Well, what do you make of this:
When sunlight shining on a leaf changes rapidly, plants must protect themselves from the ensuing sudden surges of solar energy. To cope with these changes, photosynthetic organisms have developed numerous tactics. Scientists have been unable, however, to identify the underlying design principle. A physicist has now constructed a model that reproduces a general feature of photosynthetic light harvesting, observed across many photosynthetic organisms…
“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. “Green plants appear green and purple bacteria appear purple because only specific regions of the spectrum from which they absorb are suited for protection against rapidly changing solar energy.”University of Californian- Riverside, “Why are plants green?” at ScienceDaily
Note: It’s not been reported that any careers were harmed as a result of this discussion.
4 Replies to “There is an “underlying design principle” in plants?”
the origin of photosynthesis, another huge problem for Darwinian clowns.
To believe that photosynthesis evolved by unguided natural process with no foresight it is like believe in miracles.
What is worse, these Darwinian clowns claim, that C4 and CAM photosynthesis evolved up to 100 times repeatedly and independently in various plant lineages !!!!!
Darwinian clowns really seem to believe in miracles.
Some quotes from mainstream papers:
“C4 is biochemically complex; to turn a C3 into a C4 plant appears to require modification of dozens of genes. Evolutionary theory suggests that complex adaptations should originate rarely, yet C4 has arisen in at least 66 lineages of angiosperms, appearing in 19 unrelated plant families.”
or this one:
Both C4 photosynthesis and CAM have evolved independently multiple times from C3 ancestors. C4 species represent about 3% of flowering plant species (Sage et al., 2012), while CAM species represent about 6% (Silvera et al., 2010). The evolutionary path and the fact that it has been traversed multiple times independently are somewhat puzzling given that both pathways represent complex traits, which require multiple genes to change simultaneously. They require architectural adaptations—large storage vacuoles in obligatory CAM, Kranz anatomy, or highly specialized cell anatomy in C4—and biochemical adaptations with at least a dozen gene products altered in abundance and regulation.”
let me repeat this one:
“They require architectural adaptations—large storage vacuoles in obligatory CAM, Kranz anatomy, or highly specialized cell anatomy in C4—and biochemical adaptations with at least a dozen gene products altered in abundance and regulation.”
And this happend 100 times repeatedly and independently by unguided natural process with no foresight, right ?
Darwinians should see a doctor. The sooner the better.
“the origin of photosynthesis, another huge problem for Darwinian clowns.”
Excellent commentary. As usual.
“Darwinians should see a doctor. The sooner the better.”
Sorry, but their malady doesn’t have any natural cure.
There Is An “Underlying Design Principle” In Plants?
No, that’s just an illusion
There’s nothing specially interesting about plants:
Gene Regulatory Network Inference: Connecting Plant Biology and Mathematical Modeling