The pigment causing the orange hues of a bird-of-paradise flower sepals (main pic) is even more intense in the waxy hairs on the outside of its seed (right). Article images and caption.
Posted on 12/05/2018 8:18:47 AM PST by fishtank
Bird-of-paradise flower pigment surprise. The ‘animal-only’ pigment bilirubin is discovered in plants
by David Catchpoole
Aside from the widely recognized shape of their flowers, which resemble the head of a tropical bird, bird-of-paradise plants (Strelitzia spp.) are admired for their vibrant floral coloration. The brilliant orange is even more intense on the furry outside of their seeds, and is able to persist for decades,1 unlike most plant pigments, which degrade rapidly after cell death.
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
The pigment causing the orange hues of a bird-of-paradise flower sepals (main pic) is even more intense in the waxy hairs on the outside of its seed (right). Article images and caption.
bbb
Bird-of-paradise flower pigment surprise. The ‘animal-only’ pigment bilirubin is discovered in plants
uh yeah, this “surprise” discovery occurred eight years ago:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100908160356.htm
Which proves a common ancestry......
Yep. Here’s another article that goes into detail and why the discovery is not all that surprising.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5446451/
Fishtank’s article is another example of some Christians doing damage to their religion.
So what is an “animal only” pigment doing in plants?
Do-do Brown
Not all that surprising, given the chemical relatedness of hemoglobin and chlorophyll.
Maybe they only grow over dead people.
Whomever made that "designation" was ignorant to the facts at hand regarding this pigment.
From Science Daily:
“Previously thought to be an ‘animal-only’ pigment”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100908160356.htm
Definition of “pigment” is already known and established.
Definition of “animal-only” is self evident.
Guess we can assume it's NOT an 'animal only' pigment...
Chemical similarity would be a more accurate description than chemical relatedness.
May the bird of paradise fly up your nose.
I agree. For the scientific establishment to change their assumption from “animal-only” to “not animal-only” would be reasonable given the specifics of this case.
It would be reasonable on a general level as well, given the fact that the assumptions of science are very often changed by empirical necessity.
You're right reasonisfaith - if that wasn't the case it would be 'religion' not 'science'...
No, that’s not quite an accurate statement because the principle of changing particular assumptions based on empirical findings applies to religion as well as to science.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.