Honeybee die-off's threat to agriculture shows importance of co-evolution
Darwinists and critics of Darwinism have largely been ignoring co-evolution, treating it as an unimportant sideshow of the main event, isolated evolution. In my research for this blog's articles about co-evolution, it was very difficult to find any literature on the subject. Now a honeybee die-off's threat to agriculture is showing the great importance of co-dependence (often called mutualism -- related terms are commensalism, amensalism, and parasitism) and co-evolution. An AOL news article says,
.
.
.
Unless someone or something stops it soon, the mysterious killer that is wiping out many of the nation's honeybees could have a devastating effect on America's dinner plate, perhaps even reducing us to a glorified bread-and-water diet . . . .
. . . . In fact, about one-third of the human diet comes from insect-pollinated plants, and the honeybee is responsible for 80 percent of that pollination, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Even cattle, which feed on alfalfa, depend on bees. So if the collapse worsens, we could end up being "stuck with grains and water," said Kevin Hackett, the national program leader for USDA's bee and pollination program.
.
Labels: Non-ID criticisms of evolution
posted by Larry Fafarman | 5/03/2007 11:39:00 AM
4 Comments:
It probably would have helped to, you know, actually look for literature on the subject. Heck, just search for "co-evolution" (or variant spellings) on Amazon for publicly available books on the subject. Or, go to PubMed or Google Scholar, and you'll find thousands of articles on the topic. Whatever these mythical "Darwinists" may or may not be doing, biologists and proponents of modern (and not-so-modern) evolutionary theory have been examining co-evolution quite closely for the past century.
BTW, the issues surrounding co-dependence have been one of the major motivating factors of the environmental movement for decades.
Cyberbully Kevin Vicklund said...
>>>>> It probably would have helped to, you know, actually look for literature on the subject. <<<<<<
I've looked. There's practically nothing out there. What is out there mostly just takes co-evolution for granted -- there is no effort to analyze it. Co-evolution is almost never discussed on Panda's Thumb and Uncommon Descent. There is an overemphasis on intelligent design at the expense of non-ID criticisms of evolution.
What Larry really means is that because the anti-evolutionists aren't currently focusing their efforts on his particular definition of co-evolution, the pro-evolution sites aren't spending a lot of time defending it. Larry, of course, can't be bothered to actually look for the original research articles or printed books. Google Scholar, for example, has almost 20,000 entries for "co-evolution biology" and I have provided a number of books listed by Amazon that deal with coevolution. Sorry Larry, the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal defense just doesn't work here.
If the anti-evolutionists attacked co-evolution more, then the evolution sites that Larry is restricting his search to would have a lot more to say. Unfortunately for him, hardly anybody else is currently making the same argument.
In other words, he is a lone nut-case screaming to the uncaring world, "Why won't you pay attention to me?!"
> In other words, he is a lone nut-case screaming to the uncaring world, "Why won't you pay attention to me?!" <
What could be a more accurate description of Fake Larry's actions? Of course there are those of us who pay a great deal of attention for the entertainment value.
Post a Comment
<< Home