This initial post addresses what Darwin called an abominable mystery - the origin of flowers.
We have seen how most of our modern garden flowers originated in China, and have even seen images of what could possibly have been the "First Flower". But was it actually the first? Scientists are continuing their work in this field - literally and figuratively. Scientists are fairly certain that Amborella, pictured above, is the oldest lineage of flowering plant. It appers to be an ancient species going back millions of years.
For the rest of the story, click on the link below (or cut and paste the link into your address bar if the hyperlink does not work on your computer) and read the article that appeared in the New York Times yesterday on this very topic. Type up your first response, as we discussed in class, and you're on your way!
What is it that flowers provided that their predecessors, the "naked seed" plants, did not?
www.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/science/08flower.html?8dpc
16 comments:
I always found it hard to understand how DNA can have mistakes and cause mutations. What even puzzles me more is how it can happen so many times to create the diverse world that we live in today. The fact that a beautiful orchid can be related to, lets say, a pine tree is amazing. I mean, they look completely different. And even in the Animal kingdom. And all of these changes are just mistakes. It's crazyyyy...
-Maggie
I wonder why since there seem to be so many simularities between how human beings and plants evolved ( how through genetic mutation, so some may say, species evolved to better fit their surrondings) than is there some kind of missing link? some species that has long since died out that had cellls similar to both plant and animal cells? Where did plant become animal? could it really be that plants and animals could have both just happpened when there history evolution are so similar.
-erika
If a rose and a marigold are both flowers, stemming from the same "mother plant", in this instance we can say Ambroella, which is the closest mutual relative, how can they vary so much? This we can only assume and guess at, making hypothesize, wondering, observing and experimenting.
We continue to scratch the surface of such mysteries by experimenting. We can only hope that as time goes on like Darwin, we can gain an even better sense of evolution and find out why poppies develop petals individually, why pine trees have male and female pine cones!? The evolution of flowers in incredible and stunning...
-Caileigh Bryant
That was a pretty cool article. I thought the coolest part was the part about plant mutations, where plant parts basically grew in the wrong places. I thought it was hilarious how they called mutated plants "grotesque." But honestly I thought human-inflicted plant mutations were pretty interesting.
I'd really like to know more about these mostorous flowers mentioned on page three.
I find itinterestingthatflowers and humans usedthe same preocessestoevlolve relativelyquickly. Does every type of ...livingthing usethesame process toevolve? Do other things-such as fungus and amoeba evolve? If they did doyou thinkthey could evolve to becomeso big that they'd take over the world?
-LAURAYURKOSKY
First off Charles Darwin was into flowers at TEN years old! Wow! What determination and focus! I wish I had an eighth of that focus! Moving on...
Why are we constantly looking for answers instead of accepting that we don't know? We don't know the origin of the flowering plant, lets spend 35 years of our life looking for the answer. By furthering our knowledge of every little aspect of life are we really bettering things? Maybe.
I thought the part of the article that says "It is clear, for example that the closest living relatives to flowers are flowerless species that produce seeds...." was almost funny. Isn't obvious that flowering plants would evolve from flowerless plants?
It's unfortunate that it is so hard to find evidence in this field of research that people do have to spend so much time on it. From Charles Darwin to Vivian Irish people are still trying to unlock the secrets.
Maggie posted far too many times for my comfort level.
I don't know if we could ever find the earliest flowering plant. Perhaps the first flowering plant was small and frail. It may not have been able to survive fossilization. Mutations of most plants seem like they were beneficial. The earliest flowering plant may have not been fit for it's enviorment. It may not have lasted for very long. It seems like looking for the first flowering plant is going to take a while and every find will be questioned like the Archaefructus.
The explosive rate in which the flowers evolved around 120 million years ago couldn't have just been coincidence. I'm wondering what may have triggered this event and why. Would they have had such an extreme evolution later if not 120 million years ago? Of today's species of flowers, 99% resulted from this mysteriously triggered branch. Imagine how much it would have effected us if this never happened.
Power to the plants.
I'd really like to know more about these mostorous flowers mentioned on page three.
I find itinterestingthatflowers and humans usedthe same preocessestoevlolve relativelyquickly. Does every type of ...livingthing usethesame process toevolve? Do other things-such as fungus and amoeba evolve? If they did doyou thinkthey could evolve to becomeso big that they'd take over the world?
-LAURAYURKOSKY
I'd really like to know more about these mostorous flowers mentioned on page three.
I find itinterestingthatflowers and humans usedthe same preocessestoevlolve relativelyquickly. Does every type of ...livingthing usethesame process toevolve? Do other things-such as fungus and amoeba evolve? If they did doyou thinkthey could evolve to becomeso big that they'd take over the world?
-LAURAYURKOSKY
I'd really like to know more about these mostorous flowers mentioned on page three.
I find itinterestingthatflowers and humans usedthe same preocessestoevlolve relativelyquickly. Does every type of ...livingthing usethesame process toevolve? Do other things-such as fungus and amoeba evolve? If they did doyou thinkthey could evolve to becomeso big that they'd take over the world?
-LAURAYURKOSKY
I'd really like to know more about these mostorous flowers mentioned on page three.
I find itinterestingthatflowers and humans usedthe same preocessestoevlolve relativelyquickly. Does every type of ...livingthing usethesame process toevolve? Do other things-such as fungus and amoeba evolve? If they did doyou thinkthey could evolve to becomeso big that they'd take over the world?
-LAURAYURKOSKY
I find it interesting that in trying to move forward in our understanding of flowering plants we have to look back at what people like Darwin and Goethe observed. The fists people who wrote about plants did most of the "hard" work for us, the looking at the solid clues parts. Today it is just debating over "letters", and not really making any headway. We know that flowering plants are related to other plants just with small differnces in their "code," how is that any differnt then what we knew before?
Gabriella
...Boy, anonmous has a lot to say...
As far as this article, I am intrigued not bewildered or shocked, but intrigued. The fact that a plant can mutate so far is remarkable. Its a miracle in the making as it continues to transform to what we may see it is years from now. Just as a disease or an animal mutates, so does the planbt. Evolving just as it had in the past. The great mystery is when did it begin. Though I don't personally believe every plant you see today has evolved from one specific plant of the past. Though I do believe species have evolved into what we see today. THe fact that there are flowering plant and a nonflowering plant only proves evolution in plants. The early plants, first creations, needed to adapt to survive. As it says in thsi article, sepals were an adition as it evoleved to protect. Petals in multiples and increased in number and size. According to this article, flowering plants were small. I disagree. I think the first were large. Only given how they would have evolved. I think a wider leaf would more easily become a flower than a smaller one.
Ok man that was stupid and very unproductive and I'm back to say something worth reading. i think its cool how the first flowers on earth have evolved from small and very simple plants to loud and bright elaborate flowers with huge pedals and ingenious ways of transporting their seeds from point A to point B. yeah...i did have a point before when i said things with no brains could find the ways to survive so perfectly. ok dude? like i did have a good point. but for real. The first flowering plants were so far off from the flowering plants we see today. yeah dude
-ben #2
I found this article kind of thought provoking. As someone who doesn’t believe in “god” or any type of religion, I typically say that I believe in Darwin and evolution. I am however kind of ignorant as to how the whole process works. How could an organism facing extinction adapt in order to live. Sure a few in a thousand are born mutated I get that, but what are the chances that the mutation is useful to the organism. The chances seen astronomically high. I suppose its just one of those things you have to believe in…
c.clemson
Post a Comment