+- +-

+-User

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

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 39
Latest: robbrogers
New This Month: 1
New This Week: 1
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 7577
Total Topics: 220
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 48
(June 03, 2014, 03:09:30 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: The Fabulous Plant Kingdom  (Read 1198 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: The Fabulous Plant Kingdom
« Reply #15 on: May 21, 2015, 10:58:21 pm »
Sequoia sempervirens

Where Is the Tallest Tree in the World?

As of 2015, the world's tallest tree is "Hyperion," located in Redwood National Park, in California. It was discovered in 2006 by hikers Chris Atkins and Michael Taylor. The tree is a coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) and it is 379 feet 4 inches (115.62 meters) tall. The exact location of the Hyperion is not known, however. Scientists are keeping the location of Hyperion secret in order to protect it.


Coast redwoods grow mostly in California and California's forests and state parks are believed to be home to the largest trees in the world. Another redwood, Del Norte Titan, is located in Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park in California. This tree is so large that if the tree were to be cut into planks, it could build 120 houses.

More about trees and plants:

•Plants absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen during the day, and absorb oxygen and release carbon dioxide at night. They release far more oxygen than they absorb.

•The origin of the word "tree" is "tre" from Old English. "Forest" comes from the old French word "foresta" which meant "woodland."

•Two mature trees produce enough oxygen to fulfill the annual oxygen needs of four people.
 

http://www.wisegeek.com/where-is-the-tallest-tree-in-the-world.htm
« Last Edit: February 17, 2016, 06:58:39 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: The Fabulous Plant Kingdom
« Reply #16 on: October 01, 2015, 12:18:03 am »
A Decade of Pacific Phytoplankton Blooms
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: The Fabulous Plant Kingdom
« Reply #17 on: November 05, 2015, 03:08:33 pm »
https://youtu.be/Bpqm21irxiU

Curved Lines Produce More 

Quote
Why does a tree not produce a leaf that's square?

 It's to maximize the edge. You will get more production out of a curved line than a straight line.

Permaculture is fascinating in that it teaches us to look at nature's non- linear systems, and understand the basic underlying patterns of natural phenomena.

In the example of an oak leaf we find a pattern that allows for maximum accessibility and minimum amount of path. Maximum edge means maximum use of pattern.

Planting in circles instead of rows is a practical use of this concept.

 --Bibi Farber
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: The Fabulous Plant Kingdom
« Reply #20 on: February 17, 2016, 07:05:44 pm »
Richard Evans Schultes (1915-2001)
Posted on February 17, 2016 by wordpress   
]

Richard Evans Schultes (1915-2001) was probably the greatest explorer of the Amazon, and regarded among anthropologists and seekers alike as the “father of ethnobotany.”

Taking what was meant to be a short leave from Harvard in 1941, he surveyed the Amazon basin almost continuously for twelve years, during which time he lived among two dozen different Indian tribes, mapped rivers, secretly sought sources of rubber for the US government during WWII, and collected and classified 30,000 botanical specimens, including 2,000 new medicinal plants.

During this interview conducted on December 15, 1990, he looked back on his expeditions to the Amazon.


This entry was posted in Ethnobotany, Interviews, Medicine, Mind, Resources, Videos. Bookmark the permalink.

http://plantwisdom.org/richard-evans-schultes-1915-2001/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: The Fabulous Plant Kingdom
« Reply #21 on: May 10, 2017, 09:15:57 pm »
What Plants Talk About (Full Documentary)

Published on Feb 28, 2014

When we think about plants, we don't often associate a term like "behavior" with them, but experimental plant ecologist JC Cahill wants to change that. The University of Alberta professor maintains that plants do behave and lead anything but solitary and sedentary lives. What Plants Talk About teaches us all that plants are smarter and much more interactive than we thought!       


Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: The Fabulous Plant Kingdom
« Reply #22 on: July 16, 2017, 06:12:22 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)

Quote
So, after an insect touches the trap twice in less than 20 seconds, sensitive hairs on the inside send an electric signal changing cellular water pressure in the lobes, shutting down the trap. The plant is then digested, and the trap only opens to reveal a digested exoskeleton.


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


Quote
“This plant, commonly called Venus’ fly-trap, is one of the most wonderful in the world.”  Darwin in Insectivorous Plants(1875)
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.    

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: The Fabulous Plant Kingdom
« Reply #23 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. 

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: The Fabulous Plant Kingdom
« Reply #24 on: July 17, 2017, 05:24:38 pm »
The Venus Flytrap: A Major Enigma for Evolution  ;D

December 2, 2014

Quote
Among the wonders of the natural world are plants that eat animals, and the best known example is the Venus flytrap Dionaea muscipula. In Charles Darwin’s book on insectivorous plants, he described the plant and its ingenious design in great detail, but did not offer even a clue about its possible evolution (Darwin, 1896, pp. 286-320). He even called the plant “one of the most wonderful plants in the world” (p. 286).

This carnivorous plant is found growing in peaty sandy soil mainly in one small place, the extreme far east coast of North Carolina (Schnell, 2003, p. 85). It catches its prey, mostly ants, beetles, spiders and other crawling arachnids, with a complex, well designed, mitt-shaped trapping mechanism located at the terminal portion of the plant’s leaf (Ellison, 2006; Ellison and Gotelli, 2009).

The trap is triggered by tiny hairs on the mitt’s surface. When an insect or spider brushes against one of its six hairs, the trap closes, but normally only if a different hair is contacted within twenty to forty seconds of the first one (Schnell, 2003, p. 90). The redundant triggering requirement serves as a safeguard against wasting energy due to closing from stimuli such as rain, dust or wind. Truly, this is a finely tuned system.

The Trapping Mechanism

The Venus flytrap is one of a small group of plants capable of rapid response to stimuli, including the legume Mimosa (sensitive plant) which folds its compound leaves inward in response to touch ,  the legume Desmodium motorium (telegraph plant) which moves small lateral leaflets in order to sample the sun’s intensity so that an associated large leaf can orient itself in the best light, Drosera (sundews) which catch insects with sticky fluid and then bends projecting tentacles around the prey to hold it fast and digest it, and Utricularia (bladderworts) which develop tiny bladders under water. When attached trigger hairs are brushed by a tiny aquatic animal, a trap door swings up and the victim is sucked in by the vacuum in the interior cavity. The trap door snaps shut and the victim is digested.

The trap closing mechanism in Venus flytrap involves a complex interaction between elasticity, turgor, and growth. To help attract prey, the plant’s flytrap secretes sugars and other attractants. In the open, un-tripped state, the trap lobes are convex (bent outwards) but concave (bent inwards) in the closed state, forming a small cavity (Williams, 2002). The complex mechanism and biochemistry used to trigger the rapid closing—about a tenth of a second—is still poorly understood (Sarfati, 2007).

It is known that when the trigger hairs are stimulated, an action potential, mostly involving calcium ions, is generated.  A threshold of ion buildup is required for the Venus flytrap to react (Ueda, 2010). To cause rapid closure of their trap walls hydrogen ions are moved into the individual cells, lowering the pH. This causes them to swell rapidly by allowing water to flow into the cells, which changes the trap lobe’s shape, resulting in the trap’s closure.

One extensive Harvard University study of the trapping mechanism concluded the question that motivated Darwin’s life work, namely how did the mechanism evolve, is still unresolved. The study documented that these plants are nature’s ultimate hydraulic engineers (Forterre, et. al, 2005, p. 421).

Proposed Evolutionary History

The carnivorous diet, a very specialized form of feeding, is used by only a very few plant kinds living in soil poor in nutrients. Evolutionists theorize that their carnivorous traps evolved to allow these organisms to survive in harsh environments. The “snap trap” mechanism characteristic of Venus flytrap is shared with only one other carnivorous plant genus, the aquatic and unusual Aldrovanda, a relationship thought by evolutionists to be due to convergent evolution. Another proposal is that both Venus flytrap and Aldrovanda snap traps evolved from a flypaper trap similar to the living  Drosera regia.

The model proposes that plant snap-traps evolved from the flypaper traps driven by natural selection for larger prey size, thereby providing the plant with more nutrients. The problem is that large insects can more easily escape the sticky mucilage of flypaper traps. Evolution of the snap-trap mechanism would prevent both escape and kleptoparasitism, theft of captured prey from the plant before it can derive benefits from it. It would also permit a more complete digestion (Gibson and Waller, 2009).

Faster closing allows less reliance on the flypaper model, thus larger insects, instead of flying to the trap, usually walk over to the traps, and are more likely to break free from sticky glands. Therefore, a plant with wider leaves, like Drosera falconeri, is theorized to have evolved a trap design that maximizes its chance of capturing and retaining such prey. Once adequately “wrapped,” escape is far more difficult.

Ultimately, the plant relied more in closing around the insect rather than using stickiness. Thus something like sundew might eventually lose its original function altogether, and in so doing develop the trap “teeth” and trigger hairs, which evolutionists claim are examples of natural selection hijacking pre-existing structures for new functions. At some point in its evolutionary history, the plant would have to develop the complex digestive gland system inside the trap, rather than using dew on the stalks for this purpose, further differentiating it from the Drosera genus.

The theory that Venus flytrap evolved from an ancestral carnivorous plant that used a sticky trap instead of a snap trap seems logical, but is not based on evidence. The theory is the sticky leaf traps consume many smaller, aerial insects, and the Venus flytrap consumes a few larger terrestrial bugs, which then allow it to extract more nutrients from these larger bugs. The claim is this gives Dionaea an advantage over their ancestral sticky trap form (Gibson and Waller, 2009). The problem with this theory is that both plants survive quite well, and both obtain close to the same total amount of needed nutrients. Another problem is the plant would have to, not only evolve the trapping mechanism, but also would have to completely redesign the flypaper system, including loss of the complex adhesive used to trap the insects.

Some molecular evidence indicates a close relationship between snap traps and fly-paper traps (Cameron, et al., 2002, p. 1503). However, evaluation of a few genes, as used in this study, tells us very little about evolutionary relationships. Scores of genes are normally regulated as a set to produce a trait, requiring both comparisons of hundreds of genes as well as comparisons of many plants. This entire account is a just-so story which is not based on fossil or other evidence. The split second nature of the trapping method is too precise to have developed spontaneously.

The major difficulty for evolution is the trap system would not allow for obtaining food until all of the essential parts were functional and in place. It would seem that, given the Venus flytrap’s very short root system, natural selection would select for a much larger and deeper root system rather than evolve an enormously complex trapping system that is still not fully understood today in spite of decades of scientific research.

The total lack of fossil evidence concerning the many steps that would link Venus flytrap and their common ancestor such as Drosera, is explained away by rationalizing that carnivorous plants are generally herbs that do not readily form fossilizable structures, such as thick bark or wood. Therefore, evolutionists must extrapolate an evolutionary history from studies of extant genera (Gibson and Waller, 2009). The problem with this speculation is the soft parts of plants, such as leaves, are very abundant in the fossil record (Zhou, 2003).

A major dilemma for evolution is that the Venus flytrap plant can thrive quite well in its natural habitat of moist peat moss without ever consuming insects. Botanist George Howe regulated their diet by using large glass jars to prevent the plant’s accidental consumption of insects (Howe, 1978, p. 40).  Since the plant is able to obtain all of the nutrients it requires from the soil and atmosphere, Charles Darwin’s idea for the natural selection mechanism essential to his concept of evolution is, in this case, based on a totally erroneous foundation. Obviously the Venus flytrap did not evolve, but was beautifully designed for its role in the ecosystem.

 
References

Cameron, Kenneth M. et al. 2002. American Journal of Botany, 89(9): 1503–1509.

Darwin, Charles. 1896. Insectivorous Plants. New York: Appleton.

Ellison, Aaron M. 2006. Biology, 8:740–747.

Ellison, Aaron M. and N.J. Gotelli. 2009. Experimental Botany, 60(1):19-42.

Forterre, Yoël et al. 2005. Nature, 433(7024):421-425, January 27.

Gibson, T. C. and D. M. Waller. 2009. New Phytologist, 183(3): 575–587.

Howe, George. 1978. Creation Research Society Quarterly, 15(1):39-40, June.

Sarfati, Jonathan. 2007. Creation, 29(4):36-37, September-November.

Schnell, Donald. 2003. Carnivorous Plants of the United States and Canada. Portland, OR. Timber Press. Second Edition.

Ueda, Minoru. 2010. ChemBioChem. Wiley.

Williams, S. E. 2002. Proceedings of the 4th International Carnivorous Plant Society Conference. Tokyo pp. 77-81.

Zhou, Zhonghe, et al. 2003. Nature. 421: 807-814. February, 20.

 http://www.create.ab.ca/the-venus-flytrap-a-major-enigma-for-evolution/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: The Fabulous Plant Kingdom
« Reply #25 on: July 17, 2017, 06:05:14 pm »

Quote
3. Paley, Natural Theology, p. 367, published at Darwin-Online.UK.

If you stand for fairness and historical accuracy, snatch that well-designed plant out of Charlie’s gnarly hands and let’s set the record straight.  This plant is more irreducibly complex than Behe’s man-made mousetrap. (The scientific name, by the way, means “Dione’s daughter’s mousetrap” ;D).  It’s even more exquisite than Ellis, Linnaeus or Paley could have imagined.  Darwin would have croaked if he had been told what these scientists found.  Since the Venus flytrap clearly bears the hallmarks of intelligent design, let’s call it “the Paley plant, known since the time of the famous Biblical creationist, Linnaeus.”

September 12, 2011 | David F. Coppedge

Venus Flytrap De-Darwinized 



https://crev.info/2011/09/110912-venus_flytrap_de_darwinized/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: The Fabulous Plant Kingdom
« Reply #26 on: July 18, 2017, 01:18:58 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: Here is another example of a successful scam by the Big Oil.   They marketed this polluting and poisonous product as something "useful", but it actually MAKES THINGS WORSE.

You probably still think that petroleum based tree wound dressings are a good idea. That is because the propaganda LIES by the fossil fuel industry continue to dominate the media of the petro-state called the USA. They are quite skilled at hiding the truth about the fossil fuel industry biosphere harming 'business model'.


Tree wound

What Is Tree Wound Dressing?  Is It Ok To Put Wound Dressing On Trees?


By Jackie Carroll

When trees are wounded, either intentionally through pruning or accidentally, it sets off a natural process of protection within the tree. Externally, the tree grows new wood and bark around the wounded area to form a callus. Internally, the tree initiates processes to prevent decay. Some gardeners try to help along the natural processes by applying a tree wound dressing. But are there any real benefits of wound dressing on trees?

What is Wound Dressing? Wound dressings are petroleum-based products used to cover freshly cut or damaged wood. The intent is to prevent disease and decay organisms and insects from infesting the wound. Studies (as far back as the 1970s) show that the disadvantages far outweigh the benefits of wound dressing. Wound dressings prevent the tree from forming calluses, which are its natural method of dealing with injury.

In addition, moisture often gets beneath the dressing, and sealed in moisture leads to decay.

As a result, using dressing on tree wounds often does more harm than good.

Is it OK to Put Wound Dressing on Trees? In most cases, the answer is no. Wound dressings such as tar, asphalt, paint or any other petroleum solvents should not be used on trees. If you want to apply a wound dressing for aesthetic purposes, spray on a very thin coating of an aerosol wound dressing. Keep in mind that this is only for appearances.

Good pruning practices are a much better plan to help trees heal. Make clean cuts flush with the trunk of the tree when removing large branches. Straight cuts leave smaller wounds than angled cuts, and smaller wounds are more likely to callus over promptly. Cut broken limbs with ragged ends below the point of injury. Tree trunks often sustain damage during lawn maintenance. Direct the discharge from lawn mowers away from tree trunks and keep a little distance between string trimmers and trees.One circumstance where a wound dressing may help is in regions where oak wilt is a serious problem. Avoid pruning during spring and summer. If you must cut during this time, apply a wound dressing that contains fungicide and insecticide.

https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/ornamental/trees/tgen/wound-dressing-on-trees.htm
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
1364 Views
Last post December 12, 2013, 07:46:06 pm
by AGelbert
20 Replies
2473 Views
Last post July 20, 2017, 12:54:38 pm
by AGelbert
0 Replies
115 Views
Last post May 24, 2014, 07:11:09 pm
by AGelbert

+-Recent Topics

Apocalyptic Humor by AGelbert
Today at 05:25:20 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
Today at 04:54:59 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
Today at 01:54:48 pm

Nuclear Poisoning of the Pacific by AGelbert
August 18, 2017, 11:19:26 pm

Defending Wildlife by AGelbert
August 18, 2017, 10:43:28 pm

Money by AGelbert
August 18, 2017, 10:26:21 pm

The Wisdom of the Books of the Bible by AGelbert
August 18, 2017, 09:59:34 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
August 16, 2017, 03:12:59 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
August 15, 2017, 09:40:25 pm

Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden by AGelbert
August 15, 2017, 09:00:37 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial