Darwin Was Just Proven Right (But Not About What You Might Think)

Of course, Darwin is most well-known for his ideas regarding naturalistic evolution—and this new study had absolutely nothing to do with that. What Darwin is less known for is his obsession with carnivorous plants such as sundews (pitcher plants and Venus flytraps are other well-known carnivorous plant species).

Darwin spent countless hours feeding various things to these plants and recording his observations, which were published in his 1875 book Insectivorous Plants. In that book, he apparently speculated that two species, Saxifraga rotundifolia and Saxifraga umbrosa (both low-growing plants with tall flower stalks), were insect-eaters. These plants have hairlike structures that ooze a gooey substance that Darwin observed was frequently covered in gnats. He thought this plant might be digesting the gnats, but he could never prove it.

Inspired by this hypothesis, a team of researchers put it to the test, using Saxifraga candelabrum (an alpine species in the same kind), as the test plant.

Here’s how they pulled off this rather high-tech study:

Through chemical analysis, scientists showed how the plants attracted tiny gnats with tempting odors and then digested trapped prey using an enzyme called phosphatase. Isotope labeling — a technique for tagging forms of an element with different atomic weights — highlighted the transfer of the nutrient nitrogen-15 from insect prey to the plants that dissolved them, indicating a direct path from trapping to digestion.

Genetic analysis then clarified S. candelabrum’s relationship to other sticky carnivorous plants, revealing shared genes linked to traits such as prey attraction, digestion and nutrient absorption. When the scientists expanded their investigation to include other types of traps, they found dozens of genes across different plant groups related to digesting insect remains.

In other words, Darwin was right—this plant was indeed purposefully luring in insects, trapping them, and digesting them to supplement its need for nitrogen (the alpine soil they grow in has low levels of this necessary nutrient). And researchers think their study can be used to reveal hidden carnivory in a variety of other species.

“Some species of the plants previously only known to bear sticky glandular hairs or trap insects incidentally may actually have undiscovered digestive and nutrient absorption capabilities. . . . Carnivory is likely far more widely distributed among angiosperms” — or flowering plants — “than previously believed, and new carnivorous plant lineages may be discovered in the future.”

It’s an interpretation of the evidence in the present based on a view of the past.

Of course, this is all observational science. Researchers are doing experiments and using technology in unique ways to uncover the mysteries of plants. Like Darwin’s experiments in the 1870s, they are doing good observational science. But, also like Darwin, these researchers then leave the realm of observable, repeatable, testable science to try to explain where this ability came from—and they’ve now stepped into historical science. Historical science isn’t directly testable, repeatable, or observable. Rather, it’s an interpretation of the evidence in the present based on a view of the past. That’s what evolution is: an attempt to explain the past based on a particular worldview (an atheistic, naturalistic worldview that excludes the supernatural).

So how do they explain this carnivory in over 750 species (across what is likely 14 kinds) of plants? Well, a botanist not involved with the study was cited as saying that

at least 350,000 species of flowering plants exist, of which more than 750 species are known to be carnivorous. Different styles of carnivory evolved independently in 14 plant families — a process called convergent evolution — and the study provides important new information about this intriguing lifestyle.

In this view, the ability and necessary adaptations to eat insects independently evolved 14 different times! Yes, evolution is a belief system—a blind-faith belief!

Now, how do we understand these sorts of “murderous” plants in a biblical worldview? Well, God’s original creation was “very good,” but now it is fallen, and that fallen state includes modifications to plants, including “thorns and thistles” as Genesis 3:17–18 says. The ability to trap and consume insects may be one of these post-Fall modifications that allows plants to thrive in a world with many different environments, including nutrient-poor ones. (There’s also debate on whether insects meet the criteria for nephesh life, and therefore perhaps they, like plants, don’t “die” in the biblical sense.)

Plants continue to show the handiwork and creativity of God.

Plants continue to show the handiwork and creativity of God. As the botanist cited above noted, “identifying S. candelabrum as carnivorous also reminds us that plants are full of surprises and that there is much to still be discovered about them. . . . ‘We are still barely scratching the surface of botanical knowledge.’” Yes, the more we learn, the more we learn that there is more to learn!

So, yes, Darwin’s hypothesis, based on observations of plants in the present, was recently proven correct. But what will never be proven correct are his worldview-based assumptions about the past that led to the development of modern-day evolutionary beliefs. Evolution is just a fairy tale!

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.