Talk:Cactus

Agave isn't a cactus. They aren't even in the same class. If you're going to write about plants, you might want to know something about them.

The article about cacti is woefully inadequate, not to mention pathetically biased. A cursoy web search found the following about the etymology of Opuntia, which has an uncertain origin. http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=OPUNT

"The genus name Opuntia is Botanical Latin, in scientific use since 1754, from Opos, the name of an ancient Greek village in Locria on the coast of Euboea. It was Opos, Opountis in Greek, noted for some spiny plant, but not our prickly pear cactus."

"Opuntia: a Greek name used by Pliny for a different plant which grew around the town of Opus in Greece (ref. genus Opuntia)"

"In 1700, Tournefort named opuntias Opuntia, because of their similarity to a thorny plant that grew in the town of Opus, Greece (Velázquez, 1998)."

" The succulent, ever-fresh cladodes were certainly a novelty to late fifteenth century and later Europeans and were widely included in ships’ stores as insurance against scurvy. This practice is thought to have contributed greatly to the present naturalized range of Opuntia ficus-indica throughout arid and semi-arid habitats of the world. This widespread propagation (intended and unintended) throughout the Mediterranean obscured the geographic origins of this species; many early European botanists regarded this cactus to be native, as reflected in Cactus opuntia (i.e., spiny plant from near Opus, Greece). "

There's plenty more. It's called "research". Try it. S'fun.

"there is very little biological or genetic research on cacti because such research..."

You didn't look for any research, did you? That's okay. I understand. It's hard. I know. Takes effort.

"Because of this, the early Catholic missionaries in the west thought the plants to be the work of Satan, and this is perhaps a preferable view to that of materialistic evolution since it is difficult to imagine how something like mescaline could have evolved by natural selection. Besides that, the psychoactive content of many cacti have inspired the writings of such ungodly men as Aldous Huxley and Albert Hoffman."

What does the second sentence have to do with the first? And you honestly, in the 21st century, think Satan, a made up demi-god, has some hand in "deceiving people"? If evidence doesn't fit your preconceived notions, it's because of Satan? And you wonder why no one takes (some) conservatives seriously. You're not helping your stereotype.

And this, well...really, if you want to be sarcastic, do it somewhere else. Encyclopedia. Start a blog if you want to look like a fool.

"But, since Genesis suggests that man has been given dominion over all of the earth, the environmentalist concerns on this note are entirely inappropriate. It may also be that environmentalists, in addition to flauting the Word of God, are merely concerned about the effects that declining cactus populations will have on their supply of mescaline."

Right. So if I want to protect the environment so our species continues to exist, I'm doing so to support my drug habit? And, dominion or no, if we destroy the environment, which we need to survive, then we won't be around to have dominion over anything. So, it's in our interest to protect the environment. Who the hell else are we trying the protect the environment for?

"A cursory glance suggests that it is very nearly impossible that these two distinct species of cactus share a common ancestor, as so many materialists maintain. What's more, the transition from one of these species to the other by evolutionary forces would require the purchasing of complex specified information without the intervention of intelligence and this, by William Dembski's No Free Lunch Theorem is impossible."

What? Actually, if I showed these to pictures to someone who had never seen a cactus, the first thing they would notice is that they are morphologically similar, and if they did an rRNA analysis, would find them statistically similar. Not to mention, they're in the same GENUS. Take a $%*#@4 botany class, you git!

"It could also be mentioned that Intelligent Design is possibly demonstrated in the great Saguaro cactus of the Sonoran Desert. These cactus are very slowly maturing and require a great deal of energy, have little cold tolerance, and are prone to destruction by pests. This is hardly the optimal configuration predicted by Darwinism, and presents quite a problem to the materialist point of view. On the other hand, the natives believe that the Saguaro are the incarnations of their ancestors. Because Intelligent Design endows the required designer with no attributes other than intelligence (it need only be an intelligent agent), the view that the giant Saguaro are reincarnated ancestors of the native population is a preferable scientific explanation to that of Darwinian evolution."

Okay, how about some evidence to back up your claim? A source? Anything other than your own conjecture? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia afterall. You obviously don't actually understand evolution, since you somehow believe that evolution is progressive, should create perfection, and works rigidly according to the environment a living thing happens to find itself in. Newsflash. That's no one's Theory of Evolution. Here's a tip - evolution doesn't have to work well; it just has to work. But I won't go into it. There are PLENTY of resources (an entire scientific field) devoted to it. Anyway, your whole article on cacti is a thinly veiled (and poorly executed) critique on evolution and, somehow, though I don't know what it has to do with cacti, anti-religious people. Fine. You've succeeded in looking uneducated. Not stupid - since I imagine you COULD understand these things if you wanted to, but you probably won't bother to look for any information that is counter to your beliefs. Geez our American education system sucks.