Sparc, I would be intrigued if you could present published work suggesting a Darwinan pathway for carnivorous plant development. If such is in the literature, then Loennig’s statements are seriously challenged.

I don’t know if the link will make it through your filters and I hope you are not offended by the other content specified in that post (I am not deadman_932 and I hope not to be a deadman here soon).

I’m really tired of people like you who, rather than respond to arguments with arguments, resort to attempts to discredit the writer you disagree with. None of your remarks even relate to the paper in question, and if the worst dirt you can dig up on Dr. Loennig is that he cites his own self-published books, you better keep digging. Do you have any dirt on the other author? How about addressing the content of the article itself?

As for the Dollo paper (though I don’t see how that’s relevant to this post), Loennig is the only one of the four authors who is openly ID, one is a Darwinist, the other two are somewhere in between, according to Loennig. So that might explain why the paper doesn’t discuss ID more explicitly…so what’s your point?

Sparc,

This article was published in John Wiley Interscience’s “Encyclopedia of Life Sciences”, as you can see by going to http://www.els.net.
So why are you trying to imply this is self-published by Loennig?

I know, but check the further reading list and the references in Lönnigs Dolo paper.
Actually, I am looking forward to your discussion of Lönnigs Dolo paper in which he even cites three self-published books.

BTW, in the Dolo paper Lönnig manages to use each of the phrases “intelligent design” and “ID” only once. Not too often for an ID paper indeed. In all other places he actually uses the identifier C2 for ID. The identifier A stands for evolution theory and B for the “Genomic Potential Hypothesis” (see below) and C for

tendency to postulate a discontinuous origin of higher taxa

Under the later category he summarizes

purely naturalistic interpretations (C1: Margulis and Sagan 1997; Schwartz 1999; Erwin 2000, 2004; Jablonski et al. 2000; Gould 2002; Müller and Newman 2003; Valentine and Jablonski 2003; Valentine 2004; Theißen 2005; and last but not least, Dollo himself)

and

a more or less typological vantage point, often including ID (C2), the hypothesis that, for example, irreducible complexity in certain organs and physiological processes (not to be discussed here) is real and not only apparent and is best explained by intelligent design.

Lönnig even distinguishes different forms of ID-creationism:

The latter, in turn, can be grouped into researchers postulating phylogenetic connections to putatively preceeding taxa (C2a) (Behe 1996; Denton 1998; Berlinski 2003a, 2003b; Conway-Morris 2003a, 2003b), and those doubting additional evolutionary links on a macro-evolutionary scale (C2b) (Dembski 1998, 2002, 2003, 2004; Junker and Scherer 2001; Junker 2002; Swift 2002; and many further authors, in part already quoted above – see Campbell and Meyer 2003; Meyer 2004).

Of course it is legitimate to introduce identifiers if you have to keep your text short. Even in a 30 pages paper this may be OK. But using these identifiers throughout the text and only defining them on page 19 which is the fifth page of the discussion is absolutely rediculous.
As rediculous as his reference to Christian Schwabe’s Genomic Potential Hypothesis in a 2007 paper.

Well, it’s quite simple. Horizontal gene transfer or lateral gene transfer of genotypes between species must have occurred. Such a gene transfer of the light sensitive retinal-rhodopsin cycle could have happened from animal to plant. Once the light sensitive spot was established in a plant, co-optation occurred to change it into a fly-sensitive spot by the same process we all know took place to create the bacterial flagellum.

This is how animals and plants got their spots. “Just so”, as Kipling would have said. It’s just soooo obvious! You IDists really must start using your brains.