+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 53
Latest: Jesuscepsy
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 16220
Total Topics: 264
Most Online Today: 4
Most Online Ever: 201
(December 08, 2019, 11:34:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Author Topic: The Fabulous Plant Kingdom  (Read 2460 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33009
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: The Fabulous Plant Kingdom
« Reply #15 on: July 17, 2017, 01:32:19 pm »
This looks like a plant you don’t want to mess with — especially if you’re an insect. Image credits: Monika

Agelbert NOTE: The Venus Flytrap is one of those irreducibly complex life forms that only survives when ALL of its subsystems are working perfectly AND the life forms it eats are available. This is a plant that eats mostly bugs, but isn't particular as to what it attempts to digest inside its exposed stomachs.  ;D

The evolutionist true believers never seem to be concerned with the alleged "fact" that the prey of this plant apparently "evolved" millions, if not billions, of years AFTER the plant did.

If these worshipers of Darwin's atheist fantasies had an ounce of integrity, they would, either question evolution as a viable scientific theory, or question the even more thorny issue for them of the possibility that the "millions and millions of years" thing doesn't fit with the evidence.

But, they are not prone to questioning their pet theories. no matter how irrational.  


Enjoy he article, but always take the "evolution" word, that seems to be mandatory in most science articles (included to avoid being attacked for "heresy" against Holy Darwin  ;)), with a hefty grain of salt.   



Plant Files: The Venus Flytrap

LAST UPDATED ON JULY 5TH, 2017 AT 8:37 PM BY MIHAI ANDREI

The carnivorous Venus flytrap is one of the most interesting and bizarre plants in the world. It evolved specifically to trap and digest insects, and we only recently learned just how it does that. Let’s have a look.

Contents

1 What is the Venus flytrap
2 The trap
3 Buy and grow a Venus flytrap
4 Venus flytrap facts


What is the Venus flytrap

The Venus flytrap, or Dionaea muscipula, is a plant native to the subtropical wetlands on the East Coast of the United States. Like other carnivorous plants, it developed this way because it grows in nutrient-poor soil and can’t support itself through photosynthesis alone. It needed to complement its diet, so it turned predatory.   

The plant has one leaf which basically turned into a trap, with two jaws that can shut quickly and strongly, rendering any insect unfortunate enough to wander into the trap unable to exit. The insects are then slowly digested and absorbed by the plant, which incredibly , manages to do all this without a nervous system, muscles, or a stomach! More on that a bit later.

The plant itself is quite small, so there’s no risk of damage to larger creatures, though it looks quite intimidating in its own right. The flytrap can exhibit several variations in shape and size, but all of them look quite similarly relative to each other. If you kneel next to one or have a close look, you’ll see a circular arrangement of four to seven flat green stalks. These stalks do perform photosynthesis, but that’s not enough to get the plant going. Even with the extra digested insects, the plant grows very slowly.

The trap
The trap! Notice the small, dark hairs on the inside? That’s where all the magic happens. Image credits: Noah Elhardt.

Without a doubt, the most interesting part about the Venus flytrap is the trap itself. The trap is a modified leaf: a hinged midrib, secreting sap to attract insects. Glands on the leaf also secret enzymes which help digest and absorb nutrients from the insects. The rims of each lobe flair out in a curved row of spikes to prevent the prey from escaping. Interestingly, the spikes are designed in such a way that they permit the escape of smaller prey. This is likely because there’s not enough incentive to eat very small insects — there’s just not enough “meat” to them. In fact, it’s been often documented that the plant actually releases smaller insects. Since trapping and digesting are quite taxing processes, it probably doesn’t want to invest all that effort if the reward is not big enough.

When the plant senses an insect, it shuts down in less than 0.1 seconds — but how does it shut down so fast, and how does it sense insects in the first place?

The two questions are actually interconnected. The inside of the trap is lined with a few sensitive hairs, with a bit of distance between them. If you only touch one of them, like a raindrop would do, for instance, nothing happens. Even if you touch several of them but only once (and that’s once every 20 seconds), nothing happens. You need to touch several of them more than once in 20 seconds (as a scurrying insect would) to shut the trap.

Agelbert NOTE: Read the full interesting article at the link below. I apologize for intruding upon your reading at this point, but, as you noticed  ;D, I increased the font size on that "20 second" plant reaction time frame mentioned above so you could ponder, at your leisure, the LACK of discussion in the article as to how such a precise bit of selective GROUP timing (several hairs have to be stimulated simultaneously for the thing to work) could "evolve" in one generation of a previously non-functional predatory mechanism (to avoid the entire species going extinct from natural selection), never mind a few million years.

This plant WILL NOT SURVIVE without PRECISE timing DESIGNED to capture insects BASED on the anatomy, physiology AND BEHAVIOR under stress, of said insects. The evolutionary true believers just never want to GO where the science ACTUALLY leads them.

THIS IS WHY, NO MATTER HOW MUCH PROOF YOU PRESENT TO THEM, THEY WILL NOT ACCEPT THAT THEY ARE WRONG:


But at least they are honest about describing what they actually know about the biochemistry of this plant's predatory behavior. We must be thankful for small favors. 8)


http://www.zmescience.com/science/venus-flytrap/

Darwin loved predators and their "freedom" (in his atheistic morality free world view) to DO what they DO, which despite much modern Darwin apologist yammering to the contrary, was what his "survival of the fittest" meme was REALLY all about  .

Darwin had it backwards. Apex predators have since been recognized to be the LEAST adaptable of species because they depend on prey species populations that need to be several times as numerous (and adaptable) as the predators. The apex predators are the FIRST to die off (as evidenced by the most impacted species in this Sixth Mass Extinction) when resources are lacking, making an appropriate and well deserved mockery of Darwin's theory. 

It is ironic that he admired a plant that is a testament to finely tuned, DESIGNED complexity that only works when prey, TOTALLY unrelated to the plant's biology, is available. The amazing BALONEY about  a PLANT, "deciding" to turn bug predator because, uh, the "soil was poor", is an excellent example of fairy tales pushed as "science" by the Darwinian true believers.    


This is another try by AG to prove God exists, rfering to the Venus flytrap;

Quote
AG: This plant WILL NOT SURVIVE without PRECISE timing DESIGNED to capture insects BASED on the anatomy, physiology AND BEHAVIOR under stress, of said insects.

Evidence ?

The whole point is Darwinian Evolution proceeds thru a series of small variations , each one being selected by the survival filter in a war of competition with the insects. So Botanists know how the trigering mechanism works - by hydraulic pressure.  Look it up.  The digestive juices part is very simple - any strong enough acid will digest an insect.  Eating of insects by plants has evolved many times in different lineages.

This is a photo of Drosera spathulata, growing on the edge of my driveway:



It doesn't cage the insect at all but merely catches it in a sticky secretion. The leaves then very slowly fold over it, again by hydraulic pressure. The plants don't have to "think' about evolving, they just do what their DNA says to do, and then allow selection to decide.

As for the insects not having evolved yet for millions of years, what is your evidence for that? It is just an unsubstantiated (and wrong) statement.

Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_(biology)
The main Divisions of land plants, in the order in which they probably evolved, are the Marchantiophyta (liverworts), Anthocerotophyta (hornworts), Bryophyta (mosses), Filicophyta (ferns), Sphenophyta (horsetails), Cycadophyta (cycads), Ginkgophyta (ginkgo)s, Pinophyta (conifers), Gnetophyta (gnetophytes), and the Magnoliophyta (Angiosperms, flowering plants). The flowering plants now dominate terrestrial ecosystems, comprising 80% of vascular plant species.

The Ginko is the only living species in the division Ginkgophyta, all others being extinct.

How interesting that you mention the Ginko. I'll get to that in a minute. 

Evidence of extinct life forms is not now, or ever was, proof of anything except that said life forms are extinct, period.  The ones that survived are still here. End of story.

Here's one, that you just happened to mention in passing  ;), that the plant eating dinosaurs, while they were being bitten by mosquitoes (identical to the ones that sting us today) and buzzed by over sized dragonflies (but otherwise IDENTICAL to modern dragonflies) must have enjoyed. They are using the fossils to determine Carbon Dioxide content in ancient atmospheres when the earth had no ice caps.  ;D

How did they do it? ??? They found "200 million year old" fossils of a plant called a Ginko, that did NOT "evolve" AT ALL  ;D, all the way to the present (leaf structure is identical to modern Ginko leaves).

Permian Ginko leaf fossil on left  - Modern Ginko Leaf on right Scientists are counting pores to determine atmospheric CO2 content

I took Botany and Zoology in college, so please skip the lectures. Angiosperms are supposed to have "evolved" after gymnosperms (translated as naked seeds).8) There is now abundant evidence this is NOT so. Your use of the word "probably" is appropriately placed because you are dealing with speculation, not empirical evidence. So, until you provide me evidence that the Venus Flytrap did NOT exist at the same time the gymnosperms did, your argument cannot go beyond the "probably" stage.

But that is just part of the problem you have. Your main difficulty is that, according to your "no creator" Procrustean Bed ideology, EVERYTHING that lives must have reached whatever position it happens to have in the biosphere by mere chance. THAT is why you require millions and millions of years to lift a predatory finger to eat an ant.

The idea of design in nature gives you hives.  ;D I understand, gaspadine. You don't DO God so you need a plausible replacement. Your hero Darwin would be embarrassed to see how his loyal ideologues in modern times turn verbal pretzel cartwheels to avoid admitting irreducible complexity exists AND/OR that irreducible complexity equals design.

There is ZERO evidence that insects "evolved" (the yaba-daba-do about "primitive wasps, mosquitoes, ants and so on is ENTIRELY speculative because the "transition" fossils for insects ARE NOT THERE, though a straw grasping example of fossils they CLAIM are "transition" bugs, though few and far between, are trotted out as "proof" ), but ample evidence that plants were here long before they were. Look it up. Even the evolutionist true believers agree on that basic bit of scientific knowledge of paleo flora and fauna, which you apparently lack.

As for your assertion about plants not needing to think, that's irrelevant. Of course they DO what their DNA tells them to. BUT your "they got there gradually" (over millions and millions of year, according to you)
 assertion, which interestingly avoids discussion of the 20 second group effect to trigger a less than one second rapid closure, it is mere speculation without a shred of evidence. Spare the "convergent evolution" hypothesis. There is ZERO evidence for that too. It's just a verbal fig leaf to explain too nonrandom unrelated species cooperation.

But if you want to tack about "evolutionary advantages", which require you to believe the fantasy that they come about randomly and, of course  :evil4:, gradually (see: millions of years needed to statistically fit the "random success" meme  ;)) through "successful" mutations, then you really aught to study the woodpecker.  Yes, I'm sure the woodpecker cranium and bone tissue will bore you to tears, but it, like the Venus Flytrap system, requires everything to work, or nothing does.

You see, gaspadine, the woodpecker COULD NOT SURVIVE a single generation if it could not sense the location of a particular insect under the bark of a certain type of tree. That ability is, also, totally unrelated to it's beak and head anatomy and physiology, yet functions, in conjunction with the woodpecker neck muscles, eye design (UNIQUELY formed so they don't pop out from the G forces, as they would in any other animal but a woodpecker), and cranial bone strength as an irreducibly complex system for the purpose of successful predation. The bug that the woodpecker craves just happens to live under some rather hard bark. To hole that bark in search of that bug requires a a beak attached to a head that can impact said bark at several g-forces (that no other living creature but the woodpecker can survive  ;D).

But I understand your reluctance to take absolutely anything I say seriously (see below). No matter the mount of reasonable and logical arguments I make and no matter how much empirical evidence I present to you that makes a mockery of the theory of evolution, you will claim my argument is flawed. And that's when you are in a good mood. Normally you just go out of your way to deride, ridicule, disdain and generally ad hominem the messenger instead of admitting you are the one that is NOT providing a shred of evidence for your Darwinian atheist IDEOLOGY. 

Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

 

+-Recent Topics

Experts Knew a Pandemic Was Coming. Here’s What They’re Worried About Next. by Surly1
May 12, 2020, 07:46:22 am

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
May 12, 2020, 07:40:17 am

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 11:47:35 pm

Money by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 11:27:30 pm

Creeping Police State by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:35:38 pm

COVID-19 🏴☠️ Pandemic by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:19:30 pm

Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:07:28 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 09:54:48 pm

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 09:10:24 pm

Intelligent Design by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 06:38:41 pm