Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Flowers. Why so many different kinds?

Dragon_of_Christ
Posts: 1,293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 7:52:28 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I think it is illogical that there are so many different types of flowers.

There are 400,000+ species.

Why?

They all do the same thing.

Not like dogs which humans hava artifically selected,
not like fish that are designed for specific things.

But flowers which all look different, are
constructed differently, but all have the same task.

Why?

Just why?

/endRant
Jesus loves you.

////////////

-Funny Links-
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...

Stupid atheist remarks #: 6
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,846
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 8:09:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 7:52:28 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
I think it is illogical that there are so many different types of flowers.

There are 400,000+ species.

Why?

They all do the same thing.

Not like dogs which humans hava artifically selected,
not like fish that are designed for specific things.

But flowers which all look different, are
constructed differently, but all have the same task.

Why?

Just why?

/endRant

Because they're pretty.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Dragon_of_Christ
Posts: 1,293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 8:13:20 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 8:01:50 PM, Daedal wrote:
Evolution..... 4 billion years is a long time.

Any it is necessary to have 400,000+ different kinds?
Jesus loves you.

////////////

-Funny Links-
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...

Stupid atheist remarks #: 6
Daedal
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 8:18:05 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 8:13:20 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 4/25/2016 8:01:50 PM, Daedal wrote:
Evolution..... 4 billion years is a long time.

Any it is necessary to have 400,000+ different kinds?

Oh dear. No, it's not necessary, it just happens. Any little niche, any change of climate, any change of propagator, you get a new strain. That's what evolution is.

Actually that's not many. I bet if you counted all the species since time began it would be many more.
Dragon_of_Christ
Posts: 1,293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 8:34:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 8:18:05 PM, Daedal wrote:
At 4/25/2016 8:13:20 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 4/25/2016 8:01:50 PM, Daedal wrote:
Evolution..... 4 billion years is a long time.

Any it is necessary to have 400,000+ different kinds?

Oh dear. No, it's not necessary, it just happens. Any little niche, any change of climate, any change of propagator, you get a new strain. That's what evolution is.

Actually that's not many. I bet if you counted all the species since time began it would be many more.

But why 1000000000 niches?
Jesus loves you.

////////////

-Funny Links-
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...

Stupid atheist remarks #: 6
Daedal
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 8:40:21 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 8:34:14 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 4/25/2016 8:18:05 PM, Daedal wrote:
At 4/25/2016 8:13:20 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 4/25/2016 8:01:50 PM, Daedal wrote:
Evolution..... 4 billion years is a long time.

Any it is necessary to have 400,000+ different kinds?

Oh dear. No, it's not necessary, it just happens. Any little niche, any change of climate, any change of propagator, you get a new strain. That's what evolution is.

Actually that's not many. I bet if you counted all the species since time began it would be many more.

But why 1000000000 niches?

'Cos the landscape changes a lot.

Are you being serious or just passing the time?
Dragon_of_Christ
Posts: 1,293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 8:49:52 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 8:40:21 PM, Daedal wrote:
At 4/25/2016 8:34:14 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 4/25/2016 8:18:05 PM, Daedal wrote:
At 4/25/2016 8:13:20 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 4/25/2016 8:01:50 PM, Daedal wrote:
Evolution..... 4 billion years is a long time.

Any it is necessary to have 400,000+ different kinds?

Oh dear. No, it's not necessary, it just happens. Any little niche, any change of climate, any change of propagator, you get a new strain. That's what evolution is.

Actually that's not many. I bet if you counted all the species since time began it would be many more.

But why 1000000000 niches?

'Cos the landscape changes a lot.

Are you being serious or just passing the time?

Wouldn't it just evolve normally then?
Jesus loves you.

////////////

-Funny Links-
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...

Stupid atheist remarks #: 6
Daedal
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 8:55:37 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 8:49:52 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 4/25/2016 8:40:21 PM, Daedal wrote:
At 4/25/2016 8:34:14 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 4/25/2016 8:18:05 PM, Daedal wrote:
At 4/25/2016 8:13:20 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 4/25/2016 8:01:50 PM, Daedal wrote:
Evolution..... 4 billion years is a long time.

Any it is necessary to have 400,000+ different kinds?

Oh dear. No, it's not necessary, it just happens. Any little niche, any change of climate, any change of propagator, you get a new strain. That's what evolution is.

Actually that's not many. I bet if you counted all the species since time began it would be many more.

But why 1000000000 niches?

'Cos the landscape changes a lot.

Are you being serious or just passing the time?

Wouldn't it just evolve normally then?

You are just passing the time.
Dragon_of_Christ
Posts: 1,293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 9:06:07 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 8:55:37 PM, Daedal wrote:
At 4/25/2016 8:49:52 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 4/25/2016 8:40:21 PM, Daedal wrote:
At 4/25/2016 8:34:14 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 4/25/2016 8:18:05 PM, Daedal wrote:
At 4/25/2016 8:13:20 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 4/25/2016 8:01:50 PM, Daedal wrote:
Evolution..... 4 billion years is a long time.

Any it is necessary to have 400,000+ different kinds?

Oh dear. No, it's not necessary, it just happens. Any little niche, any change of climate, any change of propagator, you get a new strain. That's what evolution is.

Actually that's not many. I bet if you counted all the species since time began it would be many more.

But why 1000000000 niches?

'Cos the landscape changes a lot.

Are you being serious or just passing the time?

Wouldn't it just evolve normally then?

You are just passing the time.

You are just dodging my question.
Jesus loves you.

////////////

-Funny Links-
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...

Stupid atheist remarks #: 6
musicalone
Posts: 163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 10:11:56 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 7:52:28 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
I think it is illogical that there are so many different types of flowers.

There are 400,000+ species.

Why?

They all do the same thing.

Not like dogs which humans hava artifically selected,
not like fish that are designed for specific things.

But flowers which all look different, are
constructed differently, but all have the same task.

Why?

Just why?

/endRant : :

The amazing thing is that most human beings will ever experience smelling all those various flowers in this temporary age.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 10:49:38 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 7:52:28 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
I think it is illogical that there are so many different types of flowers.

There are 400,000+ species.

Why?

They all do the same thing.
Flowering plants are about 200 million years old -- about 200 million years younger than insects. They do similar things in similar ways, but with a profusion of differences -- some gross, and some subtle.

So, why?

Well, there is no master plan in biology, DoC, no static problem to be solved, no ideal solution to be nailed down and reproduced.

Even successful species don't remain static -- they're changing constantly, due to background mutation, excess reproduction and the challenges of a constantly changing environment, putting shifting pressures on the same niche.

That constant change means that when a parent species appears in geographically separated environments, its successors may drift in physically disparate directions.

We see similar happen to human languages, when a parent culture spawns geographically separated subcultures. There's no special reason that Americans have to sound like Americans and Australians must sound like Australians... they each have similar cultural stock. But language drifts in isolation, and species drift too.

I hope that may help.
musicalone
Posts: 163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 12:23:07 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 10:49:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/25/2016 7:52:28 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
I think it is illogical that there are so many different types of flowers.

There are 400,000+ species.

Why?

They all do the same thing.
Flowering plants are about 200 million years old -- about 200 million years younger than insects. They do similar things in similar ways, but with a profusion of differences -- some gross, and some subtle.

Where did you get these numbers from Ruv? Are you positive that flowering plants are 200 million years younger than insects? What did bees do for 200 million years before they had flowers to work with?

So, why?

Well, there is no master plan in biology, DoC, no static problem to be solved, no ideal solution to be nailed down and reproduced.

Even successful species don't remain static -- they're changing constantly, due to background mutation, excess reproduction and the challenges of a constantly changing environment, putting shifting pressures on the same niche.

That constant change means that when a parent species appears in geographically separated environments, its successors may drift in physically disparate directions.

We see similar happen to human languages, when a parent culture spawns geographically separated subcultures. There's no special reason that Americans have to sound like Americans and Australians must sound like Australians... they each have similar cultural stock. But language drifts in isolation, and species drift too.

I hope that may help.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 1:01:09 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 12:23:07 AM, musicalone wrote:
At 4/25/2016 10:49:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/25/2016 7:52:28 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
I think it is illogical that there are so many different types of flowers.

There are 400,000+ species.

Why?

They all do the same thing.
Flowering plants are about 200 million years old -- about 200 million years younger than insects. They do similar things in similar ways, but with a profusion of differences -- some gross, and some subtle.

Where did you get these numbers from Ruv? Are you positive that flowering plants are 200 million years younger than insects? What did bees do for 200 million years before they had flowers to work with?
Brad, the oldest definitive insect fossil I know of is Rhyniognatha Hirsti [https://en.wikipedia.org...] dated at about 400 million years ago (Mya). The oldest known fossil of a flowering plant is Montsechia vidalii, which is a bit like a coontail, dated to about 130 Mya. [https://www.theguardian.com...]

So flowers cannot be younger than 130Mya, but may be older. However, indirect evidence suggests that they are not much older. For flowering plants to compete, they have to compete for water, energy and nutrients along with other plants, plus of course compete either for animal pollination, or wind/water pollination. That means they need sophisticated vascular and leaf systems (to move water and nutrients around better, to produce flowers and possibly fruit), woody tissue (to grow taller, with thinner stems), along with root features that can anchor them better and take up water better -- plus of course, they need to produce flowers and seeds.

So paleobotanists can trace through the evolution of all these features in non-flowering plants, and get a sense for when flowering plants first become viable.

The first land plants known are around 450Mya, but through the Devonian period (420-360Mya), the plants were fernlike, none more than waist high, lacking woody tissue, and with primitive roots and vascular systems. They hadn't shown all the features flowering plants need, so we can be confident that insects preceded flowering plants.

It's thought that early insects were beetle-like -- so, not flying much (or at all), and they might not have been needed for pollination, since (from memory) about a quarter of all surviving flowering plants today pollinate through wind or water, rather than through animals, and it's thought that flowering plants would have begun pollinating in this way when they first appeared. So based on interpolating features, flowering plants are now placed to around 200Mya.

Meanwhile, bees are descended from wasps, so they were originally carnivores preying on other insects. It's speculated that they switched to eating pollen and nectar due to 'learning' the ability to digest it on their prey. But the oldest known bee fossil is from 100Mya and shows transitional wasp traits [https://en.wikipedia.org...], which gives paleoentomologists an idea when bees first began to appear: long after flowering plants.

Nowadays of course, flowering plants depend greatly on bees and other insects. If the bees died out, many flowering species would die out too. So despite evolving separately, bees and flowers have very much grown dependent on one another to survive.

Because our food-chains have worked much the same since the earliest human civilisations, it's hard to grasp just how recent and weird the world's current ecosystem is, by biological standards. For most of the history of life on Earth, ecology didn't work as it now does, and I much doubt that humans could have survived back when insects first did. There just weren't the things to eat that modern primates eat.
musicalone
Posts: 163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 1:52:54 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 1:01:09 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/26/2016 12:23:07 AM, musicalone wrote:
At 4/25/2016 10:49:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/25/2016 7:52:28 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
I think it is illogical that there are so many different types of flowers.

There are 400,000+ species.

Why?

They all do the same thing.
Flowering plants are about 200 million years old -- about 200 million years younger than insects. They do similar things in similar ways, but with a profusion of differences -- some gross, and some subtle.

Where did you get these numbers from Ruv? Are you positive that flowering plants are 200 million years younger than insects? What did bees do for 200 million years before they had flowers to work with?
Brad, the oldest definitive insect fossil I know of is Rhyniognatha Hirsti [https://en.wikipedia.org...] dated at about 400 million years ago (Mya). The oldest known fossil of a flowering plant is Montsechia vidalii, which is a bit like a coontail, dated to about 130 Mya. [https://www.theguardian.com...]

So flowers cannot be younger than 130Mya, but may be older. However, indirect evidence suggests that they are not much older. For flowering plants to compete, they have to compete for water, energy and nutrients along with other plants, plus of course compete either for animal pollination, or wind/water pollination. That means they need sophisticated vascular and leaf systems (to move water and nutrients around better, to produce flowers and possibly fruit), woody tissue (to grow taller, with thinner stems), along with root features that can anchor them better and take up water better -- plus of course, they need to produce flowers and seeds.

So paleobotanists can trace through the evolution of all these features in non-flowering plants, and get a sense for when flowering plants first become viable.

The first land plants known are around 450Mya, but through the Devonian period (420-360Mya), the plants were fernlike, none more than waist high, lacking woody tissue, and with primitive roots and vascular systems. They hadn't shown all the features flowering plants need, so we can be confident that insects preceded flowering plants.

It's thought that early insects were beetle-like -- so, not flying much (or at all), and they might not have been needed for pollination, since (from memory) about a quarter of all surviving flowering plants today pollinate through wind or water, rather than through animals, and it's thought that flowering plants would have begun pollinating in this way when they first appeared. So based on interpolating features, flowering plants are now placed to around 200Mya.

Meanwhile, bees are descended from wasps, so they were originally carnivores preying on other insects. It's speculated that they switched to eating pollen and nectar due to 'learning' the ability to digest it on their prey. But the oldest known bee fossil is from 100Mya and shows transitional wasp traits [https://en.wikipedia.org...], which gives paleoentomologists an idea when bees first began to appear: long after flowering plants.

Nowadays of course, flowering plants depend greatly on bees and other insects. If the bees died out, many flowering species would die out too. So despite evolving separately, bees and flowers have very much grown dependent on one another to survive.

Because our food-chains have worked much the same since the earliest human civilisations, it's hard to grasp just how recent and weird the world's current ecosystem is, by biological standards. For most of the history of life on Earth, ecology didn't work as it now does, and I much doubt that humans could have survived back when insects first did. There just weren't the things to eat that modern primates eat. : :

What if I told you that man's dating equipment and theories are just illusions formed in the minds of men who believe they are real and actually give them real time frames of the past? To believe that insects and flowers were formed 200 millions years apart takes a stronger belief than a man named Jesus coming to gather up Christians in the clouds. At least the lies of Jesus floating in the clouds is fairly recent information compared to 200 and 400 million years ago when no one was around to witness those lies.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 3:10:12 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 7:52:28 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
I think it is illogical that there are so many different types of flowers.

There are 400,000+ species.

Why?

They all do the same thing.

Not like dogs which humans hava artifically selected,
not like fish that are designed for specific things.

Fish are not designed.

But flowers which all look different, are
constructed differently, but all have the same task.

Why?

Just why?

The way plants (and specifically flowers) reproduce is fundamentally different from the way animals reproduce.

Because of the way chromosome reproduction and pollination works at a genetic level makes it much easier for plants to "speciate".

To "speciate" effectively, an animal, or plant needs to obtain reproductive isolation from the original species it came from. Most sexually reproducing animals can only do this within a population, meaning that the entire population needs to be isolated for a long time for it to build up the population to build up enough genetic changes to create a genetic barrier with the parent population.

Plants can do this very quickly; due to the way their reproduction and chromosome duplication works; which means populations can separate far more rapidly than animals.

Once they are separate; as changes from one generation to another are random, both the parent population, and new species acquire their own unique random mutations; and thus evolve on different paths, causing differences.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 3:48:40 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 1:52:54 AM, musicalone wrote:
At 4/26/2016 1:01:09 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/26/2016 12:23:07 AM, musicalone wrote:
At 4/25/2016 10:49:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/25/2016 7:52:28 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
I think it is illogical that there are so many different types of flowers.

There are 400,000+ species.

Why?

They all do the same thing.
Flowering plants are about 200 million years old -- about 200 million years younger than insects. They do similar things in similar ways, but with a profusion of differences -- some gross, and some subtle.

Where did you get these numbers from Ruv?
The first land plants known are around 450Mya, but through the Devonian period (420-360Mya), the plants were fernlike, none more than waist high, lacking woody tissue, and with primitive roots and vascular systems. They hadn't shown all the features flowering plants need, so we can be confident that insects preceded flowering plants.

It's thought that early insects were beetle-like -- so, not flying much (or at all), and they might not have been needed for pollination, since (from memory) about a quarter of all surviving flowering plants today pollinate through wind or water, rather than through animals, and it's thought that flowering plants would have begun pollinating in this way when they first appeared. So based on interpolating features, flowering plants are now placed to around 200Mya.

Meanwhile, bees are descended from wasps, so they were originally carnivores preying on other insects. It's speculated that they switched to eating pollen and nectar due to 'learning' the ability to digest it on their prey. But the oldest known bee fossil is from 100Mya and shows transitional wasp traits [https://en.wikipedia.org...], which gives paleoentomologists an idea when bees first began to appear: long after flowering plants.

What if I told you that man's dating equipment and theories are just illusions formed in the minds of men
They're ideas formed in the minds of men, certainly, Brad. Our confidence in these ideas are tolerances based on their ability to predict specific, significant things accurately as confirmed by independent observation.

On the other hand, something we notice time and again is that whenever someone claims their ideas deserve special treatment, they're either lying or deluded, and unable to predict accurately at all.

So when people want new ideas to be taken seriously, they have to lift the bar for evidence and accountability, and not lower it. The ones who want to lower it are admitting they don't really have anything useful; they just want special treatment.
musicalone
Posts: 163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 5:25:04 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 3:48:40 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/26/2016 1:52:54 AM, musicalone wrote:
At 4/26/2016 1:01:09 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/26/2016 12:23:07 AM, musicalone wrote:
At 4/25/2016 10:49:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/25/2016 7:52:28 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
I think it is illogical that there are so many different types of flowers.

There are 400,000+ species.

Why?

They all do the same thing.
Flowering plants are about 200 million years old -- about 200 million years younger than insects. They do similar things in similar ways, but with a profusion of differences -- some gross, and some subtle.

Where did you get these numbers from Ruv?
The first land plants known are around 450Mya, but through the Devonian period (420-360Mya), the plants were fernlike, none more than waist high, lacking woody tissue, and with primitive roots and vascular systems. They hadn't shown all the features flowering plants need, so we can be confident that insects preceded flowering plants.

It's thought that early insects were beetle-like -- so, not flying much (or at all), and they might not have been needed for pollination, since (from memory) about a quarter of all surviving flowering plants today pollinate through wind or water, rather than through animals, and it's thought that flowering plants would have begun pollinating in this way when they first appeared. So based on interpolating features, flowering plants are now placed to around 200Mya.

Meanwhile, bees are descended from wasps, so they were originally carnivores preying on other insects. It's speculated that they switched to eating pollen and nectar due to 'learning' the ability to digest it on their prey. But the oldest known bee fossil is from 100Mya and shows transitional wasp traits [https://en.wikipedia.org...], which gives paleoentomologists an idea when bees first began to appear: long after flowering plants.

What if I told you that man's dating equipment and theories are just illusions formed in the minds of men
They're ideas formed in the minds of men, certainly, Brad. Our confidence in these ideas are tolerances based on their ability to predict specific, significant things accurately as confirmed by independent observation.

On the other hand, something we notice time and again is that whenever someone claims their ideas deserve special treatment, they're either lying or deluded, and unable to predict accurately at all.

So when people want new ideas to be taken seriously, they have to lift the bar for evidence and accountability, and not lower it. The ones who want to lower it are admitting they don't really have anything useful; they just want special treatment. : :

Then all the scientists who write their theories down on paper are needing special treatment and a way to make a living off of those they deceive with those theories.

An object such as a bone is only an image that is formed in the mind of a man who observes it. It has no date on it and no evidence that it actually exists. When it isn't being observed in a man's mind, it only exists as information. There are a few physicists who are understanding this fact but they are excluded from the main group of physicists who all believe they are real people living on a real earth.
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 6:35:17 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 7:52:28 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
I think it is illogical that there are so many different types of flowers.

There are 400,000+ species.

Why?

They all do the same thing.

Not like dogs which humans hava artifically selected,
not like fish that are designed for specific things.

But flowers which all look different, are
constructed differently, but all have the same task.

Why?

Just why?

/endRant

they are medicinal
keithprosser
Posts: 2,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 7:52:45 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Responding to ramshutu's post, I think his idea is a good one, but plants and animals reproduce in much the same way - ie it involves bringing male and female gametes together. It got me thinking may be its because if conditions change and an animal finds itself in an environment that doesn't suit it has a strategy available that plants don't - it can go somewhere else. A plant has to make the best of where ever it happens to be. Plants have be highly adaptable because given a new niche an animal can take it or leave it... Literally. A plant can only take it. Or die, of course.
May be God likes flowers nearly as much as he likes beetles.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 8:39:03 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 5:25:04 AM, musicalone wrote:
At 4/26/2016 3:48:40 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/26/2016 1:52:54 AM, musicalone wrote:
At 4/26/2016 1:01:09 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/26/2016 12:23:07 AM, musicalone wrote:
At 4/25/2016 10:49:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/25/2016 7:52:28 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
I think it is illogical that there are so many different types of flowers.

There are 400,000+ species.

Why?

They all do the same thing.
Flowering plants are about 200 million years old -- about 200 million years younger than insects. They do similar things in similar ways, but with a profusion of differences -- some gross, and some subtle.

Where did you get these numbers from Ruv?
The first land plants known are around 450Mya, but through the Devonian period (420-360Mya), the plants were fernlike, none more than waist high, lacking woody tissue, and with primitive roots and vascular systems. They hadn't shown all the features flowering plants need, so we can be confident that insects preceded flowering plants.

It's thought that early insects were beetle-like -- so, not flying much (or at all), and they might not have been needed for pollination, since (from memory) about a quarter of all surviving flowering plants today pollinate through wind or water, rather than through animals, and it's thought that flowering plants would have begun pollinating in this way when they first appeared. So based on interpolating features, flowering plants are now placed to around 200Mya.

Meanwhile, bees are descended from wasps, so they were originally carnivores preying on other insects. It's speculated that they switched to eating pollen and nectar due to 'learning' the ability to digest it on their prey. But the oldest known bee fossil is from 100Mya and shows transitional wasp traits [https://en.wikipedia.org...], which gives paleoentomologists an idea when bees first began to appear: long after flowering plants.

What if I told you that man's dating equipment and theories are just illusions formed in the minds of men
They're ideas formed in the minds of men, certainly, Brad. Our confidence in these ideas are tolerances based on their ability to predict specific, significant things accurately as confirmed by independent observation.

On the other hand, something we notice time and again is that whenever someone claims their ideas deserve special treatment, they're either lying or deluded, and unable to predict accurately at all.

So when people want new ideas to be taken seriously, they have to lift the bar for evidence and accountability, and not lower it. The ones who want to lower it are admitting they don't really have anything useful; they just want special treatment. : :

Then all the scientists who write their theories down on paper are needing special treatment and a way to make a living off of those they deceive with those theories.
No more so than a doctor who has received medical training you haven't -- or a truck-driver, whom you never saw learn to drive a truck. Scientists are accountable to the processes and methods by which science proceeds, and the methods are accountable to the predictions they produce, and the predictions are accountable to independent confirmation by people who have more incentive to find fault than to report success.

An object such as a bone is only an image that is formed in the mind of a man who observes it. It has no date on it and no evidence that it actually exists.
You've drawn the conversation far from the original topic, Brad, so let me keep this brief.

Existence itself needs a definition, and a scientific definition of existence is based on an ontology (a classification scheme) constantly revised by falsifying (i.e. disproving) the way ideas classify, using observations and predictions. So things scientists once held to exist as a classification, no longer do, while things that didn't exist under old classifications now do, just because reordering things in this way produces more accurate predictions, produced more simply.

But scientists are very diligent in the systematic falsification of their own ideas -- more so than you have been here, for example.

Which is why scientists seek less special consideration for their conjectures than you have for yours. They may still suffer from ignorance and error, but they routinely take responsibility for enabling others to seek out and correct their ignorance and error, as you have not been here, in this discussion.