As anyone with a high-school knowledge of biology knows, flowering plants are pollinated by insects - notably bees - who flit from flower to flower collecting nectar and at the same time spreading pollen from plant to plant to ensure the avoidance of incest (is it merely coincidence that 'insect' and 'incest' are anagrams of each other, and vice versa?).
The process is analogous to a human being moving from burrito-stand to burrito-stand in search of food; the human being gets food, while the Mexican gains honest money. Both are winners! Yet this, of course, is a directed process arising from human intelligence.
How could such a complex process possibly have come about through 'evilution'? If - as Darwinianists claim - brightly-coloured flowers providing nectar would be selected for through their success at attracting insects, there must already have been insects capable of drinking nectar and pollinating flowers. Yet such insects would have previously died out through lack of flowers!
Once again, the Darwinianist position collapses owing to its own inherent contradictions.
44 comments
"the human being gets food, while the Mexican gains honest money."
Holy fuck! This may be the most racist thing I've ever read.
Do me a favor and look up symbiosis and then get back to me.
And yes, it is a coincidence that insect and incest are anagrams of each other. Just like atonement and at-one-ment do not somehow mystically link the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur to Zen Buddhism.
Insects and plants that do well without each other, discover they can do better with each other. I can see why you have trouble with that idea.
It's because you're dumb.
"flowering plants are pollinated by insects - notably bees - who flit from flower to flower collecting nectar and at the same time spreading pollen from plant to plant to ensure the avoidance of incest "
Uhh, seeds typically do not travel very far from the originating plants unless eaten by birds or something similar. Technically plant "incest" happens all the time as there's nothing to prevent the same bee from pollinating the plants near it. Also, self pollination is a thing. (though I wonder if a plant self-wanking into pollination qualifies as incest,lol)
"(is it merely coincidence that 'insect' and 'incest' are anagrams of each other, and vice versa?) "
Anagrams ? wtf ? Of each other and vice versa ? I'll take redundancy for $1000 Alex.
Next up, argument from incredulity followed by a lack of understanding of Symbiosis and Co-evolution
I'm near calling poe on this one.
"is it merely coincidence that 'insect' and 'incest' are anagrams of each other, and vice versa?"
The vice versa words makes me think this is a poe, but it's damn funny. It pokes fun at the semi-literate fundy crowd who look for deeper meaning in palindromes, when they're not playing stairway to heaven backwards.
I don't know about you, but one burrito is enough for me. I don't need to go from burrito stand to burrito stand.
And what's this about "honest" money? I bet most Mexicans would work you under the table.
The Bible says that insects have four legs. Even Jesus, one of those burrito stand-owners, knows that. Which is why the Catholic Church, to say nothing of the Protestant Church of England, openly admits that much of the Bible is purely fable & metaphor; as in not to be taken literally . After all...:
image
...if the Bible was as literal as you fundies claim it is, why did the C-of-E have Darwin buried & memorialised (one of only five non-royalty people buried there) in their main place of worship, Westminster Abbey? Especially when up to his death he was an Agnostic , despite the fact that in his early years, he was in training to join their clergy . To say nothing of the fact that, when "On the Origin of Species" was first published, the C-of-E welcomed his new - and potentially beliefs-destroying - discoveries & theories with open arms, even though "OtOoS" sold more than the Bible at that time.
Never mind 'Use of Bad Analogy. Your argument is invalid ', your argument - like Cre(a)ti(o)nism's credibility (even before Kitzmiller vs. Dover) - never fucking existed in the first place, for said 'argument to exist in the first place. And all because of the 'True' - and literal (because it's 'True', natch! [/sarcasm]) Bible not knowing about it's own fucking Biology.
Once again, the Cre(a)ti(o)nist position collapses owing to its own 'Truth's inherent contradictions.
Bees pollinating plants is the same as a person purchasing burritos and thus evolution can't be true... Wellp, that settles that. There could possibly be something called, yanno, information concerning the evolution of insects and flowers on some vast information database. But who has time for actual learning, am I right?
And, yeah, the Mexican gains honest money? Insanely stupid and racist.
possible poe, definitively.
and NSFW. I nearly rolled on the floor laughing at this mexican reference.
Worse : at first read, I did think "at least he's not racist". 3 seconds later, "oh wait..."
is it merely coincidence that 'insect' and 'incest' are anagrams of each other, and vice versa?
"Insect" comes from "insectum" meaning "cut-up," referring to the insect's segments.
"Incest" comes from "incestus" meaning "impure" or "unchaste."
That didn't stop me from naming my Vivillon in Pokemon X "Incesct," though ^_^
Step one: flowers produce nectar for insects to eat. They get superior pollination so this trait becomes more common.
Why must a cretinist only exert their imagination to think of the most unlikely evolutionary path for anything?
the human being gets food, while the Mexican gains honest money
If you can't even understand why this is stupid and racist, what chance do you have in understanding something as complex as co-evolution. Go play in the sandbox and eat the sand.
I'm sure this is a poe.
The first paragraph of the original site sounds especially suspicious:
"My most illustirous brethren in Christ,
This question is posted here for your superior intellect, and not for any of the heathen element, including the false "Christians" who do not believe the Christian (KJV) Bible or just do not follow it. Hence, any of the responses by the heathen community will be ignored completely, and offending responder will be blocked immediately, in the name of the Lord. "
"(is it merely coincidence that 'insect' and 'incest' are anagrams of each other, and vice versa?)."
No, nor is it a coincidence that 'god' is an anagram of 'dog', or 'Satan' is an anagram of 'Santa'.
"How could such a complex process possibly have come about through 'evilution'?"
It couldn't because 'evilution' is an imaginary process that exists only in creationist delusions.
This simple process arose through mutation and natural selection, which seem complicated to you because you are a retard.
You flunked all of your Science courses, I perceive.
You need to go back to sixth grade and start over.
Hopefully Poe.
The HUMAN being gets food, while the MEXICAN gains honest money? Whut? Since when are Mexicans not human beings? And, what are they instead?
Insects don't see the same bright colors as we do.
"Darwinianist?"
... "Lemon curry?"
I hope you suffered a brain injury to get that stupid. If you're a Poe, stop messing with the idiots. Their struggle upward is hard enough.
Edit: @ Old Viking: That's what you get for taking the Kama Sutra literally.
@ Anon-e-moose
Anyone with a high-school knowledge of biology also knows that flowering plants are relatively recent in history, only appearing in the last 70 million years or so. Plants before them had other less efficient means of reproduction, such as the swimming sperm method in the ferns and water-plants.
So you could say that flowering plants are evidence of Darwinian evolution in action. Plants evolved to make use of insects, and vice-versa. Many other methods of cross-pollination exist and have existed, just that using insects is the most efficient method.
If it was evidence for intelligent design, plants would have started out immediately with flowers, but we don't see that in the fossil records. So "God" apparently just decided in the last 70 million to make flowering plants.
In conclusion, you're an idiot.
insect = in-sectum = divided into [parts]; sectum is cognate with "sex" which originally referred to the division of gender into male and female.
incest = in-cestus = not-celibate. Incest originally just meant incelibacy and the meaning shifted to "keeping it in the family."
Some bees took nectar from some plants and in the process carried pollen to others creating more hybrids of flowering plants that eventually SOME bee colonies would specialize on. In this process the pollen was directly carried from one to another without depending on the winds.
No, the plants didn't plan on it and the bees were shaped by what was available in their area. This is the survial of the fittest scenario, during the long term bee/flowering plant relationship many, many plants and bee colonies have died off.
There was an intresting BBC documentary that sent a Brit Beekeeper to other parts of the world where people have collected honey from different breeds of bees who harvest different types of flowers. This gives the honeys different taste, texture and color with one honey being very dark and thick with a much different flavor. What you'd expect with differences in distances under evolutional variants predicted by Darwin.
Etymology lesson:
Insect comes from the Latin "insectum" which means segmented.
Incest comes from the Latin "incestus" which means unchaste and derives further from the Latin "castus" for chaste.
So yes it's a coincidence you could have proven with two seconds of research.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
