conditions evolutionary theory predicts will facilitate gene transfer.
Creationism has no explanatory framework for this. Either such gene acquisition is allowed, in which case claims about the necessity of a designer collapse, or it is denied, in which case the genomic evidence must simply be ignored.
Why Balanophora are such a problem for creationism
To accommodate Balanophora, creationism must resort to an increasingly elaborate set of ad hoc explanations: parasitism blamed on “The Fall”, essential genes hidden in redundant organelles, plastids designed to look exactly like degraded chloroplasts for no functional reason, and gene acquisition occurring by mechanisms indistinguishable from natural processes but somehow guided invisibly by intelligence.
Evolution, by contrast, explains all of this with brutal efficiency. Loss, constraint, repurposing, and gene acquisition are not anomalies; they are expected outcomes of descent with modification under natural selection.
Balanophora are therefore not merely awkward for creationism. They are devastating. They bear the unmistakable imprint of history — a history of gradual change, contingency, and adaptation — written into their genomes and their cells. No theory of intelligent design predicts such patterns, and no appeal to theology can erase them.
As with so much of biology, these plants make sense only when evolution is allowed to do the explanatory work.
Advertisement
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
All titles available in paperback, hardcover, ebook for Kindle and audio format.
Prices correct at time of publication. for current prices.
No comments :
Post a Comment
Obscene, threatening or obnoxious messages, preaching, abuse and spam will be removed, as will anything by known Internet trolls and stalkers, by known sock-puppet accounts and anything not connected with the post,
A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Remember: your opinion is not an established fact unless corroborated.