Findings: “We have discovered a new strategy whereby an insect uses saliva to inhibit the release of airborne plant defenses through direct manipulation of plant stomata,” said Gary Felton, professor and head of the Department of Entomology at Penn State, noting that stomata are tiny pores on plant leaves that regulate gas exchange”
He was referring to their abrupt and unaccounted for appearance.
Researchers: The receptor detects conserved plant protein fragments accidently released as digestive products during caterpillar munching, thereby enabling plant recognition of attack.
Everyone knows plants don’t have minds but they do have a lot of intelligence. Just an accident or part of the intelligence massively inherent in nature? From what source? Darwinism grows increasingly difficult to believe.
Plants communicate in ways that we are only beginning to learn.
Researchers: “To their surprise, the researchers discovered that the plants do not need a particularly large number of genes for carnivory. Instead, the three species studied are actually among the most gene-poor plants known. ” Yes, because – as Mike Behe says – Darwin Devolves.
Expect more crazy. Salad is murder, did you know? That time of year.
“Our model shows that by absorbing only very specific colors of light, photosynthetic organisms may automatically protect themselves against sudden changes — or ‘noise’ — in solar energy, resulting in remarkably efficient power conversion,” said Gabor, an associate professor of physics and astronomy, who led the study appearing today in the journal Science.
Like any real history, evolution is not driven by a single force or idea. Horizontal gene transfer from bacteria obviates the quest for an “ancestor” seaweed. Maybe there isn’t one.
So far a Siberian flower and a date palm have been brought back. The idea is that restoring n extinct animal like the woolly mammoth would just be a curiosity but some of these plants may be staple foods or useful medicines.
Carnivorous plants construct “mousetraps” which are no use to the plant until they succeed. How then did they evolve randomly by chance?
“Deep phylogenetic incongruence” sounds like journalspeak for “our current phylogenetic tree is a hot mess.”
It’s not “land” vs. “sea” that’s really significant here. It’s how much time was available for the development of photosynthesis. If the claim is that photosynthesis developed via natural selection acting on random mutations (Darwinism), then it must have somehow randomly happened in that billion years. Was there enough time? becomes an unavoidable question.
This “dual guidance system” was “not predicted”. Imagine somehow randomly evolving two separate guidance systems…
Trees rarely just fall over but we seldom stop to think about why they don’t.