Question for Atheists ( hoping for a interesting debate)
Why do Roses 🌹 have thorns?
36-40, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
hartfire · 61-69
To reduce the chances of being eaten.
From the World History Encyclopedia
"The rose that grows in many different forms in gardens all over the world today is an evolution of rose-like plants that lived in the northern hemisphere between 33 million and 23 million years ago. Traces of them have been found in the fossil record of the Oligocene epoch in Europe, Asia, and western North America.
"The climate in those times was largely temperate with plentiful insect life, conditions that are still favoured by roses today. Five-petaled flowers, distinctive oval serrated leaves and colourful hips – characteristics that can be found in wild rose species today – differentiated them from other plant remains when the fossils were examined..." Much more on the rose's cultivation history is available in the Ecyclopedia; see it article, "A Brief History of the Rose".
Attemps to breed out thorns have failed because all versions had weak roots and stems, poor disease resistance, and could not be cloned.
Hybrids of roses do not breed from seed and can only be cloned.
This leads to the conclusion that evolution strongly favours the rose's need for thorns.
From the World History Encyclopedia
"The rose that grows in many different forms in gardens all over the world today is an evolution of rose-like plants that lived in the northern hemisphere between 33 million and 23 million years ago. Traces of them have been found in the fossil record of the Oligocene epoch in Europe, Asia, and western North America.
"The climate in those times was largely temperate with plentiful insect life, conditions that are still favoured by roses today. Five-petaled flowers, distinctive oval serrated leaves and colourful hips – characteristics that can be found in wild rose species today – differentiated them from other plant remains when the fossils were examined..." Much more on the rose's cultivation history is available in the Ecyclopedia; see it article, "A Brief History of the Rose".
Attemps to breed out thorns have failed because all versions had weak roots and stems, poor disease resistance, and could not be cloned.
Hybrids of roses do not breed from seed and can only be cloned.
This leads to the conclusion that evolution strongly favours the rose's need for thorns.
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@hartfire Saying thorns evolved “to reduce the chances of being eaten” still implies purpose . What I understand about Atheist worldview regarding evolution, , is that it is unguided and purposeless.
What in ‘Nature’ determines the ‘thorns’ functionally necessary and advantageous?
What in ‘Nature’ determines the ‘thorns’ functionally necessary and advantageous?
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@newjaninev2 so… “Sex” = reproductive success —- more offspring with defensive traits (like prickles).
“Death” = selection pressure —-organisms without defenses die, so those with ((prickles)) thrive.
Who or what evaluates necessity before a threat emerges?
If thorns evolved after herbivory pressure, how did early plant generations survive long enough to “stumble” into defensive mutations? Why didn’t they go extinct first? Evolution has no foresight — so how can complex responses arise incrementally in time to avoid death?
“Death” = selection pressure —-organisms without defenses die, so those with ((prickles)) thrive.
Who or what evaluates necessity before a threat emerges?
If thorns evolved after herbivory pressure, how did early plant generations survive long enough to “stumble” into defensive mutations? Why didn’t they go extinct first? Evolution has no foresight — so how can complex responses arise incrementally in time to avoid death?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Heavenlywarrior Prickles did not arrive wholly formed and in their current state. Remove a 100th of a percent from the prickle size of a rose species and 1000th of a percent from the prickle sharpness of the same species, and there will be no discernible effect on its reproductive fitness.
Now remove another 100th of a percent from the prickle size of that rose species and 1000th of a percent from the prickle sharpness.
and again.
and again
Now keep going for as long as it takes and you'll see the point at which the reproductive fitness changes - and it's unlikely to look as effective as today's prickles, but it will be enough to cause change... as Darwin remarked "A grain in the balance will determine which individual shall live and which shall die - which variety or species shall increase in number, and which shall decrease, or finally become extinct"
Now remove another 100th of a percent from the prickle size of that rose species and 1000th of a percent from the prickle sharpness.
and again.
and again
Now keep going for as long as it takes and you'll see the point at which the reproductive fitness changes - and it's unlikely to look as effective as today's prickles, but it will be enough to cause change... as Darwin remarked "A grain in the balance will determine which individual shall live and which shall die - which variety or species shall increase in number, and which shall decrease, or finally become extinct"
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@newjaninev2 You’re describing how tiny changes accumulate into traits like prickles. Fine. But what you’re avoiding is this:
Why do these random, incremental changes so consistently 'solve' biological problems?
If there's no foresight or built-in direction, then each microscopic mutation is a dice roll — indifferent, random, and unaware.
But accumulating tiny changes only builds function if those changes are filtered toward a goal — like defense, adaptation, or optimization. You're still describing a system that acts as if it's guided by a teleonomic principle — where structure serves function reliably.
Why do these random, incremental changes so consistently 'solve' biological problems?
If there's no foresight or built-in direction, then each microscopic mutation is a dice roll — indifferent, random, and unaware.
But accumulating tiny changes only builds function if those changes are filtered toward a goal — like defense, adaptation, or optimization. You're still describing a system that acts as if it's guided by a teleonomic principle — where structure serves function reliably.
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@newjaninev2 Drop grains of sand randomly — you get a mess.
Drop grains that just happen to stack into a sandcastle? Consistently? That’s not just randomness.
What mechanism ensures that mutations are not just noise, but keep leading to increased fitness and function over time?
You say 'fitness determines survival.' But fitness itself is just a label we give in hindsight to purposeful-looking outcomes. What you can’t explain is why life keeps improving as if it's being pulled toward function.
That’s the contradiction: you argue there's no purpose — yet everything evolves as if it has one.
Drop grains that just happen to stack into a sandcastle? Consistently? That’s not just randomness.
What mechanism ensures that mutations are not just noise, but keep leading to increased fitness and function over time?
You say 'fitness determines survival.' But fitness itself is just a label we give in hindsight to purposeful-looking outcomes. What you can’t explain is why life keeps improving as if it's being pulled toward function.
That’s the contradiction: you argue there's no purpose — yet everything evolves as if it has one.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Heavenlywarrior
Did I say that?
reproductive fitness is shown by genes being passed to the next generation, but until that moment fitness cannot be known
You might well be forgetting the role of the ever-changing environment.
Genes march backwards into the future... they cannot know what environment they will find next.
fitness determines survival
Did I say that?
reproductive fitness is shown by genes being passed to the next generation, but until that moment fitness cannot be known
You might well be forgetting the role of the ever-changing environment.
Genes march backwards into the future... they cannot know what environment they will find next.