How did a plant know to grow thorns?

>How did a plant know to grow thorns?
It saw the future.

>I don't understand evolution, therefore it's wrong

Malformed stem makes catching prey such as sheep easy. Sheep dies and enriched soil

>plant has a slightly spikier stem than other plants due to a genetic mutation
>that plant is less likely to get eaten thus passess off that trait to a larger batch of offspring
>that trait keeps getting selected for because less spiky plants are more easily eaten by animals while ones which possess mutations which make them even spikier are more likely to pass on that trait
>overtime that trait has become predominant within the plant population

They probably started off as heavily barked stems, but some of that bark had sharp points. Those plants were selected over plain stems because they had an advantage, until all plants had heavy bark and spikes. But then plants that developed thinner and thinner bark while still retaining the spiked patches, now thorns, were more successful because it was cheaper to just have spikes but just as effective. Thorns are very woody so that's where I got the idea.

Reject evolution Embrace truth
You know the sciencetards think some pine trees evolved to hold their cones closed until a Forrest fire then drop their seeds?

/thread

Same way every cowboy knows a sad song.

because the ones that didnt grow thorns got eaten, thus could not reproduce to make more thorn-less offspring

but how did every night know to have a dawn

a plant has a mutation that causes little spikes to grow. this plant dies less and breeds more. some of its descendants mutate to have a slightly bigger spike, these die less often and breed more than their siblings and cousins. eventually an equilibrium is reached in which having any bigger of a spike is no longer an advantage and the organisms stay more-or-less the same for several thousand years until an environmental change happens. this is called "punctuated equilibrium" if you want to look it up and get more info

Attached: 1630221611587.jpg (1024x911, 70.73K)

evolution is very much bs

Based

You didn't? I expected more from you Australia.

Too easy, I told them to do that, retard

>This is quite the phenomena that evolution just can't explain
CAN explain, all the non successfully variations died off leaving the fittest example to reproduce

None of it can be explained as the lifeform learning and then changing its physical and genetic characteristics fast enough in order to be effective.

Before being wiped out by its perceived weak aspects.

The only thing that makes sense is they were intelligently designed.

Does that mean God? No.
It just means intelligently designed.

Was God born on Earth?
No.
So by definition HE is an alien.

Attached: 1596843525719.jpg (1024x631, 66.48K)

It is explained but in a very simplistic way:
One day a plant had a spike in its stem. It survived better than ither without it so its genes spread more and one day all ita descendents had soikes and won the competition over the others.

The end

Plants have a high degree of ingelligence. We just cannot detect it via conventional means

mutation !
a sunny day billion day's away , a retard rose grow > with thorn mutation > baam not eaten by animals = that retard mutation thorn rose can make other retard roses
ooorrr the matrix man doing that

Thorns are simply Gods fractal expression of fallen mans sharp/stinging desire to live by his individual will.
Why do you think Christ was mocked with a crown of thorns?

So all of the "evolving" has already happened meaning EVOLUTION is the wrong word.
Also meaning its not real...
LoL checkmate faggot

god created thorns so jesus could have a hat

our dimension is manipulated via electromagnetism. who is doing the manipulating?

Deer walks through flower bed. Flowers get damaged but survive. They lose some petals and the leaves get ripped off the stems.

The stems with stronger leaves have prickly bits. The next deer doesn't like the stems whose leaves have prickly bits. The deer avoids flowers with prickly bits.

The flowers with prickly bits after their leaves are destroyed survive longer than flowers with soft leaves on their stems. They have more offspring with prickly bits. The next generations survive with even pricklier prickly bits.

Thousands of generations later, the flowers have been selectively bred to the point where some of them ONLY grow prickly bits.

And how many eons of recorded history will we see with ZERO new modifications?

Does anyone else hike shirtless because they kinda like their skin getting stuck on thorns and ripping it loose?

Because plants like humans are connected to the other realms, astral, etheric, etc where they have an infinite memory.

None of that is evolution.

Plants that made it harder to eat them survived. Developing thorns, toxins, irritants to the skin.... the plants that were tasty and easy to eat went extinct where the asshole plants survived for hundreds of thousands of years.

> It's evolution at its finest, organisms come up with ways to defend themselves from possible harm
> No, it doesn't mean the plant is sentient, it doesn't mean it's a rational process
>T-they just did, alright? Plants came up with thorns because of EVOLUTION
> Stop asking questions

Attached: FPNCe7lXEAM1m1T.jpg (1000x1000, 82.2K)

>Living things developing new physical traits isn't evolution

This

Evolution is just "selective breeding" by random environmental factors. Selective breeding is so incontrovertibly effective that there are literally photographs of it. It isn't theory. It is fact.

Most plants with thorns have them facing either straight out or in the direction of growth. Blackberry has the thorns facing inwards towards the roots. This means when you are caught up in a blackberry thicket, the easiest path is towards the plants roots, where you will then be trapped by thorns and die. Blackberry is therefore a carnivorous plant

The pine cones don't go "oh shit a fire I better close up" though. They just react to humidity which gave them greater success to spread their seeds. All that because those who did had better luck and were able to reproduce which reinforced this trait over time. It's a very long process.
Don't you believe in dog or vegetable breeds? It's roughly the same thing only much longer because it's not controlled and there is lots of trial and error

So all of the "evolving" has already been done and there are no new modifications coming?
OR...
Why are there ZERO visible changes happening now or anytime in recorded history...

Only finished products.

Where are the "new mutations" or ADAPTATIONS that we can see are different from verified previous examples.

There are no current "New variants" of any lifeform.

Only the oldest examples.

So is evolution the wrong word and or proved false?

this

plants are sentient and they watch you when masturbate naked in the woods

Attached: windows_xp_bliss-wide.jpg (1920x1200, 1008.01K)

It was all designed by God, the Holy Spirit. No plant "knows" how to grow anything, all life was created. Kind after kind.
Evolution is a lie. The only thing that exists is adaption.

Moths in the UK changed from white to black over the course of the industrial revolution in response to everything being coated in coal dust

You said there were plants with and without prickly parts and stated the prickly ones were less desirable (source?) and therefore survived.

Meaning they were already there... alongside...
NOT an adaptation but ALONGSIDE existing simultaneously.

THEEEEEEEEEEEEEN you fastforward? to an again EXISTING THING...
Completed already...
See what Im saying smoothy?

this is stupid, look how well it's designed. If it was natural evolution, it would not be so perfect. This rose has better fucking genetics than most amerimutts

>Why are there ZERO visible changes happening now or anytime in recorded history...
We have plenty of recorded and easily visible examples of changes. Here is a good one.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_wall_lizard

christfags are literally retarded and worship jewish skyjews.

Auxins. trippy shit. watch out with them Auxins and morphogenic fields and human/mammalian homologues and tropism.

Really? You think this is the question that defeats evolution? Go read Darwin or Dawkins describing evolutionary theory in relation to bees. Go take a look at the problems that throws up, and the way they respond to those problems.

They didn't know anything a lot of plants had a lot of genetic variation and ones that were harder in certain spots were more likely to survive, and as animals adapted to eat it anyway, the mutations kept changing and the plants that could not be eaten were the only ones to reproduce. This resulted in plants with hardened bark surviving. Mutations based on them included ones that were more or less spiky. The harder and spikier the more they survived.

This process is well known and well documented. We have edited whole crops in the last 100 years to be resistant to certain diseases or selected based on size and taste until the whole crop becomes unlike any crop that existed before. Ex. Modern Bananas are not natural, neither is corn or Watermelon. We have far fewer seeds than old recipes show, much larger fruit amounts. If we bake roman recipes it is an incoherent mess because our crops are so different.

Honestly, pay attention in school. /pol is for political discussions.

I often get the impression evolution works the opposite way as we're being told.
Humans for example also used to be smarter and stronger before agriculture kicked in. Dogs as well, as they used to be wolves. People turning white etc.

It seems lifeforms lose traits a lot faster than they gain them. Losing traits is energy efficient. Gaining traits is slow.

They told us this bullshit at school too even tho we can see its not true! over 90% of the moths i see are grey or sandy brown.

Right, then my next question is why dont you jews just "evolve" to not look goblinoid and ugly?