Notices
Results 1 to 49 of 49
Like Tree39Likes
  • 1 Post By westwind
  • 2 Post By question for you
  • 3 Post By scheherazade
  • 2 Post By westwind
  • 4 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By scheherazade
  • 2 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 2 Post By scheherazade
  • 1 Post By question for you
  • 1 Post By scheherazade
  • 2 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By scheherazade
  • 1 Post By question for you
  • 1 Post By scheherazade
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 1 Post By bigratlover
  • 1 Post By bigratlover
  • 3 Post By scheherazade
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 3 Post By John Galt
  • 2 Post By scheherazade
  • 1 Post By sigurdV

Thread: A rare Scientific question from westwind.

  1. #1 A rare Scientific question from westwind. 
    The Enchanter westwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,079
    On David Attenbourghs(sic) Botany/ Wildlife programmes on TV Ive been drawn to the mechanics of the on/off behavior of Flowers opening and closing according to the night/day cycle or temperature range.

    It occurs to me that there is purposeful deployed energy involvement here.

    What, and where from, is this Energy Source available to the Plant on an ongoing basis?

    And, more importantly, if measurable, can the Principle energy action be duplicated by Scientific understanding and then extrapolated? westwind.


    sculptor likes this.
    Words words words, were it better I caught your tears, and washed my face in them, and felt their sting. - westwind
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    I cannot answer any of your questions Westwind.
    Except the energy source is probably the sun.

    I also remind you that many plants droop their leaves and maybe petals when they sense rain. And some plants respond to touch by almost instantely collapsing a section of the branch that has been touched.

    These fast action mechanical processes almost suggest muscles dont they?


    westwind and sculptor like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    The Enchanter westwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,079
    Yes, question for you, this response time does suggest access to an energy pool. Stored energy just for this purpose.

    Now can we duplicate the Principle of this stored energy---and extrapolate... westwind.
    Words words words, were it better I caught your tears, and washed my face in them, and felt their sting. - westwind
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,496
    Yes, the energy ultimately comes from the sun. The plants use photosynthesis to create sugars carbon dioxide and water. These sugars (or other chemicals derived from them) are stored in cells until needed for growth, movement, etc.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,054
    This may be of interest to you, Westwind. The process you describe is know as nyctinasty. I recall heading out for a ride one morning, admiring the sea of yellow dandelions from horseback. Late afternoon I returned, shortly ahead of a thundershower and was struck by the absence of color. What the hey? It was impossible that hundreds of dandelions could have gone to seed and dispersed in that interval of time, fast as the little rascals are. On closer examination, I saw that each flower was closed up tighter than a drum though we had several hours of daylight remaining. Strangely enough, in all my time spent out of doors, I had not paid particular attention to the affairs of the common dandelion. They are just a fact of life from a bare two weeks after the snow has melted until late summer. They seem to 'flush' about the third week in May and slow down by the end of June, although you can find a few stragglers in bloom most any time of year.

    The following answer was selected and edited by New Scientist staff

    When flowers close temporarily for the night they are effectively in standby mode, protecting their delicate reproductive parts and pollen while they are not in use. The pollen is isolated from the dew that forms during the night, keeping it dry so that it can be dusted onto a passing insect the following day. Indeed, some flowers remain closed until some time after dawn, and only reopen when the day is warm enough for the dew to have evaporated.

    Closing the flowers also helps to protect against night-time cold and bad weather. As well as closing their petals, some plants also close the tough surrounding structures, called bracts, to protect the flower against plant-eating insects. Keeping the pollen dry while limiting access for plant-eating insects - and the fungi and bacteria that they carry - also means that the pollen is less likely to spoil.

    Ultimately all these adaptations minimise wastage of pollen or damage to the flower. This kind of economy is a particular advantage for plants that live in what might be termed stressful environments with limited resources, where they would be hard-pressed to produce new flowers and so must protect their existing investment. Species that have evolved to make the most of lusher habitats in which more resources are available are not so frugal: their strategy is to produce fresh flowers when needed rather than maintaining, and closing, the ones they already have.

    Some plants have adapted the movements of their flowers to odd ecological situations. For example, certain bat-pollinated wild pineapples, members of the bromeliad family, do the exact opposite of most flowers by opening their flowers at night and closing them during the day to protect them from weevils, which are most active during daylight hours.

    The mechanisms that flowers use to close their petals are essentially the same as the ones they use to open out in the first place, and are not the same in all species. Those of the Kalanchoe genus open their flowers by growing new cells on the inner surface of the petals to force them outwards, and on the outside of the petals to close them. Gentian flowers use the expansion and contraction of the cells that form the petal.

    This type of movement is controlled by genes that switch on or off in response to changes in temperature or the amount of light, and are regulated by an internal clock. The genes regulate the amount of sugars in the petal cell sap: larger amounts cause water to enter the petals by osmosis, pressurising them and opening the flower. In effect, when these flowers close they do so by wilting.

    Simon Pierce, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy

    New Scientist Last Word Blog: Closing time - New Scientist
    Recent advances on bioorganic chemistry of plant metabolites controlling nyctinasty. Nakamura Y, Manabe Y, Inomata S, Ueda M.
    Source: Department of Chemistry, Graduate School of Science, Tohoku University, 6-3 Aramakiaza-aoba, Aoba-ku, Sendai, 980-8578, Japan.

    Abstract[/h]Leguminous plants open their leaves during the daytime and close them at night as if sleeping, a type of movement that follows circadian rhythms, and is known as nyctinastic movement. This phenomenon is controlled by two endogenous bioactive substances that exhibit opposing activities: Leaf-Opening Factor (LOF), which opens the leaves, and Leaf-Closing Factor (LCF), which closes them. The authors have carried out chemical biological research using these bioactive substances as molecular probes in order to clarify the mechanisms of nyctinastic movement. Here, we report on the detection and identification of the target proteins of these compounds using original methodology.
    (c) 2010 The Japan Chemical Journal Forum and Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

    Recent advances on bioorganic chemistry of plant me... [Chem Rec. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI
    arKane, westwind and sculptor like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    The Enchanter westwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,079
    Thanks for the extra effort scheherazade. I believe the processess involved in these Plant Adaptations ensuring survival of their kind is nothing short of miraculous. In fact we must do more to uncover the design features behind this efficiency. There is a Brain here. I cant help feeling the deeper we delve into the chemical/photosynthesis/ light/ temperature involvement here, the closer we are to Creationism. Why Why Why???

    We have only scratched the surface of intelligent design.

    One day the infrastructure of the Fauna and Flora of our Planet Earth will reveal to us what the great plan was.

    I still think the Planet Earth is part of a failed design from the Cosmotic Garden of Eden Concept.

    And I still think the successful Garden of Eden is out there, and that is where I would be if I were God.

    I do not expect agreement on this explanation of what I see as The Great Design, but trying to see the overall picture of what was originally intended for the Universes does require stretching the imagination almost to the ridiculus.. And I'm not saying my concept is ridiculus. westwind.
    sculptor and scheherazade like this.
    Words words words, were it better I caught your tears, and washed my face in them, and felt their sting. - westwind
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by westwind View Post
    We have only scratched the surface of intelligent design.
    I, for one, would be content if that were all the farther we got.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Scratch the surface of intelligent design and your reveal the putrefying stench of a creationist.
    arKane, pyoko, Strange and 1 others like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,054
    This is slightly off topic but I think you may forgive my meandering path for it eventually ever returns to the course of the compass Westwind.

    Yesterday, hubby and I just happened to catch the better part of a 4 hour physics documentary by Brian Greene. Let's just say it was interesting enough that this morning hubby commented that it would be worth investigating whether this program was available on DVD, we not generally the collectors of previously viewed material unless it has some significant value for future interest.

    A little something to go with your morning coffee Westwind. Enjoy!

    NOVA | The Spacetime Lemonade Stand

    I chuckle at our insistence that only 'the scientific method' is valid in understanding our world/universe. Science does not have consensus even on what space is, yet with all due respect, this is the 'only' path to understanding? Back to the OP, Westwind, I suspect that plants (and animals) are much more attenuated to 'time' and 'space' in their daily existence than are we. We are a 'busy' species, often too busy to observe our own environment even though our survival may be contingent on same.

    NOVA | Leonard Susskind on Space
    sculptor likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Scratch the surface of intelligent design and your reveal the putrefying stench of a creationist.
    Whats so stinking about 'creationism'? or being a 'creationist'?

    What if there is an underlieing intelligence of somekind? It might not change anything about your perception of life. It might not mean that we live on after life, or that we have to answer to a moralistic and judgemental creator.

    The only stinking stuff I can think of associated with 'creationism' (unfortunatel very strongly associated) are biblical accounts of creation which are thought to be most inacurate and made made up by religions as a means to an end.

    Somebody could build a religion a twisted and distorted concept of evolution, for example, and get many of the details wrong which makes people think their closest relative is a crocodile, resulting in people acting like crodiles. Everybody would sit in watering holes waiting for wild boar to drinking and trying to catch them... it wouldn't make evolutionists stink just because somebody thousands of years ago made up a pack of lies and mislead everybody about it.

    I just don't understand this strong dislike of the idea that the universe has been 'created' and evolved from some kind of underlying mind principle. I don't see the harm it, in itself, can do.

    It cannot be disprooved yet, will be lucky if we ever work out where the universe came from... so whats the problem if people want to beleive what they want to beleive? Isn't the Big Bang a theory of creation? if you wanna sleight a religion slate it but don't put every single concept of the origins of life based around or described by the word 'creation', in the same stinking basket. Surely?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,496
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I just don't understand this strong dislike of the idea that the universe has been 'created' and evolved from some kind of underlying mind principle. I don't see the harm it, in itself, can do.
    Because that is not what Creationism is.

    I don't have a particular problem with someone claiming that their God created the universe 1.37bn years ago and set the whole machine in motion with laws that She had invented. It seems a bit pointless, but that's just me.

    Creationism appears to be some sort of mental disorder where people refuse to look at the facts and instead prefer to believe that the universe was created a couple of weeks ago. (Or something.) And then they insist that their made-up nonsense be taught alongside real science.
    arKane and pyoko like this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,054
    This time lapse video of a dandelion demonstrates nyctinasty and I thought it well suited to this thread, it being the species mentioned in the opening Post.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Whats so stinking about 'creationism'? or being a 'creationist'?
    I was being deliberately provocative. Let me be more precise. I have no trouble with individuals who feel the universe was created by a powerful, perhaps omnipotent, being as a deliberate and conscious act. However, there is a subset of creationists who take a literal translation of the Bible, who refuse to consider any contrary evidence and who seek to impose their moral conclusions and belief on the rest of society. I consider them to be dangerous to the present and the future of humanity.
    pyoko likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Creationism appears to be some sort of mental disorder where people refuse to look at the facts and instead prefer to believe that the universe was created a couple of weeks ago. (Or something.) And then they insist that their made-up nonsense be taught alongside real science.
    Nah thats not creationism... Thats one type of creationist idea from a religion, a structured organised way of life.

    There are so many other possible 'creationist' ideas which are not necesarily mentally derranged or contrary to true science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,496
    Creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being, most often referring to the Abrahamic God
    With, apparently, the goal of ensuring that the rest of the population stays as ignorant as them by destorying the eudcation system
    pyoko likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,054


    Another timelapse, this one taken from a normal perspective, as in those dandelions in your backyard. Interesting that the opening of the flower is much more overt than is the closing. Plants are extremely interactive with the environment. We just tend not to notice them much because they are not ambulatory, though they travel by means of seed dispersal and humans are one of their main vectors, lol. Plants have crossed oceans and been the underpinning of the economy at various times in our history. The tulip bulb is one that comes to mind.

    Speaking of tulips, this little number should put some color in one's life and some bounce in the step if one still has two feet and a heartbeat, lol...



    Life is both the question AND the answer, is it not?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,054
    Gentlemen, why are you proliferating this thread with discussion that does not pertain to the opening post?



    arKane and Strange like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Whats so stinking about 'creationism'? or being a 'creationist'?
    I was being deliberately provocative. Let me be more precise. I have no trouble with individuals who feel the universe was created by a powerful, perhaps omnipotent, being as a deliberate and conscious act. However, there is a subset of creationists who take a literal translation of the Bible, who refuse to consider any contrary evidence and who seek to impose their moral conclusions and belief on the rest of society. I consider them to be dangerous to the present and the future of humanity.
    Thank you John.

    I had the impression you were alluding to a certain sub set of all the people who are open to ideas about the creation of life.

    I fully understand your position on this sub set.

    To be honest I just get annoyed when broad terms are highjacked. Just becuase biblical literalists are potential nutters, and they name there story 'creationism'... That does not mean all 'creationist' theorys are stupid, ignorant or stinking.
    I think when people make a strong association between all things 'creation/creationist/criationism' and a bunch of biblical literalists... then it takes credibility away from the word, and from thought and ideas connected with the word. That for me is a bigger danger than the biblical literalists that I think you were referring to.

    People should stop calling that creationism, it is biblical literalism that is much more accurate. Creationism is a much wider feild of thought. So to be accurate, scientific and in my opinion responsible, it should be called biblical literalism.

    I'm certainly not a biblical literalist John but when I read your comment, I felt that my open mindedness towards intelligent design and a possibly deliberate creation of life had be offended. You've clarrified you didn't mean to say such ideas are stinking, and I knew you meant biblical creationists.

    I didn't like to get on my high horse but I just felt it necesary to point out the difference between blibical literalism or biblical creationists... and much broader and open minded creationists whose ideas should not be oppressed for fear of being mistook for biblical creation ideas.

    It's hard to explain but I hope you all know what I mean... word associations, subliminal mind control, devil (or leaders?) inventing religion just to turn everybody away from the concept of god, all that stuff.

    Seems the only things the biblical literalists are a danger to is, the concept of god and the religions they belong to... so why do religions breed literalists?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,496
    There should be a "sorry" button as well as like (Cool videos, BTW. And I learnt a new word that I probably never use...)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,496
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    These fast action mechanical processes almost suggest muscles dont they?
    Apparently it works more like a penis

    Pulvinus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being, most often referring to the Abrahamic God
    With, apparently, the goal of ensuring that the rest of the population stays as ignorant as them by destorying the eudcation system
    Thats rubbish... supernatural indeed... what does that mean? The Big Bang is a theory of creation in my mind.

    Scheherazade has said it all though in post 17... I'm sorry. I completely forgot what thread we'r on.

    :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    These fast action mechanical processes almost suggest muscles dont they?
    Apparently it works more like a penis

    Pulvinus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Thats amazing... I wonder if the plants get a 'reward' for opening there petals in the morning.

    They have to have a mind don't they? a central command centre?

    When things react to stimuluos, and can sense humidity and such, and then can command biological functions in response... that is some kind of mind surely?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,496
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    They have to have a mind don't they? a central command centre?
    You are doing it again! Say sorry to Scheherazade again.

    (And, no.)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    You are doing it again! Say sorry to Scheherazade again.

    (And, no.)
    No sucker, your doing it again! :-)

    Check this from the OP: "It occurs to me that there is purposeful deployed energy involvement here."

    Dear Westwind has expressed an interest in 'intelligent design' or 'mind' that can purposfully deploy mechanisms using stored energy.

    (And Yes!)

    I wont ask you for an appology
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,054
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    You are doing it again! Say sorry to Scheherazade again.

    (And, no.)
    No sucker, your doing it again! :-)

    Check this from the OP: "It occurs to me that there is purposeful deployed energy involvement here."

    Dear Westwind has expressed an interest in 'intelligent design' or 'mind' that can purposfully deploy mechanisms using stored energy.

    (And Yes!)

    I wont ask you for an apology
    It really does depend on how you define 'purposeful', IMO.

    All 'life' serves it's own purpose, that being continuity. From single cell to multicell, there is only one 'purpose'.

    More 'cells'.

    The mechanisms employed, even by 'simple life forms' are fascinating in their diversity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Its amazing to think of the variety of cells, or the variety of the functions the cells serve and the functioning structures they build up.

    In the case of petals opening and closing the cells are inflatable and deflatable in an instant... Where does the plants sense which detect light and humidity send the information to? A central cortex or straight to the cells that need to react?
    scheherazade likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,054
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Its amazing to think of the variety of cells, or the variety of the functions the cells serve and the functioning structures they build up.

    In the case of petals opening and closing the cells are inflatable and deflatable in an instant... Where does the plants sense which detect light and humidity send the information to? A central cortex or straight to the cells that need to react?
    I think Westwind was wondering if this 'response' by plants represents a lead of any sort to future energy sources that humans might be able to tap into and utilize. That's how I interpreted the opening question. Plants are the vector by which most humans and mammals attain energy, directly or indirectly, by turning 'solar power' into a useable energy source for us.

    Straight to the cell is more efficient than using a cortex for some life forms, perhaps? Maybe we aren't as evolved or efficient as we are fond of thinking....
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,496
    You could hook tiny little generators up to the petals so that each day-night cycle they would generate a tiny little bit of electricity ... With so many millions of petals in the world, this might be enough to illuminate a single really small LED.
    westwind and scheherazade like this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    You could hook tiny little generators up to the petals so that each day-night cycle they would generate a tiny little bit of electricity ... With so many millions of petals in the world, this might be enough to illuminate a single really small LED.
    Actually, you are now starting to think 'outside the box'. We need to seek beyond where we have already been.
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    I think Westwind was wondering if this 'response' by plants represents a lead of any sort to future energy sources that humans might be able to tap into and utilize.....
    That does seem to be westwinds angle. Does solar power copy photosynthesis's principles?

    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Straight to the cell is more efficient than using a cortex for some life forms, perhaps? Maybe we aren't as evolved or efficient as we are fond of thinking....
    It seems maybe the way we are built allows our minds to over ride instinctive responses and allow us freedom of will...
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    The Enchanter westwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,079
    Yes, I wonder about the possibilities of harnessing the observed display of energy input/output.? The residural source of stored energy. An experiment might reveal the extent of energy reserves, or renewal capacity, and the time scale involved.

    The experiment might run like this:

    Method. Set up a light prohibiting igloo. Portable. Perhaps with an infra -red window to make observations in the dark.

    In bright sunlight place the Igloo over the dandelions creating instant dark.

    Observe through infra red window.

    Is the plant energy deployed? Flower closing up?

    Remove Igloo. Back to instant sunlight.

    Does the Flower open up?

    Repeat this procedure several times. ( providing of course we see evidence of continued open and closing of flower head. ).

    How long in real time could the Dandelion Plant keep up supplying energy to the process of flower opening and flower closing? westwind.

    What do you think John Galt?
    Last edited by westwind; October 30th, 2012 at 05:20 PM. Reason: His opinion will move this Thread along.
    Words words words, were it better I caught your tears, and washed my face in them, and felt their sting. - westwind
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,054
    I found some more details on flower opening and closure. It is a fairly lengthy comprehensive review but may be of interest to those following this thread. The following excerpts are from the introduction and conclusion of the full work at the link that follows.

    This review examines the classifications of flower opening and closure, the underlying mechanical processes, the role of environmental cues such as humidity, light and temperature, and that of endogenous rhythms. Some attention is also given to hormonal regulation, carbohydrate requirements and water relations. The paper concludes by discussing hypotheses about the selective advantages of the various strategies of floral opening and closure.
    Several interesting papers on flower opening and closure were written in French, and some of the finest publications have been published in German. These papers are described here in somewhat more detail than the reports written in English. As a number of the publications mentioned date from some time ago, the plant nomenclature may have changed in the meantime. The names as given in the original reports have been used here.
    Among the flowers that show repeated opening and closure, some open irregularly, only if the temperature is high and/or the sun is shining (such as dandelion), whereas others open and close at regular intervals. In general, the advantage of regular flower closure is not very clear. So far, some hypotheses have been put forward but these have not been tested. Closure, for example, may aid in pollination as it traps pollinating insects (e.g. in fig species and Nymphaea spp.). Kerner von Marilaun (1891) thought that flower closure during the night may avoid pollen wetting. His idea may be extended to flowers of species such as dandelion, which open only if the weather is fine. Pfeffer (1904, p.481) suggested that intermittent flower closure may help to exclude insects, may protect against cold or avoid damage by high light intensity.
    The timing of opening is regulated by factors such as temperature, the quality and quantity of light, and the duration of both light and darkness. Flower closure, if it occurs, may be related to senescence or an active process. In the latter case, it is often regulated in a way similar to that of opening. In a few species the requirements for repeated opening and closure, and the role of an endogenous rhythm, have been elucidated. The phase of the endogenous rhythms can be altered by a single switch from light to darkness (or vice versa). Thus far, only a few reports hint at the nature of the sensor of the light stimuli. Results in only one species (Ipomoea nil) suggest a role of phytochrome, and perhaps a blue light receptor is involved in the inhibition, during the day, of opening in a nocturnal species (Oenothera lamarkiana).
    The co‐ordination of processes culminating in synchronized flower opening is, in many species, highly intricate. This complex control by endogenous and exogenous factors sets flower opening and closure apart from most other growth processes. Although some of the interplay between the various environmental and internal factors is now known, mainly by observing opening and closure as a phenotype, little is known of the cellular and molecular mechanisms behind it.
    Flower opening and closure: a review
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by westwind View Post

    How long in real time could the Dandelion Plant keep up supplying energy to the process of flower opening and flower closing? westwind.
    I like this question. My guess would be that if you stressed a CAM plant in that manner, it would, to its own detriment, perform what it is designed to do. It would open and close its stomata in response to stimuli even if it that process were to lead to the death of the plant. This kind of behavior seems to indicate a lack of intelligence that was hinted at earlier. It's just biological programming.
    Strange likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Scratch the surface of intelligent design and your reveal the putrefying stench of a creationist.
    I, for one, would be content if that were all the farther we got.
    I smell intolerant athiests. If we all stop saying the others are wrong, stupid, inferior, subhuman- then we would all forget why we are fighting, start to like each other, and form a peaceful world. Let me show you something...10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On | Cracked.com...Just 'cause I'm sick of these "you stupid christians/athiests" arguments. If any of us are wrong, its both of us.
    question for you likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    59
    Creationism appears to be some sort of mental disorder where people refuse to look at the facts and instead prefer to believe that the universe was created a couple of weeks ago. (Or something.) And then they insist that their made-up nonsense be taught alongside real science.
    ok, I haven't gotten to the end of this thread, but, already, I have come to hate you already. I am past saying "a strong disliking." I originally had respect for you as a well educated, wise lonely man spending his days on a computer, strange, but now I see you as an atheist who strictly dictates, "proven facts are the only facts and anyone who thinks unproven facts are right are the wrong ones who should rot in their so called hell." You are intolerant of anyone else's opinions.
    Question, thank you for making things clear. You stated things I never could put the cognitive thoughts into saying and said it for me. We seem to share a lot in common. Now, lets go politely tease and nag and skeptic politely in a polite manner respectively!(Aside form this comment, where I berate him about being an intolerant antisocial jerk.)
    question for you likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,496
    Quote Originally Posted by bigratlover View Post
    ok, I haven't gotten to the end of this thread, but, already, I have come to hate you already.
    Hey, I just have a bad tendency to exaggerate for "humorous" effect. You have convinced me I must stop it, as it obviously doesn't work!

    There is another thread where I have been defending the Catholic Church's scientific work...
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Senior pineapples's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ireland someplace
    Posts
    359
    Quote Originally Posted by bigratlover View Post
    Creationism appears to be some sort of mental disorder where people refuse to look at the facts and instead prefer to believe that the universe was created a couple of weeks ago. (Or something.) And then they insist that their made-up nonsense be taught alongside real science.
    ok, I haven't gotten to the end of this thread, but, already, I have come to hate you already. I am past saying "a strong disliking." I originally had respect for you as a well educated, wise lonely man spending his days on a computer, strange, but now I see you as an atheist who strictly dictates, "proven facts are the only facts and anyone who thinks unproven facts are right are the wrong ones who should rot in their so called hell." You are intolerant of anyone else's opinions.
    Question, thank you for making things clear. You stated things I never could put the cognitive thoughts into saying and said it for me. We seem to share a lot in common. Now, lets go politely tease and nag and skeptic politely in a polite manner respectively!(Aside form this comment, where I berate him about being an intolerant antisocial jerk.)
    So what your saying is we need a little “Flower Power” ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,054
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapples View Post
    So what your saying is we need a little “Flower Power” ?
    pineapples, westwind and Boing3000 like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by bigratlover View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Scratch the surface of intelligent design and your reveal the putrefying stench of a creationist.
    I, for one, would be content if that were all the farther we got.
    I smell intolerant athiests. If we all stop saying the others are wrong, stupid, inferior, subhuman- then we would all forget why we are fighting, start to like each other, and form a peaceful world. Let me show you something...10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On | Cracked.com...Just 'cause I'm sick of these "you stupid christians/athiests" arguments. If any of us are wrong, its both of us.
    I am not an atheist, but I am highly intolerant of the notion that we should attribute that which we do not fully understand to a being of unknowble properties simply because it is the easiest option. The idea that men several thousand years ago were more capable of explaining the properties of the creation of all things than modern scientists is insulting and, for me, laughable.

    Don't put words in my mouth by suggesting that I think people who believe in intelligent design are inferior or subhuman. They are simply uninformed. I am uninformed on many topics as well and that is nothing to be ashamed of. However, our methods of addressing our ignorance differ vastly.
    Boing3000 likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by bigratlover View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Scratch the surface of intelligent design and your reveal the putrefying stench of a creationist.
    I, for one, would be content if that were all the farther we got.
    I smell intolerant athiests. If we all stop saying the others are wrong, stupid, inferior, subhuman- then we would all forget why we are fighting, start to like each other, and form a peaceful world. Let me show you something...10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On | Cracked.com...Just 'cause I'm sick of these "you stupid christians/athiests" arguments. If any of us are wrong, its both of us.
    Here are several points:
    1. I am not an atheist.
    2. If you were to waste the time to search this and other forums you would find I often defend religion in general and Christianity in particualr against dogmatic attacks by paid up members of the Dawkins fan club.
    3. Some people are wrong. If they are it is important that we say so.
    4. Some people are stupid. If we recognise this, then it is important that their ill informed statements be refuted.
    5. Proponents of ID are not number . That is why I am especially critical of their dishonest, unprofessional, unscientific, cynical approach. Am I exaggerating? Unfortunately not. I truly wish I were.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by westwind View Post
    Method. Set up a light prohibiting igloo. Portable. Perhaps with an infra -red window to make observations in the dark.

    In bright sunlight place the Igloo over the dandelions creating instant dark.

    Observe through infra red window.

    Is the plant energy deployed? Flower closing up?

    Remove Igloo. Back to instant sunlight.

    Does the Flower open up?

    Repeat this procedure several times. ( providing of course we see evidence of continued open and closing of flower head. ).

    How long in real time could the Dandelion Plant keep up supplying energy to the process of flower opening and flower closing? westwind.

    What do you think John Galt?
    I think it is cruel to flowers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    The Enchanter westwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,079
    And I bloody agree Mate. Thanks for posting, whatever your ""take "" or view it gives a Thread credibility as a ligitemate(sic) observation. John, as far as I can makean honest judgement I am probably Agnostic in the sense the study of the Natural World intrigues me by it's complexity. Complexity dosen't lead to ID. I understand that. It's just that I understand the principles and mechanisms, say of a steam engine, an it's effective methods of creating energy and deploying that energy for a useful purpose smacks as to what a dandelion plant does. One is intelligent design the other???
    Yes, I guess I am being cruel to my dandelions---but what the Hell !!!. westwind.
    Words words words, were it better I caught your tears, and washed my face in them, and felt their sting. - westwind
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by bigratlover View Post
    Question, thank you for making things clear. You stated things I never could put the cognitive thoughts into saying and said it for me. We seem to share a lot in common. Now, lets go politely tease and nag and skeptic politely in a polite manner respectively!(Aside form this comment, where I berate him about being an intolerant antisocial jerk.)
    Just noticed this and will count is as adressed to me.

    Good man bigratlover. It's always rewarding when somebody can relate to whatI say

    I have in mind a couple who we could tease... best private mesage me on for an email adress. We better lay our plans elsewhere lest the Admin learn of our conspiracy.

    Now back to the thread... where are we at? We're discussing the ethics of exploiting plants to gain energy (other than by means of ingestion)? I concur with the previous comments. Plants are living things and should be respected. Plants have rights and perhaps a true democrasy would give them a vote (only once they reach maturity ofcourse).

    ID... I have put intelligence into my own design. I was once small, I ate and grew large. I was once weaker, I exercised and grew stronger. I was once blissfully ignorant of many things, I put effort into observing and understanding many things that seemed mysterious to me. I was once arrogant, I developed humility. Etc.

    Much intelligence went into designing the being that I now am. Others also put intelligence into affecting my design.

    My ancestors were once bacteria is perhaps the leading theory of science... Since that time inteligence has affected the evolution of my being into the state it is now.

    Intelligence in design on these grounds alone seems a given, to me.

    When a machine is designed... it's designed by a designer.

    With biological machines... much of the design and adaption has been done by the intelligence of the biological organism, throughout generations.

    Perhaps a designer had a hand in starting it all off... thats beyond my comprehension and I suspect beyond the comprehension of the most intelligent among us.

    Intelligent design though must surely be a given? By that all I mean is, intelligence goes into our design. The intelligennce of our forfathers affects our design, on top of that the intelligence we have or are subjected to, will affect the design of the next generation.

    I'm not a beleiver that all forms of life have evolved purely through 'defects' and random mutations. It seem perfectly obvious and reasonable to me that intelligence plays a major part in it all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,054
    What if 'intelligence' turns out to be nothing more than the tendency to 'follow the path of least resistance'?

    Each organism follows the path of least resistance for itself, which will vary by it's starting point and the affect of other elements and variables upon it.

    Emergence....divergence...... stills begs the point of origin, however.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    What if 'intelligence' turns out to be nothing more than the tendency to 'follow the path of least resistance'?

    Each organism follows the path of least resistance for itself, which will vary by it's starting point and the affect of other elements and variables upon it.

    Emergence....divergence...... stills begs the point of origin, however.
    Could be is my guess scheherazade. (Please may I refer to you as zade in future? or something shorterned.. I ask for two reasons, 1, scheherazade is a mouthful and I have no idea what it means... except I did find a peice of classical music called scheherazade. 2, I like you. I'd never adress somebody I didn't like with a shortened nickname (unless it was derogatory).

    Anyway, either way is fine, as you prefer.

    What comes to my mind following your post is that we don't always seem to follow the path of least resistence... If somebody exercises daily, which affects (is it effect or affect? i'm confused by those two words at the moment.. don't worry I googled it, affect has an influence, effect is result of an influence) and effects their evolution... How could that 'training' or development, which is intentionally and intelligently designing the body, be considered the path of least resistance?

    It's an unecesary development that causes resistance in the sense that... it's hard work and expends energy.

    Maybe I haven't grasped the concept of least resistance?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,054
    [QUOTE=question for you;376366]
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    What if 'intelligence' turns out to be nothing more than the tendency to 'follow the path of least resistance'?

    Each organism follows the path of least resistance for itself, which will vary by it's starting point and the affect of other elements and variables upon it.

    Emergence....divergence...... stills begs the point of origin, however.
    Could be is my guess scheherazade. (Please may I refer to you as zade in future? or something shorterned.. I ask for two reasons, 1, scheherazade is a mouthful and I have no idea what it means... except I did find a peice of classical music called scheherazade. 2, I like you. I'd never adress somebody I didn't like with a shortened nickname (unless it was derogatory).

    Anyway, either way is fine, as you prefer.
    'Schez' is an acceptable abbreviation, one that I use in signing PM's and personal email.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    What comes to my mind following your post is that we don't always seem to follow the path of least resistence... If somebody exercises daily, which affects (is it effect or affect? i'm confused by those two words at the moment.. don't worry I googled it, affect has an influence, effect is result of an influence) and effects their evolution... How could that 'training' or development, which is intentionally and intelligently designing the body, be considered the path of least resistance?

    It's an unecesary development that causes resistance in the sense that... it's hard work and expends energy.

    Maybe I haven't grasped the concept of least resistance?
    The path of least resistance does not imply an absence of resistance.

    All 'life' appears to compete for available resources, even at the level of microscopic organisms, perhaps of greater importance in the process than humans credit, though strangely we elect to be in a continual battle with these organisms, without full comprehension of their purpose.

    Not in conflict with my remark above, we are a visually focused species whose attention is drawn by movement and so we tend to largely dismiss the actions of those organisms that fall below the range of our unassisted vision, yet that may be where the greatest drama is transpiring. We are continually evolving and adapting, merely in less noticeable ways at this stage.

    Up to 25% of humans are now performing shift work, which is demonstrably more difficult for our bodies to adapt to (resistance) yet offers significant other benefits such as higher wages, more job security and less competition than the standard 9-5 Mon.-Fri. schedule that has long been the standard for commerce in most countries.

    I would suggest that we select for the resistance to which we are best adapted and that our tolerance for resistance is variable and this variability tends toward diversity as a 'broadcast seeding' strategy of the life force for optimization.

    That was a mouthful, lol... Does it make sense to the readers?

    westwind and sculptor like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    ... Creationism appears to be some sort of mental disorder where people refuse to look at the facts and instead prefer to believe that the universe was created a couple of weeks ago. (Or something.) And then they insist that their made-up nonsense be taught alongside real science.
    That's a tad rad dad.
    You speak loudly and assuredly from bigotry born of ignorance.
    "creationism" is but one way into the mind/patterns of the universe.
    Untill concisely disproven, I'm gonna go with the concept that the earthly shared coevolutionary biom has mind, and thought.
    And that so does the universe, and damned near all within it.

    knowing that, seemingly disconnected thoughts, events, patterns merge into a conceptualizeable whole.
    (that's why they call it holly)

    But really, wallow in your blissful ignorance just as long as it makes you feel good.

    as always, my best wishes for your mind and body
    rod
    ..............
    edit: epimetheus
    P.S.
    just tugging yer chain dad, you don't gotta react.
    ............
    and, yet one more epimetheus:
    I understand that the gathered shrinks are rewriting their bible---5th i think.
    If you hurry, maybe you could get religion classed as a mental illness, and force medications on all who espouse such notions.
    Did you take your soma today?
    Last edited by sculptor; December 13th, 2012 at 12:19 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Whats so stinking about 'creationism'? or being a 'creationist'?
    I was being deliberately provocative. Let me be more precise. I have no trouble with individuals who feel the universe was created by a powerful, perhaps omnipotent, being as a deliberate and conscious act. However, there is a subset of creationists who take a literal translation of the Bible, who refuse to consider any contrary evidence and who seek to impose their moral conclusions and belief on the rest of society. I consider them to be dangerous to the present and the future of humanity.
    To put it in other words:
    What is important here is really not WHAT you believe...
    It is HOW you believe that is the problem whether in politics religion or whatever!

    Simplifying things: the dangerous religious attitude is a virus not restricted to religion!
    Any ideology (including science and atheism) can have devotees infected by the disease.

    It always makes me sad seeing an infected atheist and an infected xian fight each other beliefs not understandin where their common enemy resides

    Mind you: tHE IDEA OF A VIRUS OR PARASITE IS NOT AS CRAZY AS IT SOUNDS AT FIRST SIGHT: (sorry for accidental shouting) : Theres a parasite making ants climb up to top of the grass (somehow the parasit is taking control of the ants behaviour) where the ant gets eaten by a cow! The parasites survive and lay their eggs in the intestines where the eggs come out tha natural way and ants "inspecting" the cow dung gets infected and the circle is closed. Why couldnt there be a similar phenomenon working silently on humans?

    And: (kidding just a little) infecting the universe at birth with creationistic eggs?

    Making you thinking theres a god when it really was an infected ant?

    Now go to sleep my beloved children dont forget to look under your beds
    Last edited by sigurdV; December 13th, 2012 at 12:28 PM.
    sculptor likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    and
    a fungus that infects ants in south america and forces an ant to climb to the top of the rain forest, then lock it's mandibles into a branch or leaf. Then the fruiting body of the fungus grows out of the ant's head, and spreads it's spores far and wide.

    should we include this nightmare in the free will thread?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Question from a non-scientific person.
    By BBtorch in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 12th, 2011, 03:36 PM
  2. Rare Wolf Spider
    By jsloan in forum Biology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: June 13th, 2011, 02:26 AM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: June 24th, 2010, 03:23 PM
  4. why the full moon isnt as rare as eclipses?
    By luxtpm in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: April 24th, 2010, 02:50 PM
  5. Rare Einstein film discoverd
    By in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 27th, 2008, 03:17 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •