The evolutionary reason is that chlorophyll evolved first and was adequate.
Why are plants green?
- Thread starter esbo
- Start date
- Status
The evolutionary reason is that chlorophyll evolved first and was adequate.
For someone who doesn't have time for a lengthy post you sure spend alot of time online....
You wouldn't be avoiding posting your ideas, would you?
He does have a knack at ignoring posts. Both Trippy and Fraggle have taken time out their busy days to write lengthy, informative posts...yet he ignores them, and only responds to the fodder...It's almost like he has nothing to say.
(kind of reminds me of a "truther"
)What makes you say that? Man has been "engineering" plants for more than 3000 years through selective cultivation. It's the reason why modern, domesticated grain plants produce much more food than their original, wild ancestors. :shrug:
edit: Oops...Arthur beat me to it.
Man is pouring his food in the gas tank, I don't think he is as smart as you think he is.
Man has not been around for that long.
You are basing your views on a short period of time.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
One of the ways modern archeologists determine when a particular region made the transition to the Neolithic Era (farming and permanent settlements instead of nomadic hunter-gatherers) is to check the DNA of the plant tissue in their middens (trash heaps). If it's been hybridized, that's the sign of cultivation. Just a few years ago they found the very first hybridized crop, and to everyone's surprise it was figs! In the New World it was peppers, a little later than Mesopotamia.
Considering that corn (maize) is one of the least nutritious grains, that's not saying very much! That may be one of the things that slowed the development of civilization in the Americas. Not enough protein.
Well, that and no large herbivores to turn into draft animals. If Aztec civilization had spread to North America they might have tried domesticating the bison. Can't be any harder than elephants! Surprisingly, the Inuit did not domesticate the caribou. The people they left behind in Arctic Eurasia domesticated the reindeer, which is the same species. But that's no city-building beast of burden, only about as big as the llama.
No, he saves time by not using his spell checker.For someone who doesn't have time for a lengthy post you sure spend alot of time online.... You wouldn't be avoiding posting your ideas, would you?
Man is pouring his food in the gas tank, I don't think he is as smart as you think he is.
Man has not been around for that long.
You are basing your views on a short period of time.
Did you come here to human bash ? Is that it ? You have a disdain for people so you come to condemn the human race and the color of plants has nothing to do with it ? Look bro we are your friends not your enemy. We all want a better world too . Your not a lone in this
Climate stability is (was) a big issue as well. Mostly thinking about ENSO. There's "evidence to suggest" periods of massive el nino/la nina oscillations that dwarf anything we've seen in the last 50 years, including, I believe, some annecdotal evidence out of Africa (things such as the Nile being reduced to a muddy swamp). Europe has the advantage of being somewhat insulated from the effects of ENSO, however.
I'm still waiting for a substantive response to either of my posts (heh, bit of rewording and some inline sources, they could almost qualify as essays).
I'm not going to hold my breath though, I don't look good in blue.
Not really.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize
Now adjust Corn to the same water content level as Wheat and Rice (multiply the Nutrient contents of Corn by 3.7) and you will find that Corn is more nutritious than rice but not quite as nutritious as Wheat, but that in reality the differences are fairly minor except that corn has lots more vitamins than rice does, more importantly, diets evolved for each of these grains to combine them with complentary foods, such as Corn with Beans and Cheese and a bit of meat.
Or use this to compare 100 gram dry portions:
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/5692/2
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/5739/2
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/5721/2
Hey esbo, please tell me that was a typo!
I don't think he meant that man has been around for less than 3000 years...but was just stating that we haven't been around that long in comparison to how long plants have been around. At least..that what I think he was saying. Even "young Earth" creationists believe that man has been around some 6-8 thousand years.
Well I came here to ask a question and discuss it.
I just made a comment. People are suggesting that engineering is better than nature. There is not a great deal of evidence to support that idea.
But it goes back another comment or idea that plants being green was some sort of mistake, that nature 'cocked it up'. That is highly unlikely IMO.
And the human race ha sit's failings, there is no denying that, if you want to call my pointing it out 'bashing' then fair enough. Man usually comes to his senses eventually but all to often at great cost.
I am just pointing out the craziness of man's engineering 'solution' to lack of fossil fuel, ie biofuel, one of the maddest idea man has ever dreamt up.
That's quite right, although I am not discounting the possibly man has only been around for a few thousand years, I was not there so I can't be sure. But for the purpose of my argument it is irrelevant.
I think what we are trying to say is nature engineers it self . The players in nature ( not just humans , animals and plants to ) engineer. The ant digging in the earth is an example . Is the ant degrading to the earth by digging it up. From the pieces of grass's perspective it is. From the anteaters perspective I would think not
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "engineering is better than nature", but there is plenty of evidence that man has "engineered" certain plants and animals to better suit our needs by producing more food for us than their native species. Is that better? Better for us.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. No one here is claiming the rise of green plants was a "mistake". It was just one mutation among many that was the most beneficial to plants at that time. It succeeded and others failed. You say it's highly unlikely...then what do think is more likely?
If you wish to discuss the pro or cons of using corn to make ethanol or biodiesel, then you should start a new thread.
Really?
A few thousand years?
http://humanorigins.si.edu/resources/multimedia/videos/one-species-living-worldwide
Problem is most of the answers are just going into the detail of something which is irrelevant, that's why I did reply mean, I mean their theories seem to be based on the idea that evolution stopped.
I hope you can see how crazy that is and it is a pain to go through the examples where evolutions stopped for the obvious reason that evolution has not stopped.
It's just crazy basically. :fright:
I don't remember anyone saying evolution stopped . Are you reading things in that are not there ? You might ask your self that ? Did you anticipate a major conflict before you started posting ? Is that root of hostility ?
O.K. tell us why plants are green for the most part . Tell us what your point is ? Where you going with all this is the magic question of the day ? Is it because of bio-fuel and you are worried we going to burn all the food ? What is it ? You tell us
Yes, I am open minded on how long mankind has been on earth, although as I said it makes no difference to my question. Yes some scientists think it is a lot longer than that but I respect the people who disagree with them.
Someone who can turn plants into liquid fuel? Sounds smarter to me than someone who can't. (And of course we've been turning plants into houses, food, fuel, drugs, tires, airplanes, paint etc for thousands of years. Airplanes and tires more recently of course.)
Oh, I think he's been around for at least 3000 years.
- Status