Thread: New Discovery of a Universal Life Force

Vitalism is a doctrine that the functions of a living organism are due to a vital principle distinct from physicochemical forces
This new theory says that it is the physics phenomenon known as the Coriolis effect that influences life.
http://coriolislife.blogspot.com

I've posted this before but there was a big update recently.
This theory is related to animal magnetism from Franz Mesmer.
Propositions of animal magnetism: http://web.archive.org/web/200407101...ngs/mesmer.htm

My thoughts:
I think the curved shapes from 0 to 15 latitude degrees are pretty significant since hurricanes don't occur that close to the equator. I do have bananas from Ecuador and coffee beans from Colombia which seem to agree with the curved shapes he drew. Pretty cool.
Most organisms have some kind of ellipse shape body so it would be hard to prove this theory.
I'd say the best evidence for this would be taking seeds from a single plant and growing it all over the world.

so you've discovered that curved and spiral shapes are quite common in the natural world - how does that make it a Universal Life Force with capital letters

smells of pseudo-science

Originally Posted by truther

Vitalism is a doctrine that the functions of a living organism are due to a vital principle distinct from physicochemical forces

Vitalism is a doctrine that has been thoroughly discredited. It is pseudoscience of the worst kind.

Originally Posted by truther

This new theory says that it is the physics phenomenon known as the Coriolis effect that controls life.

Well, this is at least an improvement on vitalism. You are not appealing to an elan vital, but to a common or garden consequence of the basic laws of motion.

Originally Posted by truther

http://coriolislife.blogspot.com

Its a nice crisp, clear website. I wish I could make something so spartan look so good. Shame about the content.

Originally Posted by truther

I've posted this before but there was a big update recently.
This theory is related to animal magnetism from Franz Mesmer.

There are almost two centuries of biology you might wish to take account of. Then again, you might not, since they would invalidate your beliefs, and clearly you have invested a lot of yourself in your beliefs.
The great scientists are the ones who can make a paradigm shift without having to die and be reincarnated.

I'd say the best evidence for this would be taking seeds from a single plant and growing it all over the world.

I did like this. You have provided a way of testing your hypothesis. May I recommend a visit to Kew Gardens. I think you will find they have grown seeds from all over the world and they have subjected them to every imaginable measurement and observation. I am unaware of any abnormalities that might be associated with latitude and the coriolis force. Perhaps you could write ot one of their curators and confirm.[/i]

Originally Posted by truther

This new theory says that it is the physics phenomenon known as the Coriolis effect that controls life.

I don't usually do this, but...

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

OMG that was funny. Thanks, I needed a laugh today!

*ahem*

Okay.

so you've discovered that curved and spiral shapes are quite common in the natural world

Well, he's saying nature is curving and spiraling according to the latitudes it lives at. And if you read it, the curved shape only goes from like 0 to 15 degrees N or S.
The spiral shape is common in nature. Can you explain why? It's not the most efficient shape for, say, the ear or the brain, yet it exists.

Vitalism is a doctrine that has been thoroughly discredited.

No, people just gave up "since its core ideas are metaphysical and impossible to prove or disprove using scientific method". Such as spiritual energies like qi and prana.
The core idea of this theory is the Coriolis effect, and thus "provable" in many ways.

There are almost two centuries of biology you might wish to take account of.

I like what he says at the end, "This is a general theory for all of nature; alternative explanations are limited to a certain field."

The core idea of this theory is the Coriolis effect, and thus "provable" in many ways.

You do realize the Coriolis effect is due to the movement of objects in a rotating frame of reference. Plants don't move. It is a crackpot theory.

You do realize the Coriolis effect is due to the movement of objects in a rotating frame of reference. Plants don't move.

No, that causation is wrong.
Anyway, I think you are dismissing it because you don't see plants spin wildly like hurricanes. The Coriolis effect is weak, subtle and slow. Oh and growth is movement. Xylem transfers water. Phloem transfers nutrients.[/quote]

A spiral shape can be advantageous for many reasons. Some plant seeds grow spiral roots in order to corkscrew themselves into the ground. Plant vines will often grow in a spiral to form a sort of spring, so that they can be stretched and moved to a certain degree but will not immediately break. Ear canals are not spiral so much as they are loops, which creates a larger surface area per volume for the effecient reception of and reaction to sound. Sprial shapes are not necessarily so unnatural and inefficient as you think they are. Even the examples from the blog post - how do we know that this general shape is not simply a more efficient growth pattern than most others? For every case where vitalists would blame the Coriolis effect, you would have to first make absolutely sure that you aren't actually looking at an adaptation of some kind - and I think you would be hard pressed to find such a case.

In a word, I'm not convinced. I need much more evidence than what is being shown to me.

I think it's conceivable that, at the macroscopic scale where tiny changes can be effected by tiny environmental effects, it is certainly possible that the Coriolis effect leads some things to grow uniformly in one direction verses another. That said, it might be possible that plants in the southern hemisphere tend to spiral in the opposite direction to plants in the northern hemisphere.

However, this effect is likely no different than any other environmental influence on the growth of organisms, except that it's more widely spread.

I think the word "control" though is misleading. If the above bit of this post is true, the Coriolis effect doesn't "control" life, it influences it. It's an environmental property, same as gravity.

I dont even know if this is relevant but I always remember hearing "by looking at a neuron, you still have no idea as to how the brain as a whole actually works".

Similarly here I think you may be looking at something too insignificant to be the definative "lifeforce"

Originally Posted by Robbie

I dont even know if this is relevant but I always remember hearing "by looking at a neuron, you still have no idea as to how the brain as a whole actually works".

Similarly here I think you may be looking at something too insignificant to be the definative "lifeforce"

Claiming that the Coriolis effect is the life-force behind nature is absurd. Claiming that it "controls" life would be a claim that goes equally with "gravity controls life." The word "control" is probably being misused for "influences." It's certainly possible that the Coriolis effect influences life on some overall scale, the same way gravity does, but I wouldn't say it controls life.

I'm not sure where yer quote fits into this thread, though.

Originally Posted by Wolf

I think it's conceivable that, at the macroscopic scale where tiny changes can be effected by tiny environmental effects, it is certainly possible that the Coriolis effect leads some things to grow uniformly in one direction verses another.

Wolf, I think your first reaction was correct. The idea is laughable. Has anybody calulated the coriolis force on some sap moving out the stem of a plant? It has got to be absolutely minuscule, even compared to the effects of slightest breeze shaking the leaf of the plant.

It would be interesting if someone actually did a study to look at growth patterns between plants in the northern and southern hemispheres. If plant structures uniformly spiraled in one direction in the north, and the other direction in the south, that'd prove there was some effect from the Coriolis effect.

It would be neat, but that's probably about it. In order to make a claim that the Coriolis effect has a profound effect on the world's life, you'd have to show me that this subtle dictation of spin in plants somehow has effect on the larger ecosystem as a whole. I'm not sure what that test would be, but it would be necessary to prove anything more than patterns caused by physical phenomena.

The fundamental question is this "Do woo-woos in the Northern Hemisphere run in clockwise circles screaming 'I'm crazy, crazy, crazy.', whereas those in the Southern Hemisphere run in the opposite direction?"

postcards from the edge.

the great PROBLEM with a theory of everything, a theory of all things, is that it could inspire a person to find meaning in "everything", even coffee beans.

still, that should not deter us from such a quest, even in the jungles of columbia.

A spiral shape can be advantageous for many reasons.

But how does nature get the spiral shape to begin with? There are no advantages to a leaf shaped like a heart. It is much easier for leaves to grow circular... Instead of the ear canal, look at the ear/earlobe. If you look at enough people you'll see that there's a complete spectrum of spiral shapes just like predicted. Long ears are inefficient compared to circular ears.

Oops! Influences*, not controls. The site never said the force controls life, that's my mistake.

It's an environmental property, same as gravity.

Yes, that's how I see this. It gives order or uniformity to chaos. As the result of Earth's rotation and axial tilt, this should be seen on the same scale as gravity. You don't feel either force. Gravity is just pulling things down. This force is spinning things at different rates which opens doors to variability on Earth.

It would be neat, but that's probably about it.

No way! This theory is all about shape changes from migration. Want the greatest basketball player ever? Make sure he grows up 1 degree from the equator like Manute Bol or in the Netherlands. Did you know most kids in Singapore (1 degree North) have near-sightedness (result of eye elongation) and wear glasses? These people migrated from China. Kids have crooked teeth? Go back to your home latitude. I can go on for hours on just the human face...

Originally Posted by truther

But how does nature get the spiral shape to begin with?

Spiral shapes have the advantage of strength and flexibility. Plants with straight growth structures are either much weaker, or must use another method of making themselves rigid (such as being made of harder material). It's probably safe to assume that the spiral structure of plants is an evolutionary product. The direction of the spiral, however, could be affected by an environmental effect, such as the Coriolis effect. Whether the plant spirals left or right is probably irrelevant, so a minute force such as the Coriolis effect may very well just serve to choose the direction.

Originally Posted by truther

There are no advantages to a leaf shaped like a heart.

There are LOTS of plants with heart shaped leaves, particularly in tropical regions. Leaf shape is mainly driven by the species, and the environment, with variations maximizing survival according to light and water availability. There is clearly some advantage to the non-round shapes of leaves, else the non-round varieties would have died out.

Originally Posted by truther

No way! This theory is all about shape changes from migration. Want the greatest basketball player ever? Make sure he grows up 1 degree from the equator like Manute Bol or in the Netherlands. Did you know most kids in Singapore (1 degree North) have near-sightedness (result of eye elongation) and wear glasses? These people migrated from China. Kids have crooked teeth? Go back to your home latitude. I can go on for hours on just the human face...

Yer gonna need to explain that reasoning before I believe that the Coriolis effect determines jaw development and growth height, or athletic ability. How does the spinning of the Earth cause these effects? Explain the link.

Want the greatest basketball player ever? Make sure he grows up 1 degree from the equator like Manute Bol

LOL. Manute was the greatest player ever. Yeah, right.

Originally Posted by truther

But how does nature get the spiral shape to begin with? There are no advantages to a leaf shaped like a heart. It is much easier for leaves to grow circular... Instead of the ear canal, look at the ear/earlobe. If you look at enough people you'll see that there's a complete spectrum of spiral shapes just like predicted. Long ears are inefficient compared to circular ears.

The roots of all structures (more or less) come from some sort of genetic mutation, that may in turn go under positive directional selection towards a more extreme form if that mutation confers a reproductive advantage to the animal or plant that bears it.

Is it easier for plants to grow circular leaves? The only plants I know of that grow leaves shaped like (almost) perfect circles are lily pads. A great many plants grow long straight leaves. Like grasses. And are there no advantages to a heart shaped leaf? It's wider and can catch more sunlight. By coming to a tapering point, like many rainforest plants do, water can be channeled to run down the center of the leaf and drip off, instead of staying on the leaf, keeping it wet, and susceptible to molds. It also takes the water off leaves faster, giving it less time to absorb and leech out nutrients from the leaf. Yes, rain can do that. Rainforest plants invest a great deal in each individual leaf, sometimes keeping the same leaf for years. It pays to invest in ways to maintain that leaf for as long as possible.

Why are long ears inefficient to compared to circular ears? A perfectly circular ear may catch more sound, but big satellites on the sides of our heads might obstruct our vision. If attached to our heads by the edge of the circle, there's much less area for contact and the ear may be more susceptible to ripping and damage. Maybe hearing has never been so vitally important to our reproductive success that once the ear was good enough, it wasn't worth it to put in the extra effort to develop the mechanically perfect ear.

I could say that a child's ability to read could be roughly determined by their foot size - and I'd often be right, because as children grow and learn and get smarter, their feet get bigger. That doesn't mean foot size is the ultimate determination of intelligence. The coriolis effect may have some small influence on certain growth patterns for relatively weak structures, but I highly doubt that it's the only reason those growth patterns are the way they are.

The problem is that everyone is assuming the shape of everything is the result of evolutionary advantage. You guys assume this first, then seek explanations that support it. And sometimes it gets ridiculous. For example, I think it's a stretch to say that growing in a spiral shape is advantageous for structure rigidity. One could say the very opposite: spiralling plants are the result of growing too tall without the necessary strength to keep it up. Now the spiralling is considered inferior.

If everything is the result of evolutionary advantage, then why is it that everything at higher latitudes has a longer shape like this theory is saying? From the shape of the leaf to the height of a human. Does the environment of higher latitudes favors long shapes? For everything in nature? Quite a coincidence.

Yer gonna need to explain that reasoning before I believe that the Coriolis effect determines jaw development and growth height, or athletic ability. How does the spinning of the Earth cause these effects?

The theory says that the spin looks like this, in hurricanes and nature: http://bp0.blogger.com/_BB_s0joFLqM/...h/latitude.jpg
The shape depends on the latitude. The face will "conform" to the shape that it lives at. This is at the bottom of the blog site. So if a Chinese kid (around 30 degrees latitude) moves to Singapore (1 degree latitude), his face shape will adjust from semi-round to really long.

Originally Posted by truther

The shape depends on the latitude. The face will "conform" to the shape that it lives at. This is at the bottom of the blog site. So if a Chinese kid (around 30 degrees latitude) moves to Singapore (1 degree latitude), his face shape will adjust from semi-round to really long.

Oh, please! Then let's see how you handle the shape of polynesian faces!

Originally Posted by truther

If everything is the result of evolutionary advantage, then why is it that everything at higher latitudes has a longer shape like this theory is saying? From the shape of the leaf to the height of a human.

Uh, no. Inuit people are on average somewhat shorter, and more barrel chested. This is to decrease the surface area to body mass ratio to retain heat in their frigid environment. The indigenous people of many central African nations, on the other hand, are usually tall and thin, to increase the surface area to body mass ration so that they easily loose heat, and don't overheat in the sun. The very evidence you're using to support this theory is incorrect.

Originally Posted by truther

For example, I think it's a stretch to say that growing in a spiral shape is advantageous for structure rigidity.

We never said for rigidity. For strength and flexibility. A spiraled vine is like a spring. Pull it, and it stretches, but it does not break. You can bend it, you can twist it, and it will stretch and conform. Bend a straight twig too far and it snaps much more easily than does the spiraled vine. Being too rigid is what makes the twig easy to break.

Originally Posted by truther

The problem is that everyone is assuming the shape of everything is the result of evolutionary advantage.

We may be assuming most things are the result of evolutionary change - because most things are. There are mountains of science supporting this. Don't make us defend the basic principles of evolution. You, on the other hand, are assuming most things are the result of the coriolis effect. And you have very little science to prove it.

Inuit people are on average somewhat shorter, and more barrel chested.

What you said is true, but Bergmann's rule is not without exceptions too. Italians tend to have more compact bodies than Northern Europeans. This is also true for Southeast Asians compared with Northeast Asians. In fact, Bergmann's rule may be independent of this theory that deals with proportions.

We never said for rigidity. For strength and flexibility.

I see.. but then again I do not know of any plant with spring-like vines that flex when blown around.

We may be assuming most things are the result of evolutionary change - because most things are.

Yes, natural selection exists, but it just does not apply to a lot of proportions in nature. For example, a leaf with a 1:2 width to height ratio versus 1:3. For things like this, where it is not subject to selectivity, I think this force existent and visible.

What's a "Universal Life Force", anyway?

Originally Posted by truther

I see.. but then again I do not know of any plant with spring-like vines that flex when blown around.

Well, I do. I will try finding a reference when I next have time. They were featured in the Planet Earth show, actually. You can find them in rainforests.

Yes, natural selection exists, but it just does not apply to a lot of proportions in nature. For example, a leaf with a 1:2 width to height ratio versus 1:3. For things like this, where it is not subject to selectivity, I think this force existent and visible.

You blame us for assuming so many things are due to natural selection, but you consistently assume so many factors are independent of it. I do not think leaf ratio is independent of natural selection at all. Leaf shape affects the amount of area exposed to sunlight, the boundary layer (movement of air around the leaf), etc. Shapes are often more important to function than you seem to think.

Originally Posted by truther

I see.. but then again I do not know of any plant with spring-like vines that flex when blown around.

....Grape vines for one....
Common creeping vines. Just about anything from the vine family, and a few other plant families as well.



It's a natural adaptation which allows the plant to bind itself to other objects (and plants), and when that object moves or the plant moves, the connection won't break because it has a spring-like curl in it.

Originally Posted by truther

Yes, natural selection exists, but it just does not apply to a lot of proportions in nature. For example, a leaf with a 1:2 width to height ratio versus 1:3. For things like this, where it is not subject to selectivity, I think this force existent and visible.

Yer assuming a lot, there. Plants develop different leaves because they grow according to different rules. The surrounding environment, the needs of the particular plant species, competition from other plants and animals, and even traits of the plant species itself, govern how the plant will grow.

If there were one overall defining property that governed all leaf creation, there would be forests with only one type of leaf. Clearly this is not the case. You can wander out into just about any forest and find many kinds of plants, with many kinds of leaves. If you follow your argument, only one type of leaf has the "right" solution, and all other plants should have died out. Clearly something else is governing plant growth and driving plants to form such wide varieties. I can't think of a single constant stimulation that would result in only one type of plant.

Leaf shape affects the amount of area exposed to sunlight, the boundary layer (movement of air around the leaf), etc. Shapes are often more important to function than you seem to think.

Sorry but I still don't see this. A proportion just doesn't have a function..

It's a natural adaptation which allows the plant to bind itself to other objects (and plants), and when that object moves or the plant moves, the connection won't break because it has a spring-like curl in it.

These creeping vines have spirals at the tip only, where it's growing and connecting to other things. I think you're inferring too many adaptations. There is no flexible, spiralling vine between connections where it is vulnerable to stretching.

If there were one overall defining property that governed all leaf creation, there would be forests with only one type of leaf.

No, the theory says that there are leaf shapes from ellipses to hearts, and everything "in between".
http://bp0.blogger.com/_BB_s0joFLqM/...ail+length.gif
The shape is based on the "tube angle". Kind of strange.. but if we look at only the heart shape at many different latitudes, we should see the change in proportion. Check out the leaf pictures on the right.

Your "theory" does not explain how the Coriolis force supposedly makes plants grow in certain shapes. Lets say the sap flowing out a branch does experience a coriolis force, which is preposterous in the first place. How then does the coriolis force affect the shape of a leaf?

from www.ijdb.ehu.es/web/contents.php%3Fvol%3D49%26issue%3D5-6%26doi%3D041921ht+leaf+shape+adaptation&hl=en&ct= clnk&cd=31&gl=us&client=firefox-a]Tsukaya H. Leaf shape: genetic controls and environmental factors. Int. J. Dev. Biol. 49: 547-555 (2005)[/url]

Biological significance of leaf shape

Leaves are photosynthetic organs; thus, the shapes and sizes of leaves are very important factors influencing the success of plants. To absorb sufficient light energy, leaves must be as wide as possible. At the same time, to facilitate gas exchange (CO2, O2 and H2O), leaves must be as flat and thin as possible. However, if leaves are too wide and too thin, they will quickly become desiccated. Thus, leaf area and thickness are restricted by the availability of water in main.

In addition to the above-mentioned basic environmental factors, other factors can affect the optimum shape and size of leaves. For example, plants that are adapted to riparian habitats which are frequently flooded typically develop narrow, thick leaves. Plants with such morphological adaptations are categorized as rheophytes (van Steenis 1981). Typical rheophytes show two types of adaptations to two opposite types of environmental stress. Leaves of rheophytes are narrower than closely related species and are thus able to resist the strong flow of water. On the other hand, leaves of rheophytes are thicker than those of their ancestral species in order to tolerate desiccation during exposure to high levels of sunshine in fair weather.

Although shape of leaves is genetically fixed in a particular type in most rheophytes, leaf shape in a species is not necessarily fixed as one type by evolutionary traits. Many species have acquired plasticity of leaf shape allowing responses to environmental conditions. When plants are exposed to weak light, most show a shade-avoidance syndrome, e.g., an elongation of the petiole and a decrease (sometimes increase) of the leaf blade area. The shade-avoidance syndrome is a typical example of leaf shape plasticity. In a model plant, Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. (Arabidopsis, hereafter), leaf-blade expansion is inhibited and, at the same time, petiole elongation is enhanced when the shade- avoidance syndrome is triggered (Nagatani et al., 1991; Reed et al., 1993; Tsukaya et al., 2002; Kozuka et ak., 2005). This change in leaf shape provides for a better leaf position. As the efficiency of photosynthesis is low unless leaves can absorb sufficient light, it is reasonable that leaves exhibiting shade-avoidance syndromes remain smaller by restricting the proliferation of leaf cells (Tsukaya et al., 2002).

from www.agri.upm.edu.my/~chris/leafshape.pdf+leaf+shape+adaptation&hl=en&ct=clnk& cd=15&gl=us&client=firefox-a]Teh, CBS. The effect of leaf shape on the interception of solar radiation.[/url]

Results presented here indicated that leaf shape does have an effect on solar radiation interception (though to a rather small extent) by altering the spatial distribution of leaf area density. Solar radiation interception is augmented for plants having leaves that are shaped in such a way that causes the canopy to be “spread out” more uniformly or homogenously; thus, reducing self-shading or clustering of leaves. Plants with long, narrow leaves, for example, increases solar radiation interception as compared to plants with short, wide leaves. This indicate that, all properties being equal, grass species, maize and oil palm trees, due to their long, narrow leaves, would intercept more solar radiation than plants that have short, wide leaves. Leaves that are broader at the apex than at the basal would also increase solar radiation interception because this reduces the bunching or clustering of leaves near the plant stem, causing a more uniform spread of leaf area. This would mean that, all properties being equal, plants having leaf shapes that are broad at the apex such as oblanceolate, obovate and spatulate (Glattstein, 2003) would intercept more solar radiation than plants having leaf shapes that are broad at the basal such as ovate and cordate. Leaf petioles also increase solar radiation interception in particular by reducing leaf clustering around the plant stem, but the advantages of having leaf petioles are least pronounced for plants that have long, narrow leaves. This may indicate why plants having such leaves rarely have petioles (e.g., maize and oil palm) as they already capture solar radiation effectively.

The results here may indicate that crop yields could be increased, albeit slightly, by designing or selecting crop varieties that have longer and narrower leaves, leaves with longer petioles, or leaves that are broader at their apex than at their basal. Nonetheless, in stressed environments, having such leaves may be detrimental due to the heavy solar radiation load on them. In such conditions, short and wide sessile leaves may instead be more preferable. Bailey and Sinnott (1916) reported that environment factors have a stronger effect on leaf form and size than the plants’ genetic make-up. This highlights the importance of plant adaptation mechanisms in certain environment conditions or stresses. For a given leaf area, narrow leaves are found to have lower evaporation rates as compared to broad leaves (Taylor, 1975) due to the thicker boundary layer of non-moving air on the narrow leaves. Leaf rolling and drooping are also mechanisms to reduce thermal load and evaporation losses (Campbell and Norman, 2000). Results from this study and from Niklas (1989) indicate that the function of leaf lobes is probably more associated to the adaptation to heat and water loss rather than to adaptation to solar radiation interception. Leaves with lobes are found to convectively dissipate heat most easily as compared to other leaf shapes as found by Vogel (1970), which are advantageous in hot, dry environments.

Still think shape and proportion have no adaptive significance? Your own personal belief that something isn't true is a far cry from proving that it isn't.

Originally Posted by truther

These creeping vines have spirals at the tip only, where it's growing and connecting to other things. I think you're inferring too many adaptations. There is no flexible, spiralling vine between connections where it is vulnerable to stretching.

If you're making this judgement based solely on the one picture wolf provided (which was probably chosen for the clearly spiral shape), it might seem so. So look at this one instead. Or even this one. This one is pretty nice too.

If you think about it, even Wolf's picture still supports what we've been trying to tell you. Why would a growing vine tendril spiral at it's tip? Well, isn't the growing tip what is going to reach out and eventually attach to another substrate? And once it does, doesn't that "tip" area now become the intervening area between two substrates, where a coil like action would be desired?

Originally Posted by paralith

So look at...

Nice.

Plants that grow as vines adapted the ability to grab onto other objects as a way of further supporting their primitive stem structure. While this does make growing faster and easier in many cases, if the object that the plant is holding on to moves, such as in the wind, that motion could endanger the vine. Not only could the movement move the vine, but if the vine is attached to something else that isn't moving, the motion from one of its anchors could tear the plant apart. So the vines developed these spirals in their features to allow them to readily stretch and bend as needed.

But the picture and the vines note is more of a response to the statement "I do not know of any plant with spring-like vines."

Originally Posted by paralith

If you think about it, even Wolf's picture still supports what we've been trying to tell you. Why would a growing vine tendril spiral at it's tip? Well, isn't the growing tip what is going to reach out and eventually attach to another substrate? And once it does, doesn't that "tip" area now become the intervening area between two substrates, where a coil like action would be desired?

No offense, but I think yer going off topic there.

The point I'm trying to make is that it may be possible that the Coriolis effect dictates the DIRECTION of the spiral in many plant features that spiral, but it is highly doubtful (IMO) that the Coriolis effect CAUSES plants to have these spiral features. The needs of adaptation to the environment outweigh the subtle affects of the Coriolis effect.

Originally Posted by Wolf

it may be possible that the Coriolis effect dictates the DIRECTION of the spiral

Let's stop the madness. The Coriolis effect dictates jack squat. To prove it to myself I just went out and collected some tendrils from a grape vine growing up a tree in my yard. The tendrils don't even keep spiraling in the same direction. They often switch directions in the middle. They don't all start out the same direction either, some clockwise some counterclockwise.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

...The tendrils don't even keep spiraling in the same direction. They often switch directions in the middle. They don't all start out the same direction either, some clockwise some counterclockwise.

Good point. Now we have some evidence against the Coriolis effect causing growth patterns to go one way or the other. That may be some compelling evidence against the whole idea that the Coriolis effect is effecting the growth of plants overall...which consequently also hints at such a negative for animals.

However, there is still a problem with the plant vines. As shown, plant vines from your samples can go both ways, and don't always start off in the same direction. The problem is that this is only one sample. It is possible that, after collecting a sampling from a large collection of vines from a large number of plants, that tendency to grow in one direction dominates the other.

If a similar sampling was taken from the Southern hemisphere, and this sampling showed a dominance in the opposite direction from the Northern hemisphere, then we could assume that the Coriolis effect IS in some way manipulating the probabilities.

How has this lasted this long in the Biology forum and not been moved to pseudoscience? There are still active mods around here right?

We're discussing the possible affects, and logic, of the Coriolis effect's influence on the biological environment. We haven't wandered into fantasy just yet. That'll happen only after we've decided that the Coriolis effect has no affect what-so-ever on organisms...which we haven't actually done yet. :-D

Originally Posted by Neutrino

How has this lasted this long in the Biology forum and not been moved to pseudoscience? There are still active mods around here right?

I am fairly certain there have been a number of these threads, some of which have been moved. I assume when I see one in 'Latest Posts' that it is already in pseudoscience. If no one objects (with solid validation) in the next couple of days I shall move it to pseudoscience.
Ophiolite

You're welcome to it, if you ask me. With all the other forces, both physical and evolutionary, acting on organisms as they develop, I have extreme doubts about how much the Coriolis effect can influence - if it can influence anything at all.

Still think shape and proportion have no adaptive significance?

I never said a shape cannot be an adaptation. Of course it can. A horn is a shape that allows a rhino to poke stuff.
A proportion is not an adaptation, though. Those articles don't tell me anything about proportions, except a billion leaf terms. Are Northern Europeans taller than Southern Europeans because of an adaptation?

The Coriolis effect dictates jack squat. To prove it to myself I just went out and collected some tendrils from a grape vine growing up a tree in my yard.

How many species of plants have tendrils like this?
http://fireflyforest.net/images/fire...ed-tendril.jpg
Is that the kind you were looking at? These will obviously be 50 ccw:50 cw, because it is bilateral symmetry.. just like a leaf.
http://www.greengeek.ca/wp-content/u...06/09/leaf.jpg
There is a spiral (instead of a coil) going ccw and one going cw in leaves too.
I think many tendrils grow with this symmetry so looking at the spin is kind of futile.

The needs of adaptation to the environment outweigh the subtle affects of the Coriolis effect.

Is it impossible that these are independent? A hand grabs things -- that is an adaptation. The Coriolis effect can change the proportion of the hand.

If no one objects (with solid validation) in the next couple of days I shall move it to pseudoscience.

There is evidence that supports this theory: the heart (cyclone) shape and proportions of leaves and fruits. Proportions of human bodies, faces, eyes, ears, etc. (excluding eskimos?).

Originally Posted by truther

The Coriolis effect can change the proportion of the hand.

Yer gonna have to work pretty hard to convince me (and probably a lot of others here from what I've seen so far in posts) that the Coriolis effect is dictating that kind of property.

You seem to be trying to tell me that the Coriolis effect is the driving force behind natural selection, rather than it being simply a physical phenomena that causes things to tend towards one direction or another due to rotation.

Let me get this straight...If I live off of coconuts, and need big hands to hold them, yer trying to tell me that it's not the size of the coconut but the spin of the Earth that will make my hands bigger? The needs of my environment are being overruled by the spin of the planet?

Or maybe I die out because some other group of people somewhere else, developed coconut-picking hands by being on a different part of the globe? Of course, once they got to the place where the coconuts were, the change in Coriolis effect would cause their hands to shrink back to my hand's size...if yer theory held.

You got a lot of connections to explain.

Until you do, this is bunk. Absolute B-U-N-K bunk!

This is pure nonsense.
You have offered no evidence, merely made unsubstantiated statements.
We know why plants spiral. We know how they spiral. We know what controls their spirals. The Coriolis force does not come into it.
I urge you to get an education.

Moved to pseudoscience - Ophiolite

Originally Posted by truther

There is a spiral (instead of a coil) going ccw and one going cw in leaves too.
I think many tendrils grow with this symmetry so looking at the spin is kind of futile.

Futile is definitely the word for it. Finally you have made a correct statement. Unfortunately for your theory, the Coriolis force only works in one direction.

Originally Posted by truther

A proportion is not an adaptation, though. Those articles don't tell me anything about proportions, except a billion leaf terms.

Perhaps I should have included some more quotes in my post, as you clearly didn't follow the links to the articles and read more. The second study made comparisons of solar absorption between leaves of the same area but different shape - aka, different proportions. All other factors were the same. Proportion is one of the characteristics of shape. You cannot separate the two and say one counts and the other does not. Or are you talking about different sizes of leaves, which is also a property of shape, which also clearly effects solar absorption.

You're not going to convince anyone here that proportion is necessarily free of evolutionary constraints, and most certainly not by solely bringing up examples where the constraint isn't known yet. And you can't claim that the constraint is the Coriolis effect when all you have done is observe a pattern. Observing the pattern is only the first step, after that experimentation and other evidence must be obtained to demonstrably link the pattern with your hypothesized mechanism. And you have done none of that.

You seem to be trying to tell me that the Coriolis effect is the driving force behind natural selection, rather than it being simply a physical phenomena that causes things to tend towards one direction or another due to rotation.

From the blog, the direction is not important because of the "mirroring" ability of nature. The important part is how the spiral is shaped as you go from the equator to the pole.

Of course, once they got to the place where the coconuts were, the change in Coriolis effect would cause their hands to shrink back to my hand's size.

Obviously, hands don't shrink. It seems to only affect things as they are growing. If an Asian grew up in England, he would be taller than if he stayed at home. If an English boy grew up in Mexico, he would be shorter than if he stayed at home.

You have offered no evidence, merely made unsubstantiated statements.

I didn't realize I was typing for a science journal. Did you want references, citations, and footnotes? You can google it, but for all this proportion stuff there isn't much published information. Like the fact that Southeast Asians have rounder faces than Europeans. Although the original blog has pictures of leaves at different latitudes.
http://www.snec.com.sg/eye/myopia.asp

We know why plants spiral.

It is not known why many plant leaves are heart shaped. You have an explanation for the bottom of the heart -- so water slips off. This itself is a very poor theory. Why is it almost always just one tapered end?
And what about the top, the curved part?

We know how they spiral. We know what controls their spirals.

Let me guess, just DNA. If it is that simple, why is it coded in DNA to begin with? I can think of a billion more shapes for leaves, more efficient and less efficient for its needs, than a heart shape. The common argument for this would be, "it only gets as efficient as it has to to survive." So many plant leaves started out as having these curved shapes at the top of the heart, and who knows what else. Then they evolved to have the tapered end, while retaining the curved top as a vestigial structure.
A very ridiculous explanation.
This theory's explanation is that the stem is vertical like a cyclone so it displays like a cyclone (but with symmetry) with the same science as a cyclone.
Temperature differentials and the Coriolis effect.
Occam's razor?

Unfortunately for your theory, the Coriolis force only works in one direction.

Nature replicates the uni-directional spiral for the other side. Yes, there is no explanation for this. But then again, the world already accepts replication processes in nature.

The second study made comparisons of solar absorption between leaves of the same area but different shape. All other factors were the same.

And the conclusion was that longer leaves are less likely to cover other leaves of the same plant, which increased solar radiation. But it was a computer model! It does nothing to show a change in proportion as an adaptation.

You're not going to convince anyone here that proportion is necessarily free of evolutionary constraints.

Proportions don't seem like an adaptation when they are correlated to health problems with teeth or eyes.

From the web site

A cyclone needs cold (dense) and hot (less dense) air masses to exist. Similarly, the only requirement for an organism to be influenced by the Coriolis effect is a dense component and a loose (less dense) component. An example is bone and flesh.
The greater the difference of the densities, the stronger the Coriolis effect influence.

This is the most hare-brained part of the theory. The cyclone's wind is caused by the difference in density but it is the wind movement that is affected by the Coriolis force. No movement, no Coriolis. The stuff about dense components and loose components is just nonsense.

Why do I get the feeling this nut isn't actually reading anything we post?

Originally Posted by truther

Obviously, hands don't shrink. It seems to only affect things as they are growing. If an Asian grew up in England, he would be taller than if he stayed at home. If an English boy grew up in Mexico, he would be shorter than if he stayed at home.

In the absence of documentation this is nothing more (and probably considerably less) than idle speculation, that is about as much worth as a blue ribbon on dog feces.
You offer nothing - absolutely nothing - to suggest that these statements have any validity whatsoever. I can readily say that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence because there is more copper there. If I fail to produce evidence that a) the grass is greener, and b) there is a higher concentration of copper, then you would be foolish not to reject my statement out of hand.

Originally Posted by truther

You have offered no evidence, merely made unsubstantiated statements.

I didn't realize I was typing for a science journal. Did you want references, citations, and footnotes?

You are writing for a science forum. We expect you to attempt to follow the scientific method. That means, amongst other things, that when you make a claim you need to justify it in some way, with mathematical proofs, evidence, citations and the like. Otherwise you could say virtually any nonsense you wish.
We do wish to encourage original thought, but original thought within a scientific context and that requires at least some attempt at providing some rigour in your propositions. So far that is sadly lacking.

Originally Posted by truther

You can google it, .......

No Definitely not. You are the one making the bizarre claim. You can google it and tell us what you find. It is up to you to offer support for your claim, not up to us to disprove it. .

Originally Posted by truther

Like the fact that Southeast Asians have rounder faces than Europeans..

And what has roundness to do with spiralling and the Coriolis force?

truther, I repeat my earlier advice. Please go and get an education. I should be happy to help you in this regard, but only if you take the first step and abandon this infantile nonsense.

I was willing to go with the idea that possibly the Coriolis effect caused a greater probability for things to turn one direction vs another depending on hemisphere, but that's all...and I'm not even all too hot about that idea, either.

I see no proof, logic, or even a theoretical link between the rotation of the planet (ie - the driving force behind the Coriolis effect) and environmental adaptation (ie - natural selection).

truther, you can't just pop in here with some radically new statement that changes a fundamental aspect of science, and then not given any proof.

You can google it...

No, you bloody Google it. It's not my theory, I'm not the one trying to convince others.

...but for all this proportion stuff there isn't much published information.

Too bad, not our problem. If you don't have any proof, or only sketchy theories at best, don't complain when we call bunk on the thread.

Sorry, but yer way off the scales with this one. I'm not one to shoot someone down for having a different idea, but I do expect those with new ideas to back up their claims.

To insist that the Coriolis effect, a phenomenon that only affects the appearance of the motion of objects in a system that rotates- it being due to the rotation of the earth, which, being constant, does not change the net force of any system on the planet (this we know from the "Coriolis force," being a "pseudo force" in mathematics)-- to insist that this holds cardinal responsibility for the direction of evolution is ridiculous.
When it comes down to it, the Coriolis effect is simply a result of phi and its geometric implications. Like most everything-- for I'm used to finding exceptions in unexplored niches-- the said phenomenon is just another way the Golden Ratio manifests itself.
Consequently, all planar observations made with respect to phi and its representative spiral are due to an inexplicable grand design that you did not explain satisfactorily here. Sad to say, just as the Coriolis effect does not affect the shape of galaxies, it likewise has no say over IQ (already an arbitrary and highly subjective topic) and the shape of my head-- or even the shape of the leaves on my pear tree outside .
Things such as genes and most, if not all, of the characteristics of plants, animals, and protists, owe their path of evolution much more to their environment, natural selection, natural radiation (leading to random mutations), chance, and owe their appearance to whatever it is that drives the Golden Ratio.

:? :? :?

Why pick the coriolis effect as an actuator for design changes? There are plenty of other, larger influencers to choose from: Solar cycles, Phototropism, nutrient availability etc. And the spirals help in another way. An end sticking out like the photo of the grape-vine, are more likely to find something to attach itself to if it spirals as opposed to being straight, since a bigger area is covered.

Why are we dredging this up again? Do we really need to point out the issues of this topic for yet a 5th time round?...

Well if not, this thread is dead.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Well if not, this thread is dead.

Seriously. This thread died in July, and the OTP ran for the hills long before that (along with all the invisible evidence).

Lol, gotcha!

Water flows in different directions on different side of the equator that a fact. So it probably goes into the ground in the same direction a small scale. Roots grow towards water.
So if water was put in the center of the plant and it spiraled counterclockwise downward until everything was absorbed then the roots would grow in a counterclockwise direction.

Just a thought on why the roots grow the way they do.

Originally Posted by abudantia

Water flows in different directions on different side of the equator that a fact. So it probably goes into the ground in the same direction a small scale. Roots grow towards water.
So if water was put in the center of the plant and it spiraled counterclockwise downward until everything was absorbed then the roots would grow in a counterclockwise direction.

Just a thought on why the roots grow the way they do.

Read the thread... :?

Originally Posted by abudantia

Water flows in different directions on different side of the equator that a fact. So it probably goes into the ground in the same direction a small scale. Roots grow towards water.
So if water was put in the center of the plant and it spiraled counterclockwise downward until everything was absorbed then the roots would grow in a counterclockwise direction.

Just a thought on why the roots grow the way they do.

The vast majority of roots do not spiral. Most of the ones that do are first grown by seeds in order to corkscrew them into the ground in an appropriately upright position, after which the roots grow in a typical branching fashion.