It may make no difference to your question, but it does give some insight into your ability to reason.
Why are plants green?
- Thread starter esbo
- Start date
- Status
It may make no difference to your question, but it does give some insight into your ability to reason.
Well you can respect the people, but the fact is man (as Homo Sapiens) have been around for FAR FAR longer than a few thousand years, as my link shows.
Your statement,
can only be made based on total ignorance of the science that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that that statement is absurd.esbo said:
More to the point, it's something that is so well known to scientists that making that statement on a Science Board appears to have no other reason besides clearly staking your position as a Creationist.
Arthur
No one suggested that evolution stopped.
So does chlorophyll:
The fact that it looks green goes back to my first point, that some wavelengths are absorbed more effectively than others.
However, the same is true for our eyes - some wavelengths are absorbed more efficiently than others (although sight is a mechanical process that stimulates a nerve reaction, where photosynthesis is a chemical one).
The same is also true for Melanin - it absorbs some parts of the visual spectrum more effectively than others, whether we percieve this colour as brown, black, or tan is simply a matter of the degree of saturation.
Finally, we come back to my point regarding auxillary photosynthetic pigments:
Which are actually actively involved in harvesting light energy for photosynthesis:
However looking at those spectra, there is one thing that stands out to me - none of the other pigments are absorptive over the broad range that Chlorophyll a and b are. Chlorophyll a and b absorb, to some degree, over the full visual spectrum from UV to the minimum wavelength of 700nm.
Not even Retinal can match this.
So perhaps therein lies the answer (or another answer).
Chlorophyll came to be dominant because Chlorophyll was the most efficient single pigment across the widest range of wavelengths, which allowed Chlorophyll to out compete any alternatives (however plants using antenna pigments in addition to chlorophyll were able to outcompete those that used chlorophyll alone).
(I had a slightly different, but longer post. However that got eaten).
It's ok...I'm learnin' me the HELL out of some science! Thanks Trippy and others.
When I'm at work, I don't have it set to remember my login details.
However, that means that if I take to long to post, when I click the submit button it tells me to login to post. Sometimes when I do that it throws an error at me, telling me I have logged in since I last logged in and to use my browser back button to try posting again, however, when you do this, your post disappears.
This is one of the other reasons I compose posts in notepad first. That way, it doesn't matter if I loose them, i have a backup. But sometimes, I neglect to use notepad because I udnerestimate how long a reply is going to take me.
Yeah that is the same with Me exactly. I went a long time with out it happening until yesterday . Blam it happened . My little pea brain tells Me if I put My name and code in faster then it won't happen . That is if I think I took to long to compose the post . Oh to be ritualistic is a curse . I tell you what , It is fun though
No it does not, I never brought religion into the matter nor is it relevant to the question, you just see God as a creation of science whereas other see science as a creation of God.
You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine.
That seems to be the basis of a number of arguments as to the answer to the question.
So does chlorophyll:
The fact that it looks green goes back to my first point, that some wavelengths are absorbed more effectively than others.
However, the same is true for our eyes - some wavelengths are absorbed more efficiently than others (although sight is a mechanical process that stimulates a nerve reaction, where photosynthesis is a chemical one).
The same is also true for Melanin - it absorbs some parts of the visual spectrum more effectively than others, whether we percieve this colour as brown, black, or tan is simply a matter of the degree of saturation.
Finally, we come back to my point regarding auxillary photosynthetic pigments:
Which are actually actively involved in harvesting light energy for photosynthesis:
However looking at those spectra, there is one thing that stands out to me - none of the other pigments are absorptive over the broad range that Chlorophyll a and b are. Chlorophyll a and b absorb, to some degree, over the full visual spectrum from UV to the minimum wavelength of 700nm.
Not even Retinal can match this.
So perhaps therein lies the answer (or another answer).
Chlorophyll came to be dominant because Chlorophyll was the most efficient single pigment across the widest range of wavelengths, which allowed Chlorophyll to out compete any alternatives (however plants using antenna pigments in addition to chlorophyll were able to outcompete those that used chlorophyll alone).
(I had a slightly different, but longer post. However that got eaten).
I am struggling to see your point.
Our eyes are nothing like chlorophyll.
Losing your longer post is no great loss to me because the short version does not seem particularly relevant or indeed to contain any strong arguement as to the answer, not one I can see anyway.
in addition to my previous post (because of the limit on inline images).
I think this graph puts my above assertions into perspective:
Note that it only deals with Chlorophyll, not chlorophyll + Antenna pigments.
Well despite your graph, leaves are still green and no amount of chemical formula's or whatever are likely to convince me otherwise.
Do you have the remember me button clicked?
I normally find posts are recoverable if I accidently move off the page, but not always.
Pure Baloney.
What is your opinion ? You seem to be noncommittal at best . Is it your opinion that God created science ? if so like implied then you have brought religion into the discussion , which leads us to believe that was your motive in the first place.
Say what you mean . You are beating around the bush . Are you advocating that God made plants green or not ? Stand in the place you intend. Take ownership of your assertions. That is if you want any kind of credibility , Otherwise we could be trolling buddies and catch some big fish on Flat head lake
Spoken like a true Woo woo. At least Trippy's time wasn't totally wasted...I came away with some new knowledge.
Right.
This must be like the eighth time I've said this.
They appear green because they absorb less green light than they do red light or blue light.
This does not mean that they absorb no green light at all.
In other words, there is nothing in that graph that suggests that they should be any colour other than green.
- Status