Author Topic: Evolution of plant life...?  (Read 4899 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline voodoo child

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1823
  • Darwins +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolution of plant life...?
« Reply #29 on: April 15, 2012, 01:40:16 PM »
You know.. Strangely, this guy rock, sounds like Shock of god.
Back peddling around in circles. 

What, your bike won't start? ;D
Shocks argument style. ignore everything handed to him. Question everything except his beliefs. 
The classical man is just a bundle of routine, ideas and tradition. If you follow the classical pattern, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow, you are not understanding yourself. Truth has no path. Truth is living and therefore changing. Bruce lee

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6826
  • Darwins +552/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Evolution of plant life...?
« Reply #30 on: April 15, 2012, 03:55:10 PM »

You are trying to say that as there is no 'proof' that evolution happened, it does not exist. We need to look at this proof.

Detailed records have been made throughout the study of plants and their evolution. You just have to use that magic wealth of information that God provided for you. It's called Google.


No, I'm simply asking a question and never getting an answer.  You don't think I've researched it?  Nobody knows...that's the problem.
Nobody knows... but you do... "God did it." Some invisible sky-pixie, without form or shape, living outside out universe came down and poofed plants, animals, and every tiny particle of matter into existence.

And you prefer that explanation to all the research that man has undertaken and all the evidence that has been collected?

Honestly, what is the more likely?
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution of plant life...?
« Reply #31 on: April 15, 2012, 05:47:06 PM »
Im trying to see if I can hide rock's posts but this has a lot of potential, as with plants we know pretty much all.

Cellulose/trees are easy to explain.

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evolution of plant life...?
« Reply #32 on: April 15, 2012, 06:09:49 PM »
Ok, so back to plant life.  That was my topic, let's stay on it.  How did plant life evolve?  Still no answer.

Having read this, it's quite obvious that you are just trying to 'catch out the silly Atheists'. I'll have a go at explaining it to you.

You are trying to say that as there is no 'proof' that evolution happened, it does not exist. We need to look at this proof.

Detailed records have been made throughout the study of plants and their evolution. You just have to use that magic wealth of information that God provided for you. It's called Google.

Lucifer has given a good general answer in the post above. A good more specific example backing up what he said is in England, where it's visible to see this- I've noticed evolution taking place on a smaller scale here. The alteration in our climate over the last 15 years has been such that the year is colder in the longer winters, and hotter in the shorter summers. There was a brief period around 2006 where I noted a lack of flowering plants that year, presumably the less hardy plants had died out because the harsher winter had killed them.
The survivors propagated and their seed was successful in becoming more dominant, and the more trait to be able to withstand greater temperatures was passed on. This year, there are lots more daffodils and bluebells than I remember last year, and the weather hit 0 degrees (C) last week, about 4 days after being 25 degrees. It shows that the weather extremes are now not killing off the plants.

A theists alternative explanation would be that God sent the bad weather to kill the evil daffodils, so the new ones could rise from the ashes of the previous daffodil civilisation.

It's really quite obvious to see which is actually the sensible explanation for the changes in plant population...

Thanks.  As you guys can tell, I'm very much an idiot when it comes to arguments, and I sometimes get my words mixed up when trying to explain things.  It leads to some confusion about what I'm actually saying..

I was arguing with this person for over 4 hours last night about the same thing, across multiple posts (he was following me around)  Likely because I'm not good with arguing.  I guess he needed someone to pick on that doesn't have good command of english or structuring sentences, or keeping my arguments tightly knitted and without error in typing or explaination...

By the time I was done, I simply had to point the person to google, and log out.  It was 3am.  I was tired.  I was not happy..
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evolution of plant life...?
« Reply #33 on: April 15, 2012, 06:14:25 PM »
Something quite amazing is that we've found life (bacteria) on a moon surrounding saturn

Ouch.  No, we haven't.  At this point, science is speculating that the conditions capable of supporting life might exist there, but there are too many unknowns at this point to be certain about those conditions, and we most definitely have not discovered life there.  If we had, it would arguably be the biggest news story in the history of the human race, and news outlets would be blasting it all over the place.

Please don't give ammunition to the creationists by giving out such painful misinformation.
Sorry - I think I remember an episode on TV saying that a fly-by of one of our satellites during an eruption of snow, ice, and water (this moon does that frequently) captured biological makeups as it went through it.  Credibility of source?  Probably about 75% - It was on tv...
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evolution of plant life...?
« Reply #34 on: April 15, 2012, 06:16:58 PM »
quote from rockV12:
Quote
And "NO", evolutionists aren't able to give simple, "I don't know" or "Well, it's just that way" answers.  That is the reason they hate creationists.  They need proof and logic. So give me some proof and logic about how plant life evolved.  I'm waiting...
I GAVE YOU A FREAKING LINK TO IT ON WIKIPEDIA - IT"S A GREAT FREAKING SOURCE OF INFORMATION TO START WITH - EDITED BY MOSTLY EXPERTS.  WHAT THE FUCK MORE DO YOU WANT???!!!!
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5262
  • Darwins +601/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution of plant life...?
« Reply #35 on: April 15, 2012, 06:28:07 PM »
I GAVE YOU A FREAKING LINK TO IT ON WIKIPEDIA - IT"S A GREAT FREAKING SOURCE OF INFORMATION TO START WITH - EDITED BY MOSTLY EXPERTS.  WHAT THE FUCK MORE DO YOU WANT???!!!!
What he wants is for "evolutionists" to "admit that evolution is based on belief" and that therefore "his beliefs are as valid as evolution".  But since science is based on coming up with the answer that best fits the evidence, it's not going to happen, because his beliefs are based on making the evidence fit the conclusion he's already drawn.

His posting here was never about an honest search for knowledge.  It was always based on getting additional confirmation that his beliefs are true, because for all his hyperbole, he seems to understand that he can't get additional validation from people who already believe the same as him.

So getting mad at him won't help.  He'll assume that means the same thing it would when a theist is challenged - retreating into known beliefs when they're challenged.

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evolution of plant life...?
« Reply #36 on: April 15, 2012, 06:37:57 PM »
Indeed.  Something quite amazing is that we've found life (bacteria) on a moon surrounding saturn. 

WTF are you talking about?

He's making an extremely large and embarrassing science mistake, which I've already corrected him on earlier in the thread.  I really cringed when I saw that.

http://digitaljournal.com/article/293034  I'm not making much of a mistake here, ppl...
And, I couldn't find the episode I saw on Netflix.  It may have been part of the Steven Hawkings series, but it's been removed.. .Dammit, Netflix.  There is an episode on Jupiter on netflix that does talk about the possibility and good probability of bacterial life on a moon surrounding Jupiter, however that probably wasn't what I was watching, it was called 'the universe', like ep. 6 or something..
http://www.viewsinline.com/life-leisure/whats-hot/new-findings-support-prospect-of-life-on-jupiters-moon-europa
My take is that your correction of my statement is fair - I may have taken away from the tv episode 'evidence of bacteria on Europa', while the statement was actually 'supporting evidence of bacteria-like specimens on Europa..'  Thanks for the correction.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2012, 06:58:11 PM by jeremy0 »
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution of plant life...?
« Reply #37 on: April 15, 2012, 06:40:21 PM »
This is going  to be big bang again (fossils not proof, time not proof etc). So I think I won't play. For those interested in plants, get this book:

From it you can catch the basic patterns of plant life. Locust trees are relatives of peas etc., not say evergreen trees. Cellulose is  needed to make trees. But other pants have plenty of cellulose and can  have woody  stems but never grow to trees size.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6759
  • Darwins +819/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Evolution of plant life...?
« Reply #38 on: April 15, 2012, 06:55:02 PM »
Sorry - I think I remember an episode on TV saying that a fly-by of one of our satellites during an eruption of snow, ice, and water (this moon does that frequently) captured biological makeups as it went through it.  Credibility of source?  Probably about 75% - It was on tv...

Organic compounds been detected in the water volcanos of Saturn's moon Enceladus. Along with water and salt that appears to exist in about the same concentration on that moon as it does on earth. This makes folks suspicious. Nothing in the finding confirms life, but neither do those compounds make it impossible. And the organic stuff is interesting, indeed.

The same goes for the methane on Mars. It seems to be cyclical and seasonal. More in the warmer months, less in the cool ones. Not a pattern one would think of for volcanos. But still, we don't have enough information.

We have silly channels on TV who will tell you anything. Anything that calls itself a "history" channel that then has shows on flying saucers and ancient aliens is automatically suspect. Remember that. The same goes for any "Science" channels out there. Enjoy, but know what to take what they say with a grain of salt. And organic material.  :D
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evolution of plant life...?
« Reply #39 on: April 15, 2012, 07:43:03 PM »
Thanks, Parking Places.  Another thing I was watching was called 'The Planets'  and yeah, I guess even thought it looks like scientific documentary, it is still tv and I should be taking it with a grain of salt..  And yeah, when I looked back, organic compounds was what I was meaning, instead of 'bacteria'..
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Offline Grogs

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • Darwins +11/-0
Re: Evolution of plant life...?
« Reply #40 on: April 15, 2012, 07:57:47 PM »
We have silly channels on TV who will tell you anything. Anything that calls itself a "history" channel that then has shows on flying saucers and ancient aliens is automatically suspect. Remember that. The same goes for any "Science" channels out there. Enjoy, but know what to take what they say with a grain of salt. And organic material.  :D

There used to be a time when we jokingly referred to the History Channel as the Nazi Channel because that what at least 50% of their shows focused on. At least that was history. Now it seems that 3/4 of their shows are about lumber jacks, swamp people, ice road truckers, etc. Every network seems to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator these days.  :(

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2766
  • Darwins +223/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Evolution of plant life...?
« Reply #41 on: April 16, 2012, 01:10:59 AM »
Rocky wants us to learn apologetics. I wonder which peer reviewed type we should learn? Catholic, Anglican?
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution of plant life...?
« Reply #42 on: April 16, 2012, 07:21:44 AM »
What kind of an educational system allowed someone to grow to adulthood without a basic understanding of such fundamental concepts?

I am not a scientist.  My eyes glaze over when I get to threads on this forum that parse theoretical physics. 

But natural selection is pretty basic.  My 5 year old is starting to grasp the concept, and she is starting to understand the role that natural selection has played in the evolutionary process.   

We have really failed as a society when literate adults are unable to grasp these concepts. 

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution of plant life...?
« Reply #43 on: April 16, 2012, 07:32:50 AM »
This was my surprise after turning 50. People are stupid and lazy. I would say a good 50% do not grasp the idea of evolution. DNA and code mean nothing to them. They know atoms are small. The may understand speed and acceleration. Gravity and electricity start to be too hard.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2766
  • Darwins +223/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Evolution of plant life...?
« Reply #44 on: April 16, 2012, 09:01:14 AM »
What kind of an educational system allowed someone to grow to adulthood

Someone I know, had a dental nurse, who had got through school and university, without learning English.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Evolution of plant life...?
« Reply #45 on: April 16, 2012, 11:13:46 AM »
fyi,

rockv is in the Emergency Room.  He will be released after he has competed an accpetable report on the evolution of plants, to demonstrate he understands that, against which, he argues.  You will be able to view and grade his report and make constructive criticisms of it AFTER he posts it. 

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline caveat_imperator

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 198
  • Darwins +6/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolution of plant life...?
« Reply #46 on: April 16, 2012, 01:09:00 PM »
There used to be a time when we jokingly referred to the History Channel as the Nazi Channel because that what at least 50% of their shows focused on. At least that was history. Now it seems that 3/4 of their shows are about lumber jacks, swamp people, ice road truckers, etc. Every network seems to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator these days.  :(

I can't stand those scripted 'reality' shows that are infecting TV now. I hope they die off soon.
"In the end theologians are jealous of science, for they are aware that it has greater authority than do their own ways of finding “truth”: dogma, authority, and revelation. Science does find truth, faith does not. " - Jerry Coyne

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6951
  • Darwins +941/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Evolution of plant life...?
« Reply #47 on: April 16, 2012, 04:35:26 PM »
They won't die off because they are cheap to produce and people watch them. Evolution in action.... &)
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evolution of plant life...?
« Reply #48 on: April 16, 2012, 06:52:02 PM »
Indeed.  Something quite amazing is that we've found life (bacteria) on a moon surrounding saturn. 

WTF are you talking about?
He's making an extremely large and embarrassing science mistake, which I've already corrected him on earlier in the thread.  I really cringed when I saw that.
Actually, thanks for the correction.  I had a short discussion with somebody - I went back to check my sources and we did in fact only find organic compounds and supporting evidence for life or bacteria on moons surrounding saturn and jupiter.  However, not actually finding any real biological organism like bacteria..

I'll try to think through my words before I post them from now on..  I have a habit of just typing whatever is going through my head at the moment.  Sometimes it isn't exactly or even roughly what I meant to say..  My apologies.
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6826
  • Darwins +552/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Evolution of plant life...?
« Reply #49 on: April 18, 2012, 12:20:05 PM »
Curious on how evolutionists explain the origin of plant life on earth.  How does natural selection fit into the evolution of a tree?  Or a blade of grass?  When did algae on the shores of the ocean turn into a flower or a tree?  And why?  How do we see different speciation of trees?  How did the cactus evolve?  What's the purpose of thorns?  How did the apple tree evolve?  Sure is nice to eat all the tasty fruit that evolution created for us.
I too am staggered at your questions. I have no idea of how old you are but you should be able to give basic answers to all of those questions by age 12. (If your parents are deeply Christian, you can give the answer at age 3 - "God did it.")

Here's starter answer for the bolded part of your quote.

Fossils of earliest land plants discovered in Argentina http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9079000/9079963.stm The discovery puts back by 10 million years the colonisation of land by plants, and suggests that a diversity of land plants had evolved by 472 million years ago.

Woody plants: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14543120 "The previous earliest woody plants are of Middle Devonian age (roughly 390 million years old). Our plants are of Early Devonian age, [so about] 400 million years old," explained co-author Phillipe Gerrienne, a geologist from the University of Liege, Belgium.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution of plant life...?
« Reply #50 on: April 18, 2012, 02:00:28 PM »
Are reprodction in ferns and vascular vs nonvacular plants topics covered in high school biology these days? Angiosperm and gymnosperm?

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6951
  • Darwins +941/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Evolution of plant life...?
« Reply #51 on: April 18, 2012, 03:28:19 PM »
I remember all that stuff from the 1970's. Ferns being older and simpler than seed-and fruit bearing plants and all that. And yes, they still teach it. My daughter is learning it.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4715
  • Darwins +107/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Evolution of plant life...?
« Reply #52 on: April 18, 2012, 08:47:44 PM »
Never mind plant life,we can look at the simple life forms like virus's and germs and how they "evolve" from season to season,always one step ahead of science.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evolution of plant life...?
« Reply #53 on: April 18, 2012, 09:42:26 PM »
Never mind plant life,we can look at the simple life forms like virus's and germs and how they "evolve" from season to season,always one step ahead of science.
(leading to debate on whether or not we should use flu shots vs our own immune system to combat viruses and germs..)
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evolution of plant life...?
« Reply #54 on: April 18, 2012, 11:13:12 PM »
[commentary on rockv's progress in the ER]
He seems to be wanting someone to tell him about plant life, and that he has a 'Masters of Science in _______' and has 'studied evolution all his life', and furthermore is 'warning us that when christ returns it's not our fault when the holy God comes that we didn't believe in the Creationism all around us..'  The latter statement implies that we are condemned simply for not believing in the Creation story, but rather in the 'big bang' and repeatedly mentioned things in this post.

I will add that I have Jesus by the throat with my 'almighty sword' just in case he decides to damn any of you.[1]

I guess he needs me to explain so he can then be a contributing member of this forum.  I posted a link to wikipedia.  I will now elaborate, according to what I can understand, on the evolution of plant life, which was btw clearly outlined by another member in the ER, of which the post was removed to allow rockv to answer in his own words.  I have a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, Major in Computer Information Systems.  This means I felt it unnecessary to get a Computer Science degree, and instead opted to learn a broader array of topics such as Statistics, Finance, Accounting, Management, Strategic Management, Network Administration, Database Administration, and a specialty in Computer Programming and Programming Languages...

Now I will continue..

[wikipedia - the evolution of plants - google search]
Quote
The evolution of plants has resulted in increasing levels of complexity,
Exactly according to my hypothesis stated here and elsewhere that just as you can only go forward in time and not backwards (see Steven Hawkings show as a reference to time travel possibilities and paradoxes related to it), plant life has evolved on a timescale going forward in complexity and progressing as a common form of life.  I take that point to be interesting.

Quote
from the earliest algal mats, through bryophytes, lycopods, ferns to the complex gymnosperms and angiosperms of today.
I did not learn these terms, so I'll have to look these up...
algal mats - basically algae, or microbial 'mats'.  Interesting.  We had a discussion elsewhere where I said the most commonly found type of life in the universe, taking the simplest forms, hasn't yet had a chance to evolve much past bacteria or algae.  This confirms my claim in that other thread.  Good..

Quote
Bryophyte is a traditional name used to refer to all embryophytes (land plants) that do not have true vascular tissue and are therefore called 'non-vascular plants'.[1] Some bryophytes do have specialized tissues for the transport of water; however since these do not contain lignin, they are not considered to be true vascular tissue.[2] Currently bryophytes are thought not to be a natural or monophyletic group; however the name is convenient and remains in use as a collective term for mosses, hornworts, and liverworts.
As you can see, here is possibly the case for when plant life evolved to survive on land.  To land, moss is similar to algae in water, AFAIK...  correct me if I'm wrong..

Quote
The Division Lycopodiophyta (sometimes called Lycophyta or Lycopods) is a tracheophyte subdivision of the Kingdom Plantae. It is the oldest extant (living) vascular plant division at around 410 million years old,[4]:99 and includes some of the most "primitive" extant species. These species reproduce by shedding spores and have macroscopic alternation of generations, although some are homosporous while others are heterosporous. Members of Lycopodiophyta bear a protostele, and the sporophyte generation is dominant.[5] They differ from all other vascular plants in having microphylls, leaves that have only a single vascular trace (vein) rather than the much more complex megaphylls found in ferns and seed plants.
..had to read on, this stuff is particularly interesting things that I did not know.  My oldest brother, who has just obtained a PhD in ecology, could probably tell me all about it, but eh, I can still rely on wikipedia to learn..
Quote
The members of this division have a long evolutionary history, and fossils are abundant worldwide, especially in coal deposits. In fact, most known genera are extinct. The Silurian species Baragwanathia longifolia represents the earliest identifable Lycopodiophyta, while some Cooksonia seem to be related.

Fossils ascribed to the Lycopodiophyta first appear in the Silurian period, along with a number of other vascular plants. Phylogenetic analysis places them at the base of the vascular plants; they are distinguished by their microphylls and by transverse dehiscence of their sporangia (as contrasted with longitudinal in other vascular plants). Sporangia of living species are borne on the upper surfaces of microphylls (called sporophylls). In some groups, these sporophylls are clustered into strobili.

During the Carboniferous Period, tree-like Lycopodiophyta (such as Lepidodendron) formed huge forests that dominated the landscape. The complex ecology of these tropical rainforests collapsed during the mid Pennsylvanian due to a change in climate.[9]

Unlike modern trees, leaves grew out of the entire surface of the trunk and branches, but would fall off as the plant grew, leaving only a small cluster of leaves at the top. Their remains formed many fossil coal deposits. In Fossil Park, Glasgow, Scotland, fossilized Lycopodiophyta trees can be found in sandstone. The trees are marked with diamond-shaped scars where they once had leaves.
It seems most of this type of plant life is only preserved in fossil records.  It represents the earliest known form of plant that supposedly reproduced through some other method than basic cell-splitting.  I would assume this is akin to when sea and land life started reproducing through eggs.  We all know that in a more complex organism, that organism will have living cells that die off and reproduce simply by replication.  But replicating the entire organism required another reproductive step...  this seems to indicate one such step.  A little confused at this point, but I'm not a biologist, and I can't digest so much information in 5 minutes.  But, since this is mainly only recorded in fossil records, that limits my understanding of it..
Quote
A fern is any one of a group of about 12,000 species of plants belonging to the botanical group known as Pteridophyta.[3] Unlike mosses, they have xylem and phloem (making them vascular plants). They have stems, leaves, and roots like other vascular plants. Ferns reproduce via spores and have neither seeds nor flowers.
This makes what I previously did not know perfectly clear now.  The fern was the next step in this plant-life evolutionary process.  12,000 known species is a remarkable count, so I will note that.  Stems, leaves, and roots are common characteristics of most plant life we would recognize today.  But like their predecessors, they reproduce via spores, something I thought only things like (the extremely tasty and delicious!) morel mushrooms did...   ;D
Quote
The gymnosperms are a group of seed-producing plants that includes conifers, cycads, Ginkgo, and Gnetales. The term "gymnosperm" comes from the Greek word gymnospermos (????????????), meaning "naked seeds", after the unenclosed condition of their seeds (called ovules in their unfertilized state). Their naked condition stands in contrast to the seeds or ovules of flowering plants (angiosperms), which are enclosed during pollination. Gymnosperm seeds develop either on the surface of scale- or leaf-like appendages of cones, or at the end of short stalks (Ginkgo).
I remember hearing about conifers at some point during an Associate of Arts degree in General Education during a class in biology.  I remember nothing else about it except that maybe we were studying it for photosynthesis.  Not sure there on why I remember hearing that name.  Perhaps my oldest brother uses it often..
This subgroup possesses the likely first type of seed-bearing group, a further enhancement to reproduction of plant life.  This type of seed is said to be 'naked', meaning they are not enclosed by a casing or shell.  Interesting - I did not know there were seeds that weren't enclosed.  I can think of my favorite nuts, berries, fruit, and vegetables, but I was assuming those were all encased.  I must be thinking of the next stage..
Quote
The gymnosperms and angiosperms together comprise the spermatophytes or seed plants. By far the largest group of living gymnosperms are the conifers (pines, cypresses, and relatives), followed by cycads, Gnetales (Gnetophyta, Ephedra and Welwitschia), and Ginkgo (a single living species).
Ah - now I know why I remember this.  These are like pine trees and such.  I kept hearing about junipers from my brother.  It's a type of tree that is overgrowing Texas' rangelands due to being overdominant, likely introduced by the desire to grow and sell christmas trees...

He hammers about junipers all the time - he says it provides no benefit to animal or bird habitat, and is a harmful agent to introduce into another ecosystem.  So he basically wants to irradicate junipers in North America.  I can sense his frustration on the subject all the time.  It reproduces by dropping its seeds (the pine tree's cone things), especially and specifically when it burns to a certain temperature.  This is seen in Yellowstone National Park.  These guys do prescribed burns to protect the habitat - that is my brother's speciality.  It's interesting that this type of seed 'opens up' and deposits into the soil at certain temperatures, and he commonly states that Indians used to burn acres and acres of land all across the midwest and southern regions..
Quote
The flowering plants (angiosperms), also known as Angiospermae or Magnoliophyta, are the most diverse group of land plants.[citation needed] Angiosperms are seed-producing plants like the gymnosperms and can be distinguished from the gymnosperms by a series of synapomorphies (derived characteristics). These characteristics include flowers, endosperm within the seeds, and the production of fruits that contain the seeds.

The ancestors of flowering plants diverged from gymnosperms around 245–202 million years ago, and the first flowering plants known to exist are from 140 million years ago. They diversified enormously during the Lower Cretaceous and became widespread around 100 million years ago, but replaced conifers as the dominant trees only around 60–100 million years ago.
And now we are to flowering plants.  It is my assumption that most veggies, fruits, nuts, and berries fall into this category, as they usually produce a 'flower' before producing the resulting 'thingy' .. excuse any sarcasm - I may be making an incorrect assumption.  Flowering plants are pollinated by insects, like bees.  The decline of bees recently, as unexpected and expected as it is, may be a drastic disturbance in flowering plants..

However, here is the evolution of plant life, as we know it, in order, simply by following just the brief descriptions in my post pointing to wikipedia.  I learned a little bit in the past 15 minutes looking into this.  Now I think I understand my PhD-edimicated brother a little bit better, and now I know why my twin had such a fascination with plant life or biology.  They both love this kind of stuff.

As for me, my attraction was math instead of science.  Now all I can do is read about it online and watch it on shows.  As fascinating as it is to me now, it's too late to make a career change, and I'm probably in a good career for me anyway..

See how simple that is?  Now it's your turn, rockv.  You will not be banned for doing a little research.  You can still post in this forum - people like a good open discussion....






[1] supernatural sarcasm, of course..
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evolution of plant life...?
« Reply #55 on: April 18, 2012, 11:24:04 PM »
One correction already - the term used to describe a species of plant that doesn't belong and is overly dominant is termed 'invasive species'.  The africanized honey bee or certain types of ants can also be termed an 'invasive species'.  So too can dominant species that don't belong in the natural habitat of an ecosystem, after being introduced to said ecosystem..
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evolution of plant life...?
« Reply #56 on: April 18, 2012, 11:28:52 PM »
Another clarification - it was my 'hypothesis' that dna sequences could only progress, not 'de-evolve' like creationists would like to tell you...

This is simply due to the properties of space-time.  You can only go forward in time, therefore, dna only progresses.  Progression in complexity is irrelevant, as complexity is a generic term.  But now we're getting into physics and to stay on topic, if you mapped the dna of all known plant life, this would make perfect sense.  Also, we hit certain 'dooms-day' scenarios during the evolution of life on earth, which may have had us hitting Nintendo's 'reset button'...
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evolution of plant life...?
« Reply #57 on: April 19, 2012, 12:26:17 AM »
Or, rockv, since in the posts you made you seem particularly unhappy about addressing plant life, you could do something like this, as asked in the ER..

I said earlier I know about Finance.  I had some training, and have studied it.  I'll now give all of you a lesson in retirement...

401K - is it good to do?  Or an IRA?  The answer is - do both.  At least with a 401K, even though it's common that you'll likely get junk investments, you will always come out on top with money if your company matches 50% of what you put in (usually 6% of your salary).  Then, as you switch jobs, put it in a Roth IRA when you have an opportunity that gets you out of your 401K at a comfortable position in your investments..  This is so you're not taking market value should you get canned and forced to move your money, and also keeps you in some form of investment portfolio that is healthier, and can be carried over after each employment opportunity.

Now, how to invest?  The answer is, invest about 25-50% in stocks, not the full amount.  The reason is, stocks are risky - and that should be noted.  Stocks are a trade system - the money only exchanges hands.  This creates winners and losers, meaning there is no mistake that only 25% of baby-boomers, relying completely on stock-based 401K, can actually retire on their own money.  Forget the commercials you hear.  Invest the rest in things like bonds, CDs, T-bills, anything that generates you more of a guaranteed and sound rate of return.  This affectively 'blends' your portfolio. 

There is a good retirement calculator out there that some company put out that advises the same at the end.  it gives you a probability and success rate of retirement based on not only how much money to put in over time, but how to invest it in a smart manner..

That calculator can be found here - http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/retirementplanner/retirementplanner.jsp

Also, when investing with stocks, especially with a Roth IRA you'll find vastly more options than your 401K.  It opens up a majority of the rest of the world to you.  I say Roth, because taxes are only going to go up by speculation and reasoning, so you're better off on paying the taxes now rather than when you pull your money when you retire..

Back to the topic of stocks - you have a better chance if you invest in stocks from companies or industries that you have special and specific knowledge in.  For example - I have expert knowledge in the Technology Industry.  Therefore, I can make wise decisions when investing in the tech market.  This is because I usually have in-depth knowledge of each company and what they are actually doing, what their actual cash positions are, what move they might make next, the viability of the company, etc.  Also, don't be quick to sell when the stock is going down.  You make your money off of stocks based on what price you buy, and then what price you sell.  Read the news often - every day - to keep up with what is going on.  Stocks generally follow business, political, and economic news.  You should only sell a stock that is losing money if you expect it will totally crash and not rebound past the point at which you purchased your shares.  You can easily tell if you don't know by going to finance.yahoo.com, which has a good amount of information on each company you invest in, and also gives analyst opinions, which will average to a 'sell, sell, sell', 'dive, dive, dive' rating by analysts if the stock is expected to crash..

Additionally, when you invest in stocks keep in mind and play the market fluctuations.  I commonly wait for stocks to be undervalued by regular market fluctuation before I buy - because I know by historical rates that it is below what I expect it to become at a later point - and then sell it when I am making a return that I like.  (I typically made a 10% target return before selling most of my stocks, regardless of what the market was doing.  Then I would wait for market variability to make the stocks undervalued again)

Now, for other than stocks, you'll not only be doing yourself some good with some guaranteed cash, but also the economy as a whole.  Now I will switch over to a brief on Economics.

In a post regarding 'conservatism', in which I stated they were 'messing with my zen thing, man..', I stated an alternate solution to the stock market as a way to retire.  I also stated that me and my economics professor had an argument.  His position was that it doesn't matter if the rich has all of the money or ends up with the vast majority of the money, as long as it is 'out there'.  I argued that the rich would likely be using most of their money investing in stocks, or sitting in offshore bank accounts.  This money is not moving through the economy.  It is either sitting in some other country or being 'traded' - stocks aren't actually used for anything except exchanging mostly rich hands unless the company 'issues stock'.  Issuing stock recently became pointless, around the late 70s - how many times have you recognized that an IPO (initial public offering) was done at a time when the business already was largely profitable and didn't need the money?  Stocks were originally a way for a company to gain cash and capital in order to innovate.  Now that's not the case, as I also mentioned in that post...

So I was exactly right in that moving the retirement dollars out of the stock market and into things like banks and government securities because it is getting used for something and does this task - it moves the money through the economy and creates a healthier financial system.  Such a retirement system solves a number of hot-topic items that are an issue in our country today, with regards to politics, financial stability, and economic stability.  It would have been a wise political move...

There you have it.  A brief lesson that educates some of you in Finance and Economics.  Can you give it a try, rockv?
« Last Edit: April 19, 2012, 12:31:24 AM by jeremy0 »
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."