Evolutionary Circular Reasoning on Carnivorous Plants
One reason that Darwinian thinking has so many people hogtied is because the non-explanation of " it evolved " is used so freely. Add to this the phrase "scientists say", and too many people will accept such a remark without question. Venus flytrap image credit: CSIRO / Malcolm Paterson (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) For me, good documentaries on living things are spoiled with assertions of "it evolved", as if homage to the Bearded Buddha somehow provides scientific validation. I'm sure some of you have felt the same way. Why not simply describe what is observed without delving into what is assumed about the subject's history? We have two examples in the article linked below. Folks riding for the Darwin brand commit circular reasoning and other bad logic by assuming evolution to prove evolution. In fact, two carnivorous plants defy evolution. Instead, they show specified complexity that could not have arisen by evolu