esbo Posted March 15, 2012 Author Posted March 15, 2012 They're green because the trait of being green has survived, and other traits like black or red or blue haven't so much. Now all you have to do is explain why that happened, then you will have answered my question. Basically all you have done is turned my question into a statement rather than answering it. Now I will turn your statement back into the original question "Why has the trait of being green survived, and other traits like black or red or blue haven't so much?" Now try and answer that one!!!!!!!!
StringJunky Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) Now all you have to do is explain why that happened, then you will have answered my question. Basically all you have done is turned my question into a statement rather than answering it. Now I will turn your statement back into the original question "Why has the trait of being green survived, and other traits like black or red or blue haven't so much?" Now try and answer that one!!!!!!!! Natural Selection. The green has survived to overall dominance because it's the most robust in terms of fitting in with the greatest variety of environments and therefore promoting its reproduction. Black and red are colours that only 'fit' in narrower and more specific environmental niches, therefore, they are much less populous. Simple. Edited March 15, 2012 by StringJunky
Moontanman Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 Now all you have to do is explain why that happened, then you will have answered my question. Basically all you have done is turned my question into a statement rather than answering it. Now I will turn your statement back into the original question "Why has the trait of being green survived, and other traits like black or red or blue haven't so much?" Now try and answer that one!!!!!!!! I think that question has been answered, red and blue light power chlorophyll so the plants reflect green light. In environments where the light spectrum is significantly different other pigments have evolved but they work with chlorophyll. Chlorophyll's resemblance to other organometallic compounds commonly used by life suggests that chlorophyll came about because it was easier to modify existing compounds chemosynthesis was already based on rather than start over from scratch. I don't see why you can't see that...
swansont Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 Well if not evolution then where did intelligence come from? magiced out of a imaginary sky daddy? ! Moderator Note The topic is plants being green. Not intelligence, and not the validity of evolution. Start a new thread if you want to discuss the evolution of intelligence.
esbo Posted March 16, 2012 Author Posted March 16, 2012 Natural Selection. The green has survived to overall dominance because it's the most robust in terms of fitting in with the greatest variety of environments and therefore promoting its reproduction. Black and red are colours that only 'fit' in narrower and more specific environmental niches, therefore, they are much less populous. Simple. I think you are somewhat simpler than your answer!! Again the question is not being answered, you simply avoided it. You have to explain why they are green in terms of specific factors, in detail showing you understand the factors involved rather than omitting those factors. So not quite so simle. I think that question has been answered, red and blue light power chlorophyll so the plants reflect green light. In environments where the light spectrum is significantly different other pigments have evolved but they work with chlorophyll. Chlorophyll's resemblance to other organometallic compounds commonly used by life suggests that chlorophyll came about because it was easier to modify existing compounds chemosynthesis was already based on rather than start over from scratch. I don't see why you can't see that... I am afraid that answer is not good enough because plants grow in an environment where there is blue red and green light, not just blue and red. The rest of your answer is flawed, full of asumptions you have not proven. -2
Moontanman Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 I think you are somewhat simpler than your answer!! Again the question is not being answered, you simply avoided it. You have to explain why they are green in terms of specific factors, in detail showing you understand the factors involved rather than omitting those factors. So not quite so simle. I am afraid that answer is not good enough because plants grow in an environment where there is blue red and green light, not just blue and red. The rest of your answer is flawed, full of asumptions you have not proven. Maybe there is no available chemical that would facilitate absorption of all wave lengths of light.
esbo Posted March 16, 2012 Author Posted March 16, 2012 Maybe there is no available chemical that would facilitate absorption of all wave lengths of light. There are chemicals which will absorb all colours and a composite of those chemicals would absorb all colours.
questionposter Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) There are chemicals which will absorb all colours and a composite of those chemicals would absorb all colours. Most of your assumptions that other people's assumptions are flawed are in fact themselves flawed. Natural selection is in fact why most plants today are green, because a long time ago a chemical was randomly generated by genes which only absorbed blue and red light, and that gene has survived and spread making itself present in most plants and thus making most modern plants green. Edited March 16, 2012 by questionposter 1
StringJunky Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 I think you are somewhat simpler than your answer!! Again the question is not being answered, you simply avoided it. You have to explain why they are green in terms of specific factors, in detail showing you understand the factors involved rather than omitting those factors. So not quite so simple. My answer is about as complex as you are capable of understanding as demonstrated by your negative earlier responses to more scientific and referenced replies. Quite honestly, I don't think any answer will suffice for you unless I said: "God did it". 1
spam Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 Why would God make plants green in particular? Why do people seem to assume green plants = God? I don't see the connection really.
michel123456 Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 I found it: God made the plants at His own image, God is green.
questionposter Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) I found it: God made the plants at His own image, God is green. So how do the green plants treat the purple plants? Unless god is also purple? Er wait a minute, I thought he was in human form, how could other life forms possibly be in his image in any way shape or form? We should go kill off all the green plants because we all know the existent god has the form of a human. That'll teach them to give us air to breathe. Edited March 16, 2012 by questionposter
spam Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 (edited) how do i delete this post? Edited March 17, 2012 by spam
zapatos Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 how do i delete this post? You've already done all you can.
michel123456 Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 So how do the green plants treat the purple plants? Unless god is also purple? Er wait a minute, I thought he was in human form, how could other life forms possibly be in his image in any way shape or form? We should go kill off all the green plants because we all know the existent god has the form of a human. That'll teach them to give us air to breathe. You must be right, I jumped into conclusion. But I found another explanation: God made the plants green because His wife told Him to do so.
questionposter Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 You must be right, I jumped into conclusion. But I found another explanation: God made the plants green because His wife told Him to do so. Why would an omnipotent being only settle with one girl? Why does god even need the capacity to reproduce if he could just "make things"?
swansont Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 ! Moderator Note Nobody seems to want to stay on topic, so third time's a thread closure
Recommended Posts