How does Evolution explain the bucket Orchid?

Question

The bucket orchid's mechanism involves at least five separate functions, which must work in the correct sequence—attracting the bee, causing it to fall into the bucket, the provision of the gland to keep the bucket 'topped up' with liquid, provision of a tunnel exit, and the devices for attachment and removal of the pollen sacs. If any part of the mechanism were missing, or incomplete, the plant could not be fertilized. The origin of the bucket orchid's wonderful and ingenious machinery is surely fatal to the theory of gradual evolution.

I know what co-evolution is. I just wanted an answer to the question. I wasn't making a statement. Thank you for judging me.

Good point Mahal. Don't Panic has the best answer so far.

Devilman- I think you are confusing the Bucket Orchid with another species of flower. The Bucket Orchid does not "kill" or "eat" anything.

Thank you for added details Mahal. How come you don't have a 360 page??

Answer 1

Is anyone here qualified to answer this competently?

(You know, all that "intelligent design" stuff really gets the natives going.)

Tempted to enter the fray, but no one has given you anything yet that resembles an answer. The one about digestion fails to address complexity, and Bad Liberal just calls you a "straw man" and hides behind a presumed and fictitious motive.

The two answers below also fail to explain. One simply assumes evolution is correct. This is not how science works, is it? The framework of a theory NEVER explains phenomena, it's the other way around. Phenomena must be tested independently to avoid bias, and the results build the framework. He then assumes that we Christians don't know anything about science.

(Doh!)

I know you think that "Don't Panic" has given you the best answer so far, but that's a little over flattering. He states that we can't argue from the end results.

Ahem. Evolution is ALWAYS argued from the end results (the state of the world today) and the theory is projected backward through time as a framework for an explanation.

Answer 2

If you want an accurate answer you'll have to ask the question in the science section. All questions about evolution should really be asked in the science section, but this is particularly true of a question that is this specific. I understand the mechanisms of evolution and could hazard a good guess at the correct answer - but it would be a guess. I know absolutely nothing about the bucket orchid.

Answer 3

Irreducible complexity is a straw man that has been thoroughly knocked down, swept up and left out with the trash. It was worth asking the question because it encouraged scientists to determine the evolutionary pathways that led to complexity. But it's all dealt with.

You should, however, be (at least) slightly ashamed at addressing scientists with the view that "I don't have an answer for my question even if you do, so we'll assume my preferred predetermined answer to the question IS the answer, and stop searching".

Science doesn't work like that. It looks. It records. It explains. It leaves you to draw your own conclusions. Which most of us have. Sorry it seems so threatening to you.


===

"I wasn't making a statement"

"The origin of the bucket orchid's wonderful and ingenious machinery is surely fatal to the theory of gradual evolution" is a statement. My point is that you DON'T want an answer as you claim. You had one already.

Answer 4

Each of the things that you use as examples of complexity, are in fact, examples of the evolutionary process.

Every species on this planet, whether its bacteria, fungus, flower, fish, or human, has one innate genetic mandate: to pass that genetic material on. Each and every evolutionary change occurs within a species for the sole reason of survival. The changes that aren't conducive to survival, usually bring about the end of the species (or at least the organism displaying those particular changes).

You need to keep in mind that vegetation doesn't compete in the same fashion that animal life does, but it does compete. In the simplest of terms, flowers developed particular colors and scents to attract the insects that would help them in the pollination process. However, when it became neccessary for certain plants to survive (say, for example, this particular orchid wasn't attracting insects), they changed, slowly over time. Each of the mechanics that you list are steps on the road to assist that particular plant in its survival, and are brought about by natural need, not supernatural design. Evolutionary change isn't about the individual, but the whole of the species.

As someone else pointed out, you would be better suited asking this question in the biology section, given its specifics. The mechanics are extremely complex (and no, that doesn't illustrate design...only neccesity), and unless you have a background in biology, some of them may be beyond the average person.

Answer 5

Many flowers attract bees with scents. Thats nothing new. The scent does not shut off after the bee arrives, so calling it a part of a carefully orchestrated sequence is a misrepresentation. The passage that traps the bee for the right amount of of time was balanced with time for pollen sacs to adhere. The flowers that held the bee the right amount of time were the ones that were more successful at reproducing.

Answer 6

You're arguing from the end results. Evolution doesn't work that way.

Take a handful of coins, paper clips, anything you have at the moment. Toss them into the air and note the pattern they make when they fall.

What are the chances of your being able to replicate that exact pattern? Close enough to nil. Would you say that you designed that pattern? Of course not. It happened through many interactions, some random, some physical 'laws'-- gravity, mechanics, etc.

Evolution works the same way. As long as you keep arguing from the end results, you're looking at it backwards and you'll never truly understand it.

Answer 7

Evolution is called the inter-play of adaptation, mutation, survival & extinction.

The Bucket Orchid never existed 15 million years, however with changes in natural surroundings & co-species ........ the Bucket Orchid evolved & adpated to its changing environment ........ at the same time many other plants & flowers never adapted & we dont see them today ........ coz they went extinct.

As another reader said , its co-evolution & thanks for bringing up this question, for once again it shows how little creationists know of the real world outside of the Bible or Quron Books.

Answer 8

And what creationist site did you copy and paste this "stumper" from?

For that matter, if it's "surely fatal to the theory" of evolution, then why aren't you publishing this news in a science journal, instead of posting it to some silly website?

In any case, this is just another variation on the tired old argument of "remove one part and the whole thing is useless". It's a bogus argument.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB340.html

Answer 9

you must look at the Fungus, too discover the secret of orchid evolution

Answer 10

That's like saying, why do humans excrement after they have eaten! The bucket organ has evolved to attract and kill it's prey, to breed the next generation, to become a bigger and better species.