Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: furball4paws
Often plant evolution is given the short end of the stick.

Just so you know, Speciation does briefly discuss some radishes and their flowers in work done a few years ago. It's not like it ignores plants.

The ones who ignore plants are the evolutionists who seem to mostly ignore that completely different mechanisms would be needed for the inception and evolution of plants as opposed to animals. E.g. you suggest that plants came first. But if plants need insects to pollinate to reproduce, isn't this a problem?

ML/NJ

18 posted on 02/26/2005 6:08:42 PM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: ml/nj

"Just so you know, Speciation does briefly discuss some radishes and their flowers in work done a few years ago. It's not like it ignores plants.

The ones who ignore plants are the evolutionists who seem to mostly ignore that completely different mechanisms would be needed for the inception and evolution of plants as opposed to animals. E.g. you suggest that plants came first. But if plants need insects to pollinate to reproduce, isn't this a problem?"

How much of the biosphere is plants? Now you see why I say short end of the stick.

That plants were the first to invade dry land is an inescapable fact from fossil evidence. BUT - those early plants were not seed plants (they came much later), so pollination was not a problem. Even today many angiosperms and gymnosperms reproduce without the aid of living pollinators - the wind or water is sufficient, or the male and female parts of the plants are right next to each other.


19 posted on 02/26/2005 6:18:26 PM PST by furball4paws (It's not the cough that carried him off - it's the coffin they carried him off in (O. Nash -I think))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: ml/nj

not all plants need bugs to sexually reproduce.

IIRC, the fossil record indicates that primitive flowering plants (angiosperms?) hit the scene @150million years ago... in the late JURASSIC.

by contrast: that same fossil record indicates that large and complex land and sea plants were the dominant form of life in the Carboniferous era 300-odd million years ago.


20 posted on 02/26/2005 6:56:13 PM PST by King Prout (Remember John Adam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: ml/nj
'\evolutionists who seem to mostly ignore that completely different mechanisms would be needed for the inception and evolution of plants as opposed to animals.

Say what? Evolutionists "mostly ignore" this, because they mostly don't think it's so. The official tree of life makes plants and animals out to be close kissing cousins, being both of the multi-cellular pursuasion. And, incidently, in that their basic reproductive machinery is virtually the same, and a radical departure from their closest cousins: look up miosis and mitosis.

28 posted on 02/27/2005 2:29:06 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: ml/nj; furball4paws
you suggest that plants came first.

He did not. He suggested plants preceeded animals in emerging from the sea onto the land.

29 posted on 02/27/2005 2:38:24 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: ml/nj
,i>But if plants need insects to pollinate to reproduce, isn't this a problem?

No. Why do you assume that early plants must use the same mechanism (insects) as modern ones?

67 posted on 02/25/2006 7:00:30 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson