Hunting the first flower

Chris Eldridge — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:49:09 GMT

The co-evolution of plants and insects reminds me how native peoples think insects (like plants) also have medicinal qualities. If you think about it, why wouldn't they? Both turn readily available raw materials into molecules and compounds conducive to life of which I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands. The exhaustive harmony of the eco system has a spirit and energy all its own. When I think of the mass extinction man is causing, I feel badly for the insects whose diversity never ceases to amaze me. That’s very interesting how the plants pollinate so selectively, too! I guess I’m surprised that flowering plants and other complex organisms took so long to develop on earth. Maybe there were just one to many extinction events back there that kept sending us back to the microbe age. Did everyone hear about that meteor impact they found in Antarctica that they believed caused the 250-million-year-ago extinction event and perhaps even the breakup of the super continent Pangaea?

Hunting the first flower

joni r egner columbia sc. — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 02:03:10 GMT

I have a "first flower fossile" I have found. It is a flower that is fossilized in a peice of lava. Interested? Please e-mail me at joniregner@yahoo.com

Hunting the first flower

Wade Whitlock, Aberdeen, MD — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:03:36 GMT

A "fossile" in lava? Amber maybe, but I beg leave to doubt flowers fossilized in lava.

I believe I read something about a possible impact site in the Australia - Indonesia area that was suspected to be about 250 MYA. End of the Permian - Great Die-off time period. I still think there is a connection between the Siberian Traps and the Permian-ending impact. Ditto the Dinosaur killer at Chixalub and the Deccan Traps in India! Double Whammies!

As for time, Chris. Eternity is defined (somewhere) as the amount of time necessary for everything to happen at least once. Just wait a bit, or if impatient you are, do genetic engineering. Same result, you just save a few million generations!

Hunting the first flower

kitty courts, new iberia, louisinaa — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:49:56 GMT

it is very interesting how the flowering plants got started, i believe that the grain plants, such as wheat, barley, oats, started in the mountaineous regions of Iran and that it is possible that the flowering plants started in china, it is possible that at one time that maybe china and the near east were connected

Hunting the first flower

kitty courts, new iberia, louisinaa — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:50:44 GMT

Hunting the first flower

A student of Creation — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:06:26 GMT

There's has always been the age old question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" You can find the answer in two places for the chicken as well as plants and insects, the genetic make up of each and the Scriptures. Both prove that these complex creatures did not evolve but were created. The Creation that is spoken of in the Scriptures does not just teach about the creation of mankind but of everything that grows or creeps upon the earth. Just some food for thought!

Hunting the first flower

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:07:09 GMT

Joni...how can a flower be fossilzed in lava? What you probably mean is volcanic ash. ...ash that had cooled substantially before burying organic materials by either settling out through water or travelling far enough in the atmosphere.

I saw the PBS show last night which was quite descriptive. I never really paid much attention to flower evolution other than an occasional muse when seeing our garden a-buzz with pollinators on a warm summer day or on a stroll through a natural area ...until last night.

China is a real gem when you consider the earth history that exists there.

Hunting the first flower

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:21:41 GMT

Reply to: "When I was a student, I was taught that the magnolias closed their seeds inside their fruit because insects would eat the young, unfertilized or newly fertilized seeds," Dilcher said. "That seemed like a good explanation. But I don't accept that any more. I think that the insects certainly are progressive enough that they can develop tearing and boring devices with their mouth parts, so the protection is very nominal." (end)

I think students get confused about evolution because of statements like this. How do insects develop tearing and boring devices with their mouth parts?

If random mutation has produced insects with more aggressive mouth parts, that might give their offspring a survival advantage over insects that don't have them. But there certainly isn't any choice or action on the part of progressive insects to create them.

Hunting the first flower

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:27:50 GMT

student of creation...obviously you didn't see the show or read anything about this. How could you?

Evolution is a sin! Right? Something the "devil" engineered to confuse all of us poor souls? heh?

Oh, and of course there are all those fossil plants that, like human fossils, were a product of "Noahs flood".

Hunting the first flower

Peter Wilson, Simi Valley, CA — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:07:40 GMT

I find it annoying that biologists use the terms "flowering" and "fruit" in their broadest-possible meaning. In most people's minds, plants that are pollinated by insects are called "flowers," and plants that use wind to pollinate are something else (e.g. grass; confiers; etc). But biologist make no distinction, calling a plant "flowering" if it produces seeds. Also, In most people's minds, "fruit" refers NOT to the seeds of a plant, but to the fleshy, tasty "decoy" that surrounds the seeds. Again, biologists refer to "fruit" as anything to do with and including seeds. Thus, grasses, conifers and nuts are all "fruits." These broad definitions are pretty useless for classification, and its unusual for scientists to be carelessly broad in their use of terms instead of persnickety narrow.

Hunting the first flower

Jesus Cabello, Ponce, PR — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 06:51:50 GMT

To A Student Of Creation: Come on! Explain to me why, if both humans and dinosaurs were both created they never lived together? I won't comment that Dinosaurs were extinct before humans even appeared on the planet, as we are a relatively new species, along with every other mammal on Earth. Yes, I believe in Creation, but after the Big Bang everything else just evolved from there. Intelligent evolution? Maybe God was terraforming everything all along, but, no, animals didn't just poof into existence, that is just too idiotic to even consider.

Hunting the first flower

Bob Beer, Istanbul, Turkey — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:20:11 GMT

Re: flowers and fruit, narrow and broad definitions: You need both. Every area of study has its terminology. Though they may appear very different, the flowers of orchids, dandelions, a maple tree, a wheat plant and inside a fig all share a very basic common point - they are the sexual organs of the plants, producting sperm (in pollen) and an egg (in the ovary). This ovary, when fertilized, may turn into a dry husk, or a juicy apple, but it serves the same basic purpose - a container for the seeds. However botanists also have very "persnickety" terms for all the variations on that theme.

Hunting the first flower

A student of Biblical evolutionary creation — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:53:10 GMT

Reply to A student of Creation "Both prove that these complex creatures did not evolve but were created. The Creation that is spoken of in the Scriptures does not just teach about the creation of mankind but of everything that grows or creeps upon the earth."

Evolution IS spoken about in the Scriptures in Genesis Chapter One detailing the progressive changes on the earth after its formation which parallel quite well the order of scientific evolutionary theory and the big bang hypothesis.

There are two "proofs" of this.

After the introduction of every change on each "day" (and who can determine the length of a day to an eternal being) the creator looked on his work and called it good (finished). Mutation still exists in the world today. Mutation is the cornerstone of evolutionary theory. If the creator's work was finished at the end of the sixth day, then evolutionary mutation was already of feature of the creation. This is a very convincing argument that evolution was the methodology used by the creator in Chapter One.

And in Chapter Two of Genesis Adam was made. This man is a different being from the Chapter One day six creation of mankind (male and female) because he was told to pick a mate from all previous Chapter One creation but none was found suitable. This is a very persuasive explanation of the fact that science finds any number of progressively more evolved men but no "missing link" man who is like man today.

I agree with William Hays' statement "But there certainly isn't any choice or action on the part of progressive insects to create them. " Mutation is not a conscious decision on the part of the organism to meet a challange in its enviornment. Rather just the opposite: those organisms which carry mutations are the ones which survive changes in the environment. Evolution is being taught in our schools but it is being taught poorly by those who fail to understand its fundamental process.

Hunting the first flower

D. Vukusich, Toa Baja, PR — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:07:44 GMT

I'm not a botanist but the fact that bees and the like are required for the cross-pollination of both flowers, as we commonly know them, and such agricultural plants as wheat and corn makes all these plants cousins to each other. With the reported growing, mysterious disappearance of bees (in areas not yet populated by Aficanized bees) that farmers are worried about, we humans may not be around long enough to witness any next evolution of flowering plants or enjoy the current population of familiar flowers. This comes from one who hasn't a green thumb but delights in trying to develop a small balcony garden enough to attract the likes of hummingbirds.

Hunting the first flower

B Brooks silverdale Wa. — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:01:19 GMT

At the end of the program they put together many scientist's to do a new and updated plant family tree, it ended up being severl pages long, I'v been looking for this printout but can't find it I looked into Plant DNA Anaalysis,and Relative Apparent Synapomorphy Analysis. no were to be found. can you folks help me on this matter?

Hunting the first flower

Ed Pardo — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:49:45 GMT

"And then some flower got the idea"
This is exactly the type of language that puts people off evolution and Darwinian theory. This line should have read: Some flower had a RANDOM MUTATION that proved to be beneficial and gave it a Darwinian advantage.

Hunting the first flower

Charles Windar, Surrey — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:02:40 GMT

I must respond to Thomas & Jesus above. If MACROevolution is a fact, they should be able to document it instead of resorting to anti-Christian rhetoric. Hey guys, instead of biblical intolerance, please list for us darwinian unbelievers solid evidence for why people & angiosperms have the same ancestor[s] (and yes, I have a master's in zoology and took a 500-level course in evolution using Ayala & Valentine's text).
While I'm waiting for your scientific reply, let me ask if anyone on this post has studied the 2nd ed of Levinton's book entitled Macroevolution? Did you count how many times he listed evidence for macroevolution? How about Gould's Structure of Evolutionary Theory? Has anyone counted how many evidences he listed for macroevolution?
The scientific evidence shows angiosperms have always been flowering plants as the creation model predicts. Ditto for people - bye bye H. erectus, H. habilis, and Lucy. They are no longer links between poeple and ape-like ancestors. The creation model predicts this. Man stands in splendid isolation as the creation model predicts.

Hunting the first flower

Ankhtsetseg, Darkhan, Mongolia — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 04:33:44 GMT

Hi My name is Ankhtsetseg. This name is translate *FIRST FLOWER* I am from MONGOLIA.
Antse_05@yahoo.com