Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9  [ show all ]
Plant evolution and God
    #10674499 -

In my research on plants, I was surprised to learn that photosynthesis only utilizes 0.1% of the light energy that reaches the leaves.

Compare this to about 23% for the best human-designed photovoltaics. That is 2300% more efficient than God's handiwork.

The only logical conclusion is:

That God did not design plants.

Or

Man is smarter than God.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10674505 -

Man is smarter than plants.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: sterbeklang]
    #10674522 -

You're comparing Apples to Windows.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10674552 -

Optimized systems. More astonishing that such a small percentage is enough.


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10674555 -

You are in some serious need of logic lessons. You are assuming that man and god had the same goals. Perhaps god doesn't care about efficiency. When man can plant a seed and water it and grow a photovoltaic we can talk about how man is smarter than god. Might check your math,too.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Existence]
    #10674580 -

Quote:
You are assuming... Perhaps god doesn't care about efficiency.


Your made up point is not an assumption? :rofl2:

Yes, my math contained a typo. It was supposed to read 23,000% more efficient.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10674622 -

Plants are less efficient than photovoltaics does not mean man is smarter than god. You are in error, imperfection must be eliminated. :rofl2:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10674633 -

A plant's light energy utilization level is in perfect harmony with the rest of it's biological processes. Plants can only absorb water and nutrients at a certain rate of speed. The light energy utilization level is the perfect amount to match the plant's rate of water and nutrient absorption. There's no point in photosynthesizing more food than can be consumed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10674676 -

Thanks for yet another useless factoid!


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Fractal_Infinity]
    #10674683 -

A ferrari is faster than a volkswagon therefore the only logical conclusion is that the designer of the ferrari is smater than the designer of the volkswagon. :slowtard:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10674758 -

It's more efficient to use 2% of the resource. Simple as that.


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #10674778 -

Proponents of adversity are needed in times of assumed perfection.
That's why I love Orgoneconclusion and Icelander

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Fraggin]
    #10674989 -

Clearly plants are doing something right. They dominate the entire planet, oceans and land, and they've done so for longer than any other organism. They'll outlast any animal species in the event of catastrophe, and their method of existence is basically 100% sustainable.

By those criteria, I think it's safe to say that "God" is indeed "smarter" than us.


--------------------
Weedmaster P knows the truth.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: laserpig]
    #10675026 -

You guys win. We should all use photovoltaics that are only 0.1% efficient even though you would have to cover a parking lot to light a 75 watt bulb.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10675050 -

Nobody is trying to use photosynthesis to create fucking electricity. It's a nearly perfect system for the organisms it evolved in, and you're acting like its inferior because it doesn't do something totally irrelevant to its purpose.


--------------------
Weedmaster P knows the truth.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #10675052 -

Quote:
Optimized systems. More astonishing that such a small percentage is enough


Why would you say that it is optimized? Did you know that 'natural' unselected apples and corn were nearly inedible until humans practiced selective breeding?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: laserpig]
    #10675066 -

Quote:
It's a nearly perfect system


So any functional system is nearly perfect?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10675157 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
It's a nearly perfect system


So any functional system is nearly perfect?


"Perfect" is a slippery term, so I'll retract it. Instead, substitute "completely effective," "very streamlined," whatever. You get my point.

Do you have some beef with photosynthesis? I really don't get what you're driving at here. Through photosynthesis, a tiny seed can grow into a multi-hundred foot tall redwood, the majority of whose structure is composed of carbon compounds created through photosynthesis / CO2 absorbtion. We humans, in terms of our technology, don't have shit which compares to that. Nothing. And photosynthesis accomplishes this with only 0.1% of the available light energy? That's even more fantastic, if you ask me.

If all plants used a large portion of the sun energy striking them, the planet would be a hell of a lot colder. 0.1% is apparently a very good number for their system. It's not like the other 99.9% is "wasted" -- it still goes into the overall ecosystem in which the plants live.

Our perspectives may be irreconcilable, and I may be wasting my words, but I really do believe you've got this wrong. It sounds like your assumption is "if a resource is available, more of it should be used." If that's so, I think the assumption is asinine.

Accomplishing more with less energy usage is the definition of efficiency.


--------------------
Weedmaster P knows the truth.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: laserpig]
    #10675268 -

Quote:
Do you have some beef with photosynthesis?


Is that a joke?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: laserpig]
    #10675279 -

Quote:
If all plants used a large portion of the sun energy striking them, the planet would be a hell of a lot colder.


Not even close. High shcool physics is enough to counter that nonsense.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: laserpig]
    #10675329 -

I disagree, but you know what? Fine. Fuck all that. What about this:

laserpig said:
Accomplishing more with less energy usage is the definition of efficiency.


If you ask me, that's the crux of it.
Pants get all the energy they need from photosynthesis, and they do it with a minute fraction of the energy that's available to them. How does that prove anything other than that a plant's metabolism (including photosynthesis) is remarkably efficient?


--------------------
Weedmaster P knows the truth.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10675366 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
In my research on plants, I was surprised to learn that photosynthesis only utilizes 0.1% of the light energy that reaches the leaves.

Compare this to about 23% for the best human-designed photovoltaics. That is 2300% more efficient than God's handiwork.

The only logical conclusion is:

That God did not design plants.

Or

Man is smarter than God.


Or:

Man is a manifestation of God just as plants are, and through us, He can make greater and more complicated things from solar energy.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Silversoul]
    #10675378 -

I thought you would agree with laserpig that it is freezing cold in the rain forest...


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10675389 -

No, but the rainforest certainly helps regulate the Earth's temperature by cycling carbon from the atmosphere.  Shame that we're cutting it down while releasing millions of years of stored-up carbon from the ground.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10675395 -

We went over this in one of Mr. Mushrooms many creationist threads.  If plants were indeed designed then their designer should be fired for incompetence.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10675400 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
Optimized systems. More astonishing that such a small percentage is enough


Why would you say that it is optimized? Did you know that 'natural' unselected apples and corn were nearly inedible until humans practiced selective breeding?


Hehe, maybe it would do some good if we would eat more apples :grin:
And if you say we need a whatever large field of plants for lightning one 75W bulb, then you only see how ineffective our way of producing light is in fact.


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: DieCommie]
    #10675410 -

You don't agree with LP that failing to use 99.9% of the available energy is incredibly efficient?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: DieCommie]
    #10675428 -

Qubit said:
We went over this in one of Mr. Mushrooms many creationist threads.  If plants were indeed designed then their designer should be fired for incompetence.


How could you possibly know for what purpose they were designed? (if they were designed)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10675435 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
I thought you would agree with laserpig that it is freezing cold in the rain forest...


If all the plants all over the globe suddenly switched over to using 10% of the light striking them instead of 0.1% (which you seem to feel would be "better"), less solar energy would be available to keep the planet at its current temperature & maintaining the ecosystem which said plants need to survive. But that's a largely irrelevant tangent -- I applaud you for so nimbly dodging my main thrust, which is that plants do everything they need to do with only a fraction of the energy they could be using: that to me is the hallmark of efficiency and good design.


--------------------
Weedmaster P knows the truth.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10675442 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
You don't agree with LP that failing to use 99.9% of the available energy is incredibly efficient?


Well my refrigerator is connected to a zillion watt power grid. Therefore by not using all zillion watts it is inefficient. Can't argue with that logic.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: DieCommie]
    #10675449 -

Qubit said:
We went over this in one of Mr. Mushrooms many creationist threads.  If plants were indeed designed then their designer should be fired for incompetence.


nonsense, see definition of 'effectiveness' from laserpig. It fits :smile:


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Existence]
    #10675472 -

A tribe is living by the banks of a river with one hundred million gallons of flow per year.
They use forty thousand of these gallons per year.
What an inefficient society!


--------------------
Weedmaster P knows the truth.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #10675479 -

Using ad hoc definitions to justify a preconceived belief in some grand plan and purpose of nature?  You may like it, but I prefer to not deceive myself.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Existence]
    #10675540 -

Your analogy, like LP's, is incredibly flawed. I can spoon-feed you the answer or you could actually think about what you wrote.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10675610 -

Humans are inefficient because they can't live by photosynthesis?
Or did my logic train jump the track?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: laserpig]
    #10675613 -

:thumbup: thank you.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10675625 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
In my research on plants, I was surprised to learn that photosynthesis only utilizes 0.1% of the light energy that reaches the leaves.


It has been shown that plants convert the energy from light photons to usable energy at a very high efficiency, even employing quantum funk to find the most efficient pathways through its photosynthetic system.

The thing is, plants only need a certain amount of energy, so they absorb exactly as much as they need, and then convert this with incredible efficiency into usable energy.

I COULD eat 10,000 calories a day if I wanted to, but I just don't need it.  Does that mean I am some sort of failure of evolution, or a Godless accident?

Orgone has his example backwards.  Plant's show their incredible efficiency and complexity by being so internally well designed that they only need to absorb a very small amount of sunlight.  If they were truly of inefficient design, they'd have to absorb more sunlight because they'd be wasting more through inefficient energy conversion.

Edited by Amber_Glow (07/14/09 02:25 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Amber_Glow]
    #10675633 -

Yes it does, you are a Godless accident.:shrug:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Amber_Glow]
    #10675653 -

Amber_Glow said:
The thing is, plants only need a certain amount of energy, so they absorb exactly as much as they need, and then convert this with incredible efficiency into usable energy.

I COULD eat 10,000 calories a day if I wanted to, but I just don't need it.


:thumbup:


--------------------
Weedmaster P knows the truth.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Amber_Glow]
    #10675668 -

If a tree was as efficient as a solar panel it would need only 1/230 as many leaves, which would mean fewer and thinner branches and so on. Most of its energy is wasted in bulding a zillion inefficient 'solar collectors' to compensate for the poor design.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Amber_Glow]
    #10675683 -

Only in the philosophy forum can efficient be redefined to mean using less available energy.  You guys crack me up.  :lol:

Plants absorb only what the need?  Well considering they are getting cut down faster than they are growing it would seem they need to absorb a little more.  Maybe somebody should tell them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10675687 -

And then they wouldn't be so pretty for us to look at, or be abundant enough to feed all the little critters.

Thank you God, for making trees just right!  :heartpump:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Amber_Glow]
    #10675694 -

Nature has waste and inefficiency as part of it's balance. On the whole everything works in a messy chaotic way. :crazy2:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: DieCommie]
    #10675696 -

Plants do not control the rain nor do they control the location of nutrients in the soil, which they would need in equal measure along with the boundless sunlight.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Icelander]
    #10675716 -

Icelander said:
Nature has waste and inefficiency as part of it's balance. On the whole everything works in a messy chaotic way. :crazy2:


I heard that Orgone has taken to eating his own waste in order to become more efficient.  Talk about messy!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Icelander]
    #10675733 -

Icelander said:
On the whole everything works in a messy chaotic way. :crazy2:


Only because 99% of 'gods creations' havent worked and have gone extinct.  If only they were more efficient 'designs' then maybe they would have worked too...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10675739 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
If a tree was as efficient as a solar panel it would need only 1/230 as many leaves, which would mean fewer and thinner branches and so on. Most of its energy is wasted in bulding a zillion inefficient 'solar collectors' to compensate for the poor design.


In which case they wouldn't be nearly as effective at feeding other species, holding back rainwater, creating micro-climates, etc.  Trees do a hell of a lot more than take in solar energy.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Silversoul]
    #10675746 -

Or it could grow 230 times faster with the same leaves making it much more effective at feeding other species, providing micro-climates, etc.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: DieCommie]
    #10675754 -

Qubit said:
Or it could grow 230 times faster with the same leaves making it much more effective at feeding other species, providing micro-climates, etc.


Or it could reproduce to produce a forest that does those things much more effectively than a large individual tree.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Silversoul]
    #10675768 -

Nope, doesnt work that way.  Efficiency is normalized with respect to area.  A forest full of 0.1% efficient plants is still 0.1% efficient.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10675790 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
Your analogy, like LP's, is incredibly flawed. I can spoon-feed you the answer or you could actually think about what you wrote.


I don't have to think about what I wrote. I already have thought about the problem. Energy use efficiency is the amount of work per unit of energy consumed. In a solar cell efficiency would be size of light gathering surface compared to energy output. I totally agree that by the latter standard a photovoltaic cell is more efficient than a leaf.

I do not agree with your conclusion that this fact makes man smarter than the designer of the leaf. As I stated before you are making an erroneous assumption that the designer of the leaf was aiming for solar cell efficiency.

I would agree that using less energy for the same task is more energy efficient, but it really isn't relevant to the op. To make the plant more solar efficiency you would reduce the size of the leaves and keep the energy input constant. If you just increased the efficiency of the leaves the plant would have excess energy and would grow really big and take over the planet.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: DieCommie]
    #10675795 -

Qubit said:
Nope, doesnt work that way.  Efficiency is normalized with respect to area.  A forest full of 0.1% efficient plants is still 0.1% efficient.


I say we take the pressure off the plants and blame the sun for shining.  :shineon:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Silversoul]
    #10675829 -



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10675837 -

You are neglecting all the other aspects of nature. Plants provide food and shelter for wildlife. They convert carbon dioxide to oxygen. They play a part in a symbiotic ecosystem that man could not design. They are self replicating. I am sure there is more.

You try and boil it down to some sort of human defined efficiency and declare it inferior.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Existence]
    #10675867 -

Seems you totally fail to understand the nature of a thread.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10675877 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
If a tree was as efficient as a solar panel it would need only 1/230 as many leaves, which would mean fewer and thinner branches and so on. Most of its energy is wasted in bulding a zillion inefficient 'solar collectors' to compensate for the poor design.


Thank you for clarifying your point -- now I see significantly more of what you were driving at, and I see how my earlier arguments did not usefully address it. I apologize.

It raises some interesting questions: since the entire structure of a plant is essentially support for a leaf array (what use is a tree's trunk but to support its branches, which support its leaves?), one has to wonder what a plant with greater photosynthetic efficiency would look like. Presumably, it would have less leaves. Having less leaves to support, it would need less branches. Having less branches, it would need less trunk. (I know I'm only talking about trees here but surely you see how my general train of thought is applicable to all plants.) So I imagine a smaller plant, with more energy available. A plant really doesn't use its energy for anything other than growth ... growth which allows it to absorb more energy, and grow more. This seems to be in contradiction with the idea that a "better" plant would be smaller. I suppose the real effect of all this would be reduced generational time: plants which grow faster and seed sooner.

So, I've tried to think this out, and where I've ended up is at an impasse. Better photosynthesis would support faster plant growth, which would benefit the plants only if their environment could support such growth. That would require more plants being eaten or otherwise destroyed to make room for newer generations. Effectively, I'm not sure a damn thing would change. More animals would eat more plants, assuming that the soil could support said plants and that the animals weren't crowding each other out. A hallmark of life is that it tends to fill its environment to capacity, and that's already happening. Is there "room" for better plants? I don't know. I honestly don't have any conclusions about whether or not better photosynthesis would or could benefit plants. It could certainly benefit humans agriculturally, but that's not much incentive for the plants. Since the only goal of life is to exist, and plants are already doing that quite well, I'm not sure that more efficiency would actually do anything at all. If plants produced a product, say, if there was a species of plant trying to build a moon-rocket, then they'd want all the energy they could get, but they're not. They just live to live, and their current design is clearly very well suited for that purpose.


--------------------
Weedmaster P knows the truth.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: DieCommie]
    #10675882 -

Qubit said:
Nope, doesnt work that way.  Efficiency is normalized with respect to area.  A forest full of 0.1% efficient plants is still 0.1% efficient.


Are you still talking about solar efficiency?  That is so missing the big picture.  I'm talking about how trees and other plants create ecosystems for other life to flourish.  It's pretty asinine to focus on a single entity while ignoring its ecological context.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10675898 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
If a tree was as efficient as a solar panel it would need only 1/230 as many leaves, which would mean fewer and thinner branches and so on. Most of its energy is wasted in bulding a zillion inefficient 'solar collectors' to compensate for the poor design.


Quote:
In botany, a leaf is an above-ground plant organ specialized for photosynthesis. For this purpose, a leaf is typically flat (laminar) and thin, to expose the cells containing chloroplast to light over a broad area, and to allow light to penetrate fully into the tissues. Leaves are also the sites in most plants where transpiration and guttation take place. Leaves can store food and water, and are modified in some plants for other purposes.


Leaves are not merely solar collectors.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10675905 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
If a tree was as efficient as a solar panel it would need only 1/230 as many leaves, which would mean fewer and thinner branches and so on.


We've already got this.  It's called grass.  Thank you, oh wise one, Our God! :heart:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10675919 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
Seems you totally fail to understand the nature of a thread.


More accurately you cherry pick your observations and draw incorrect conclusions. I am not devoting my full attention to this. I will drop out because the whole premise is idiotic and I have a test to study for.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Existence]
    #10675960 -

Actually Orgoneconclusion seems to be the one using faulty logic in this thread as usual. I should have know your little insult to me was a reflection of your inability to accept your own failure and to try and project it onto your adversary.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Existence]
    #10675961 -

Quote:
I am not devoting my full attention to this.


As has been abundantly clear by the large number of errors in your rebuttals.

Quote:
I will drop out


Thanks for playing. :bye:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10675998 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
I am not devoting my full attention to this.


As has been abundantly clear by the large number of errors in your rebuttals.

Quote:
I will drop out


Thanks for playing. :bye:


So what is your excuse for the large number of errors in your logic?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10676012 -

It looks to me like we're actually all in full agreement.

What do we agree on?

A - we hate each other (nothing new there)
B - plants could use a significantly greater amount of the sunshine they are exposed to, but nobody can figure out if this would provide them any tangible benefit in the context of an actual ecosystem


--------------------
Weedmaster P knows the truth.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10676050 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
In my research on plants, I was surprised to learn that photosynthesis only utilizes 0.1% of the light energy that reaches the leaves.

Compare this to about 23% for the best human-designed photovoltaics. That is 2300% more efficient than God's handiwork.

The only logical conclusion is:

That God did not design plants.

Or

Man is smarter than God.


I'd suggest you come back to this thread the minute you find a human-made photovoltaic that is capable of this higher utilization of light energy and that uses the same materials and conditions for its existence, not to mention one that self-assembles from the same components as plants do.
Until then, I don't know why you'd even try to bother making a comparison between dissimilar creations in terms of which creator did a better job, since you aren't even comparing the same thing. 

Of course, I know that you're not stupid enough to actually assume that "God" didn't design plants because humans made something that performs more efficiently one isolated function that plants coincidentally perform as well.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: fireworks_god]
    #10676096 -

Quote:
since you aren't even comparing the same thing.


True, I was only comparing the turning of photonic energy into electro-chemical energy to the turning of photonic energy into electro-chemical energy. Not sure how I got that wrong.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10676167 -

But what about when it's 5am and your girlfriend is not home yet, are solar panels then more efficent than plants?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Silversoul]
    #10677414 -

Silversoul said:
Qubit said:
Nope, doesnt work that way.  Efficiency is normalized with respect to area.  A forest full of 0.1% efficient plants is still 0.1% efficient.


Are you still talking about solar efficiency?  That is so missing the big picture.  I'm talking about how trees and other plants create ecosystems for other life to flourish.  It's pretty asinine to focus on a single entity while ignoring its ecological context.



So your implying that if god actually designed an efficient plant they wouldn't create ecosystems for other life to flourish?  There is no evidence of that at all.  Efficient plants would create an ecosystem just like inefficiency plants, they would just do it more efficiently.

As it stands plants are inefficient and thus arnt growing back as fast as they are cut down.  In this light, efficient plants can provide more in terms of ecosystem and food than in inefficient plant.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: laserpig]
    #10677432 -

laserpig said:
B - plants could use a significantly greater amount of the sunshine they are exposed to, but nobody can figure out if this would provide them any tangible benefit in the context of an actual ecosystem


Plants dont evolve to benefit the ecosystem.  Natural selection has no big picture in mind, it takes place on generation, one species and one member of that species at a time.  Being more efficient at collecting energy would help a plant produce more viable offspring, and that is all that maters in natural selection.

Unless you are a creationist like the others on here, then you can make up any grand purpose or intent of nature that you want...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: DieCommie]
    #10677448 -

Qubit said:
Silversoul said:
Qubit said:
Nope, doesnt work that way.  Efficiency is normalized with respect to area.  A forest full of 0.1% efficient plants is still 0.1% efficient.


Are you still talking about solar efficiency?  That is so missing the big picture.  I'm talking about how trees and other plants create ecosystems for other life to flourish.  It's pretty asinine to focus on a single entity while ignoring its ecological context.



So your implying that if god actually designed an efficient plant they wouldn't create ecosystems for other life to flourish?  There is no evidence of that at all.  Efficient plants would create an ecosystem just like inefficiency plants, they would just do it more efficiently.

As it stands plants are inefficient and thus arnt growing back as fast as they are cut down.  In this light, efficient plants can provide more in terms of ecosystem and food than in inefficient plant.


Smaller plants can grow quite quickly.  Anyone with ivy in their yard can tell you that.  But the smaller plants can't cycle as much CO2 through the atmosphere or regulate local climate as well as large trees.  Design always involves trade-offs.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Silversoul]
    #10677502 -

I dont see how that is relevant to justifying ineffective photosynthesis as necessary by design.  A more efficient plant need not grow bigger, or faster, or smaller, or slower... it just has more energy available to do whatever it does (which for us non-creationists is to reproduce).

I object to your (and others) approach with this.  You are coming at it with the preconceived notion that plants were purposefully designed and now trying to throw together some ad hoc argument to justify why they were designed to be inefficient.  I prefer to throw out the preconceived notion of design and just accept the fact that natural selection doesnt always produce efficient life forms.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: DieCommie]
    #10677595 -

In the future, humans will evolve to subsist on anti-matter and will only have to ingest an amount half the size of a pea every 10 years.

Then we will have even more time to post baseless nonsense. :yesnod:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10677775 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
In the future, humans will evolve to subsist on anti-matter and will only have to ingest an amount half the size of a pea every 10 years.

Then we will have even more time to post baseless nonsense. :yesnod:


Please don't post even more baseless nonsense, OC.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Existence]
    #10677835 -

It seems like anti-matter would do a number on your digestive system.


--------------------
.:. no more, no less .:.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Existence]
    #10677853 -

Careful noobie. I have friends in high calibers.

:minigun:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10677908 -

Plants may not be perfect.
But they are our only true friends.  :tongue2:


--------------------
.:. no more, no less .:.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: holyconifer]
    #10678796 -

Ever get up close and personal with poison oak?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: DieCommie]
    #10678834 -

Qubit said:
I object to your (and others) approach with this.  You are coming at it with the preconceived notion that plants were purposefully designed and now trying to throw together some ad hoc argument to justify why they were designed to be inefficient.


I am doing no such thing, and I find it rather disingenuous of you accuse me as such.  I have been consistently against Intelligent Design.  I have merely defended the harmoniousness and effectiveness of natural systems and processes.  Even people like Richard Dawkins are willing to go that far.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Silversoul]
    #10678899 -

Nice 'appeal to authority' fallacy. :thumbdown:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10678916 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
Nice 'appeal to authority' fallacy. :thumbdown:


How so?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Silversoul]
    #10678957 -

Well, please pardon me

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Silversoul]
    #10679031 -

R U serious? Is Dawkins an ecologist or a plant biologist?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10679122 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
R U serious? Is Dawkins an ecologist or a plant biologist?


He is an evolutionary biologist, and famously an opponent of Intelligent Design.  I was merely pointing out that I was not making claims that were any more radical than what he claims(as do many other evolutionary biologists).


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Silversoul]
    #10679150 -

Why is it nearly impossible for you to answer yes or no? It was as simple a question as possible.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10679162 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
Why is it nearly impossible for you to answer yes or no? It was as simple a question as possible.


The only "yes or no" you asked is "R U serious," which I naturally assumed was rhetorical.  I should ask you the same question, but I already know the answer.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Silversoul]
    #10679223 -

OK, so we have established your appeal to authority fallacy as Dawkins was neither a plant biologist nor an ecologist.

We are almost making progress. :rolleyes:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10679241 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
OK, so we have established your appeal to authority fallacy as Dawkins was neither a plant biologist nor an ecologist.

We are almost making progress. :rolleyes:


We will make more progress when you admit that evolutionary biology is relevant to a topic about Intelligent Design.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: DieCommie]
    #10679853 -

Qubit said:
You are coming at it with the preconceived notion that plants were purposefully designed and now trying to throw together some ad hoc argument to justify why they were designed to be inefficient.



Yes, but it is difficult to hold it against so many individuals for coming into it with such a preconceived notion that plants were purposefully designed when the original topic explicitly framed the discussion within the context of plants being intentionally designed. The original poster committed a grievous error in his proposal for the "two 'logical' arguments" to explain the difference between the two efficiency levels, in suggesting that either God didn't design plants because plants are less efficient in this category, or that humans are smarter than God because of this difference.

As it is abundantly clear, plants are not solely dedicated to photosynthesis, nor could they be, considering that they are organic life-forms which need to support their life. This automatically implies a stark limitation, because if a solar panel were required to be a self-propagating, growing, living organism, it would naturally be required to be orientated differently and to subsequently have a different form as a result which would necessarily imply that it could not solely be dedicated simply to photosynthesis, thereby lessening its possible efficiency in photosynthesis.

Since this is the case, it is therefore completely baseless to utilize the efficiency ratio of our inorganic, lifeless solar panels as commentary on how efficient plants could be.

It is, of course, to be recognized that plants can be more efficient, and that this can benefit their survival more.
As has been pointed out, some plants, like grasses, can be more capable of photosynthesis. At the same time, since photosynthesis is not the only requirement a plant naturally has in order for it to survive, some plants evolve to stress other characteristics which arbitrarily serve them more than if they were more concentrated upon efficiency of photosynthesis. For example, focusing more on developing complex, large systems of roots which expand much deeper into the earth in order to provide for the plants water and mineral requirements, especially when the plant is large enough that a shallow and unextensive root system will not be enough to support its existence in that form, due to the lack of continuous surface precipitation.

Also, factors like humidity play a large role in the form and function of plants. I'm pretty sure most all plants obtain their water through their roots through a passive system, much akin to a wick, in which the transpiration rate determines the uptake rate of water through the roots. Of course, a lot of plants have mechanisms by which they can regulate how much transpiration is taking place, dependent upon the humidity at the moment (because, of course, if there's too little humidity and no regulatory control, due to its passive system, the plant will lose water too quickly if there's not enough moisture in the soil, thereby drying out the plant and bringing its demise). This, of course, would inevitably effect the rate at which plants produce energy for itself, considering the crucial role that this passive flow of water through the plant has in the energy production process. Less water moving through the plant, less energy production.

So, as we can no doubt all see, it is ridiculous to attempt to disprove the idea that "g*d" designed plants through such a flawed manner. Most people recognize that plants, as living organisms, have needs to satisfy whose compensation implies limitations on their abilities to focus solely upon photosynthesis, thereby demonstrating that it is not comparing the same thing. :lol:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: fireworks_god]
    #10680009 -

Perhaps god is more of a garderner/artist than a scientist. On his days off anyway. Perhaps it was just Sunday and he realized he'd forgotten to make the plants then did them lazily while he was chilling out. Maybe he really was stupid. There are so many different arguments we can use when we include mythical characters into a debate it almost makes debate pointless.


--------------------
Little left in the way of energy; or the way of love, yet happy to entertain myself playing mental games with the rest of you freaks until the rivers run backwards. 

"Chat your fraff
Chat your fraff
Just chat your fraff
Chat your fraff"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Grapefruit]
    #10680016 -



--------------------
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
  The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
  The frumious Bandersnatch!

Edited by daytripper23 (07/15/09 09:04 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: DieCommie]
    #10680335 -

Qubit said:
Icelander said:
On the whole everything works in a messy chaotic way. :crazy2:


Only because 99% of 'gods creations' havent worked and have gone extinct.  If only they were more efficient 'designs' then maybe they would have worked too...



Only because?... :monkeydance:

Nothing can be different than it is.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10681156 -

I don't think the effectiveness of plant survival has anything to do with the effectiveness of photosynthesis, but I still think it's very effective for the plant.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #10681288 -

Seeing as how I never used the word effective and it has a totally different meaning than efficient, I am not sure what point you are trying to make.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: DieCommie]
    #10681990 -

Quote:
Qubit said:


So your implying that if god actually designed an efficient plant they wouldn't create ecosystems for other life to flourish?  There is no evidence of that at all.  Efficient plants would create an ecosystem just like inefficiency plants, they would just do it more efficiently.

As it stands plants are inefficient and thus arnt growing back as fast as they are cut down.  In this light, efficient plants can provide more in terms of ecosystem and food than in inefficient plant.




Bingo


I can't understand the presumptions people seem to have in this forum.



Inefficiency has nothing to do with the amount of microclimates or whatever other poppycock was invoked, it has to do with the amount of energy extracted, or able to be extracted, from the available energy.


And who gives a shit if we have less microclimates anyways?  What does that have to do with anything?


It only matters if you have some particular need to decide that THIS particular ecosystem is the preffered one, and that only seems possible if you invoke god or some higher beings preference.  In that view, it seems quite reasonable that qubit would suggest silversoul was doing so.  Why else does the presence of microclimates and whatever else matter?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: johnm214]
    #10682497 -

I can't understand the presumptions people seem to have in this forum.



But you can in the Political forum?:whoa: You must be a huge genius to see that difference.:satansmoking:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10683012 -

Quote:
I don't think the effectiveness of plant survival has anything to do with the effectiveness of photosynthesis, but I still think it's very effective for the plant.
OrgoneConclusion said:
Seeing as how I never used the word effective and it has a totally different meaning than efficient, I am not sure what point you are trying to make.



Oh sorry, mixed up effective for efficient. If you exchange the word, then I hope it gets clearer what I mean:
I don't think the efficiency of (evolutionary) plant survival has anything to do with the efficiency of photosynthesis, but I still think it's very efficient for the plant.


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #10683209 -

My apologies for not having read the whole thread, so this may have been posted before, but... plants do strive for efficiency, but they can't do it by increasing the efficiency of photosynthesis. Think about the way plants turn their leaves to face the sun, or the way large rainforest trees collect light in a 'canopy'. They are competing with every other plant in the rainforest, so they grow taller to get more light. They wouldn't have to do that if they could increase the efficiency of photosynthesis. There is just as much evolutionary pressure on one than on the other, so from this we can conclude that photosynthesis is as efficient as it can get (without fundamental changes that are unlikely to evolve any time soon).

Another thing to think about is that algae can grow extremely dense in water, to the extent that light can't penetrate very far. However, they still aren't using most of the light energy. The cells on the outside of the tank collect more light than they can use, and emit it back as infra-red. The lab I worked in a few years ago made a breakthough by genetically engineering the algae to collect less light. It reduced photosynthesis efficiency by a little bit, but since the light could now penetrate deeper into the tank, the overall photosynthesis efficiency was drastically increased.

If I had time I'd dig up a photo. We took a photo of a tank of normal algae next to the new kind of algae. The new one was a much lighter green.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: zouden]
    #10684044 -

Quote:
My apologies for not having read the whole thread, so this may have been posted before, but... plants do strive for efficiency, but they can't do it by increasing the efficiency of photosynthesis. Think about the way plants turn their leaves to face the sun, or the way large rainforest trees collect light in a 'canopy'. They are competing with every other plant in the rainforest, so they grow taller to get more light. They wouldn't have to do that if they could increase the efficiency of photosynthesis. There is just as much evolutionary pressure on one than on the other, so from this we can conclude that photosynthesis is as efficient as it can get (without fundamental changes that are unlikely to evolve any time soon).


I find that argument highly suspect!  If I didnt know you were I biologist Id call bullshit out right.  How again do you know that plants are as efficient in photosynthesis as possible?  Saying they wouldnt have to grow taller if they could  increase photosynthesis efficiency, but the converse is also true.  They wouldnt have to increase photosynthesis efficiency if they could grow taller.  What does either of those statements tell us?  Nothing from what I can tell...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: DieCommie]
    #10684111 -

To half of the posters: my old car got 12 mpg and was totally effective. Why some engineer would try to get 50 MPG is against nature. :mad2: And putting off less emissions fucks with the Los Angeles micro-climate.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: DieCommie]
    #10686008 -

Qubit said:
Quote:
My apologies for not having read the whole thread, so this may have been posted before, but... plants do strive for efficiency, but they can't do it by increasing the efficiency of photosynthesis. Think about the way plants turn their leaves to face the sun, or the way large rainforest trees collect light in a 'canopy'. They are competing with every other plant in the rainforest, so they grow taller to get more light. They wouldn't have to do that if they could increase the efficiency of photosynthesis. There is just as much evolutionary pressure on one than on the other, so from this we can conclude that photosynthesis is as efficient as it can get (without fundamental changes that are unlikely to evolve any time soon).


I find that argument highly suspect!  If I didnt know you were I biologist Id call bullshit out right.  How again do you know that plants are as efficient in photosynthesis as possible?  Saying they wouldnt have to grow taller if they could  increase photosynthesis efficiency, but the converse is also true.  They wouldnt have to increase photosynthesis efficiency if they could grow taller.  What does either of those statements tell us?  Nothing from what I can tell...


No you're right, it doesn't prove anything either way, but it's an indicator of the kind of evolutionary pressures (and limits) faced by plants. What I was responding to is the idea that plants aren't competing for efficiency, like there's some evolutionary (or creationist!) reason for them to be not very efficient. I say, they do compete for efficiency, just not by improving their photosynthetic efficiency. They do it by shading out other plants.

So that throws out the argument that there's no drive for efficiency. This raises the question - why is the photosynthetic efficiency so low? Plants have had billions of years to improve it, and this is all they can manage. I think the explanation is: it's hard to make it any better.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: zouden]
    #10686449 -

zouden said:

No you're right, it doesn't prove anything either way, but it's an indicator of the kind of evolutionary pressures (and limits) faced by plants. What I was responding to is the idea that plants aren't competing for efficiency, like there's some evolutionary (or creationist!) reason for them to be not very efficient. I say, they do compete for efficiency, just not by improving their photosynthetic efficiency. They do it by shading out other plants.

So that throws out the argument that there's no drive for efficiency. This raises the question - why is the photosynthetic efficiency so low? Plants have had billions of years to improve it, and this is all they can manage. I think the explanation is: it's hard to make it any better.


Well obviously they're competing to reproduce, with most plants that probably also means survival and increasing health and resources, but its not like efficiency is a goal in and of its self.


Obviously the reason they are here is cuz whatever they did worked.  It doesn't really matter how efficient they are so long as they survive.


I'd agree that it seems likely that signifigant improvements in photosynthesis would be much more difficult than improvements in fitness compared to other plants as a whole, but I really don't know.


In the end I think qubit's statement is prety accurate- none of this really tells us much.  They're hear cuz they survived, and whatever they did worked. 


What is obvious, however, is that there's no reason the present form is preferable to other forms, per se.  It seems the other posters just presume that cuz shit is alive and not entirely sequestered that their is some preference for the status quo, or some unique aspect to the particular way the ecosystem evolved.  I've seen no evidence of this.


Its hard not to see these presumptions of shit working particularly well as invoking design or some deity, like qubit mentions, and I think basically its just ignorant to presume that there's any particular reason why things should neccesarily be the way they are.

People always speak as if the status quo is the pinnacle of perfection, or that there's some reason to prefer microclimates or whatever else over nothing, but why?  These statements seem to be made from highly skewed perspectives that are pretty incompatible with an objective view of the world.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: johnm214]
    #10686766 -

Yeah. I think the best argument for plants being "just good enough" is the fact that they're green, not black.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10687097 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
To half of the posters: my old car got 12 mpg and was totally effective. Why some engineer would try to get 50 MPG is against nature. :mad2: And putting off less emissions fucks with the Los Angeles micro-climate.


Maybe you consider a car which uses 7 liters of fuel on 100 kilometers more efficient than one that uses 3 ? What if photosynthesis would convert 100% energy to the plants we know now ? Maybe they would explode like a overheated steam pot :grin: Not very efficient. To work on low energy levels, that's the real efficiency.


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: zouden]
    #10687514 -

zouden said:
Yeah. I think the best argument for plants being "just good enough" is the fact that they're green, not black.


What is quite interesting is that under my new 120 watt tri-band LED, the plants (you know - tomatoes :wink:) look totally black, meaning the light is hitting them at the correct spectrums.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #10687530 -

Quote:
To work on low energy levels, that's the real efficiency.


It is difficult to have a discussion like this with people that don't have even a basic grasp of physics.

Thanks for playing! :bye:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God *DELETED* [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10687554 -

Post deleted by Lakefingers

Reason for deletion: .

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10687620 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
zouden said:
Yeah. I think the best argument for plants being "just good enough" is the fact that they're green, not black.


What is quite interesting is that under my new 120 watt tri-band LED, the plants (you know - tomatoes :wink:) look totally black, meaning the light is hitting them at the correct spectrums.


Just curious, is there a real advantage to doing this? I've always figured that since plants obviously aren't "hurt" by getting hit with wavelengths other than those absorbed by their pigments, any light that covers the full spectrum would be sufficient. The fact that lights such as yours exist would seem to disagree with my reasoning. Is the goal to not waste power by emitting light the plant won't use, or is it actually better for the plants?


--------------------
Weedmaster P knows the truth.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: laserpig]
    #10687629 -

It just reinforces the fact that god is stupid and made light have too wide a spectrum.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10687710 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
It is difficult to have a discussion like this with people that don't have even a basic grasp of physics.



Please don't be so incredibly thick on this subject; it is nonsensical. Efficiency is a question of in which manner or area one is being efficient. Bluecoyote made a great analogy to represent his point of view on the matter: "Maybe you consider a car which uses 7 liters of fuel on 100 kilometers more efficient than one that uses 3?". The gas is the energy and the car is being more efficient in being arranged in such a manner as to still function in the same way but yet to also utilize less energy in order to function in that same way.

So, we could see plants being more efficient in that they are more capable of transferring more energy to a usable form with less form to be able to do it, or we could see plants as being more efficient in that they are able to maintain the same form or even a form with more aspects with the utilization of less energy.

There's no reason for you to be so blatantly obtuse as to suggest that the second way is not a proper usage of the concept of efficiency.

Since we don't actually know to which end plants are "striving" to be more efficient, or, in the context of the original question, to which end their "creator" was intending for them to become more efficient in (utilization of more energy with less or utilization of less energy to sustain more), it is nonsensical to suggest that one conception of efficiency regarding plants is incorrect, especially to fallaciously suggest that someone suggesting the contrary to one's own opinion "doesn't have even a basic grasp of physics".

I notice you never replied to my critique of your incorrect assertion that you were comparing the same thing... Just let me know if I should wait up or not. :naughty:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: laserpig]
    #10687947 -

laserpig said:
OrgoneConclusion said:
zouden said:
Yeah. I think the best argument for plants being "just good enough" is the fact that they're green, not black.


What is quite interesting is that under my new 120 watt tri-band LED, the plants (you know - tomatoes :wink:) look totally black, meaning the light is hitting them at the correct spectrums.


Just curious, is there a real advantage to doing this? I've always figured that since plants obviously aren't "hurt" by getting hit with wavelengths other than those absorbed by their pigments, any light that covers the full spectrum would be sufficient. The fact that lights such as yours exist would seem to disagree with my reasoning. Is the goal to not waste power by emitting light the plant won't use, or is it actually better for the plants?


Green plants mean that almost all of the green light is being reflected. Any light not utilized by the plant is basically turned into heat. For an indoor grow, this means higher electric bills and more cooling required. My LEDs emit virtually no green or yellow, and my plants absorb almost all of the red, orange and blue emitted, hence look black.

LEDs have less lumens per watt than HPS and MH, but are like 90%+ efficient (if correct frequencies are used) as compared to 16% efficient as far as light used by the plant.


--------------------

Edited by OrgoneConclusion (07/16/09 01:06 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Lakefingers]
    #10687961 -

Quote:
Why get picky with physics?


Um, because we were discussing physics. If one does not grasp the concept of efficiency, then it is impossible to go any further.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: fireworks_god]
    #10687976 -

What are you talking about?


I have no idea what's going on in this thread.  How is efficiency such a difficult word?  It can mean slightly different things depending upon how its measured, but none of those yield a higher efficiency for a car that uses more gas than another.

Quote:
Maybe they would explode like a overheated steam pot :grin: Not very efficient.



Ok, then they wouldn't be efficient, now would they?


That's like saying what would the color black look like if it wasn't black.  Its meaningless.



Quote:
To work on low energy levels, that's the real efficiency.



huh?  Please define how your defining efficiency in this thread.


I don't see what the magnitude of energy used or processed, or whatever has to do with anything at all.  It is certainly not a measure of efficiency.

|
The whole point is that if plants are more efficient then they could make due with lower energy expenditures to get to a sustainable form, when growing, or could subsist on lower levels of potentialy available energy.


It like people are just making up definitions as they go, or I've misunderstood.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: fireworks_god]
    #10687989 -

Quote:
I notice you never replied to my critique


I did reply. That you either failed to read it or failed to grasp it is unknown.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: johnm214]
    #10688004 -

Quote:
It like people are just making up definitions as they go...


That is the nature of this forum, proving once again that drugs are bad.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: johnm214]
    #10688011 -

I think people are making up new definitions for efficiency because they dont like the idea that nature could be inefficient, it contradicts their pre-held beliefs.  Instead of challenging those beliefs its easier to just redefine efficiency...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: DieCommie]
    #10688048 -

As you could tell by my initial post, I was incredibly surprised by the low number.

*Apples to Oranges Alert!*

Compare that to the incredible efficiency of many animal poisons.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10688061 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
I did reply. That you either failed to read it or failed to grasp it is unknown.


No, there is no reply to post #10679853 by you. I can't fail to read or grasp what isn't there. :shrug:

johnm214 said:
What are you talking about?


A plant that can support the same amount of bio-mass with less consumption of energy is being more efficient in how it is utilizing energy.
Just the same as a plant which becomes capable of converting more energy into its usable form is being more efficient in how it is converting energy.

One is efficiency in utilization of energy, one is efficiency in conversion of energy.

That is about as distilled as I can make it, anyone having any further trouble comprehending this apt usage of the word efficiency might want to check the oxygen levels in their computer room....


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: fireworks_god]
    #10688083 -

This thread is about efficiency in energy conversion (from solar to chemical; 'photosynthesis').  Thats what the original post was about (obviously, since the efficiency is being compared to PV cells which is energy conversion not utilization).

All energy utilization is ultimately conversion though, so such a distinction isnt very worthwhile.

Edited by Qubit (07/16/09 01:17 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: DieCommie]
    #10688115 -

Qubit said:
This thread is about efficiency in energy conversion (from solar to chemical; 'photosynthesis').  Thats what the original post was about (obviously, since the efficiency is being compared to PV cells which is energy conversion not utilization).


Yes, I'm fully-aware of what the original post was concerning. What's your point?


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: fireworks_god]
    #10688129 -

My point is that your point is irrelevant to the topic.  Its not that difficult to grasp, maybe you should check your room's oxygen levels....

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: fireworks_god]
    #10688154 -

I don't see how my point is irrelevant to the topic. Bluecoyote expressed his opinion on what he considered to be the "real" efficiency, which I interpret to mean as the one he sees as being the one he feels has more importance. How is it irrelevant for me to demonstrate that it is fallacious for OC to accuse him of not having the basic understanding of physics because he stresses the importance of a different type of efficiency over the one OC had mentioned? :wtf:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: fireworks_god]
    #10688202 -

I read the thread.  Bluecoyote's or your personal, alternative definitions of efficiency are not relevant to the comparison between plant's ability to turn light into energy and PV cell's ability to turn light into energy.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: DieCommie]
    #10688211 -

I did not realize this topic was such a landmine. Stay tuned for my next highly controversial subject: Why fruit tastes sweet.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10688264 -

Qubit said:
I read the thread.  Bluecoyote's or your personal, alternative definitions of efficiency are not relevant to the comparison between plant's ability to turn light into energy and PV cell's ability to turn light into energy.


I don't see how anything is relevant to the comparison, considering that the comparison is completely meaningless beyond simply being a set of facts. :lol:
The efficiency ratio of a PV cell provides absolutely no commentary on any short-coming of the efficiency ratio of a plant, which is the context in which the comparison was being placed.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: DieCommie]
    #10688356 -

Yeah, exactly.  I can't see what fireworks_god's post has to do with anything.



It seems like more semantics.  The topic of this thread seems quite clear to me, as qubit identifies.  The fact that, for example, you could use efficiency to represent the amount of power wasted by channeling it away from a given system, doing no useful work at all, like a lightning rod might do, doesn't mean that's a good definition to start using here all of the sudden.  In fact that would be entirely opposite of the use employed in this thread.  Why would anyone start using that definition of the word?  I don't know, but maybe we should call plants that waste a ton of energy highly efficient- cuz they are able to waste a tremendous amount very quickly and with little expenditure...

Then I could argue the least efficient plant (old definition) is actually the most efficient (new definition) by virtue of its ability to waste energy!

Qubit said:
I think people are making up new definitions for efficiency because they dont like the idea that nature could be inefficient, it contradicts their pre-held beliefs.  Instead of challenging those beliefs its easier to just redefine efficiency...



Exactly.  I think this is exactly what they are doing.


They're just changing the definitions of the word so as to fit their preconceived notions of harmonious nature or the perfect state of an ecosystem, or some similar concept.  For whatever reason, people view the status quo with some reverence which is entirely unrecognized even by them, generally, and certainly undefended.  To defend this reverance, it seems as if people are just using words in new ways so as to defeat inconvieniant truths- like the fact that plants may not be that efficient. 

Whenever science gets brought up in this forum it seems that semantic games are sure to follow.


It wouldn't even be a problem if people would clearly identify what they are doing, but they just go on about different concepts while using the same word. 


They should really add some aditional code to this site.  A little mark that could be placed on the operative words could suffice- if you see that mark you know that in that post the person hasn't suddenly redefined the word to mean something different than its meaning throuought the rest of the post. 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: johnm214]
    #10688379 -

johnm214 said:
Yeah, exactly.  I can't see what fireworks_god's post has to do with anything.


Read above response (assuming you missed it since you were making that huge post). Let me know if things are still unclear for you. :wink:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: johnm214]
    #10688382 -

Quote:
Or, you know, people could just stop changing definitions to suit their needs and clearly identify when they are departing from the clear meaning a word has been used to represent thus far in the thread.


If that happened, this thread would have been a one-pager.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: fireworks_god]
    #10688399 -

Well, I did miss those posts (was away from my computer for a bit while composing that reply) I still don't understand the relevance of your statmeents.



It does seem as if you've redefined the meaning of a word which conflicted with some notions of our ecosystem, and suddenly started using a new definition so as to make a set of facts less inconvenient.


The problem, as qubit identifies, is that this new definition of efficiency has little relevant to the topic of the thread.



Again, maybe we could use efficiency to refer to the amount of energy able to be wasted by a system (like a lightning rod) per energy unit invested.  Just cuz that's a fine definition doesn't mean it makes sense to use that definition of efficiency in this thread- breaking with the meaning of that word thus far.  Simply put, this thread discusses the efficiency of plants in capturing/using (don't know which) the energy available to them by light, and some alternate definition of efficiency doesn't inform this at all, and it seems a bit bizzarre to suddenly change definitions of the word midstream.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10694104 -

Exactly, the efficiency of photosynthesis, measured in volts, has nothing to do with the plant's efficiency of using sunlight.
Thanks fireworks, that's the direction I intend(ed) to discuss.

My inglish may not be the best, but be assured, I have the same troubles to express what I think, even in my native language hehe

[Hey Gomp, do you get what I'm talking about ? :laugh: :thumbup:]


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #10694339 -

Well hey, as long as you're fluent enough in German, you're excused for not dumbing down your thoughts to mere English. :tongue: I'm close to being fluent in Romanian, which is infinitely more complex than English, but I appreciate it as a challenge to sharpen my mind instead of cursing being dealt a bad mother tongue. :wink:

Personally, I haven't proposed any idea regarding what I consider to be the "efficiency" of plants, but I do feel the need to point out when you're simply proposing an alternate sense of efficiency to show a different perspective on the matter rather than trying to ignore or hide from the facts of the perspective on the matter that was the original post.

It only makes sense to propose different perspectives on the matter, different conceptions of efficiency as it is relevant to plants, when the comparison between solar cells and plants in the context of plants being less efficient is patently baseless in the first place.

Two simple facts, the efficiency ratio of photosynthesis, have no meaning compared to each other beyond the simple idea that they are the two facts.

When a solar panel manifests itself from a seed, interfaces with the soil and the air, not just the Sun, in order to support its life functions and to be of a form capable of photosynthesis, then we can start comparing the handiwork of nature to the handiwork of humans, bearing in mind that humans, of course, not only will have cribbed like crazy from nature, are also nature itself, to determine who has mastered the art of efficiency. :hehehe:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: fireworks_god]
    #10694474 -

I'm close to being fluent in Romanian,

Romanian's have their own language?:whoa:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Icelander]
    #10694534 -

Sugi pula! :suckit:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Edited by fireworks_god (07/17/09 02:47 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: fireworks_god]
    #10694645 -

Spreech english prease.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Icelander]
    #10694680 -

The emoticon speaks for itself. :smirk:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: fireworks_god]
    #10694736 -

Now now, don't get offended cause you live in a third world country.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Icelander]
    #10694757 -

Icelander said:
I'm close to being fluent in Romanian,

Romanian's have their own language?:whoa:


We even have a post office! :snub:


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #10694777 -

Hard to believe since I haven't received any mail from you.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Icelander]
    #10695273 -

FWG is very close to being a full-fledged vampire.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: fireworks_god]
    #10695319 -

Quote:
When a solar panel manifests itself from a seed, interfaces with the soil and the air, not just the Sun, in order to support its life functions and to be of a form capable of photosynthesis,


When a solar panel is indistingushable from a plant, then we can continue this discussion?

Is it OK if I say that an airplane is faster than an eagle?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10695425 -

Only if it doesnt make nature look bad.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10695530 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
Is it OK if I say that an airplane is faster than an eagle?


Yes, but that doesn't make it true.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10695618 -

Quote:
Man is smarter than plants.


"Animals were invented by plants to help move seeds around." Terence McKenna

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10698067 -

Qubit said:
Only if it doesnt make nature look bad.


You aren't actually under any illusion that stating the difference in ratios between plants and solar cells actually makes nature look bad, are you? :cuckoo:

Orgone Conclusion said:
When a solar panel is indistingushable from a plant, then we can continue this discussion?


Indistinguishable as far as being recognized as being similar enough to be classified in the Plant Kingdom, indubitably.

While it is interesting to compare the difference between the average speed of a Japanese bullet train to that of a bus on the highway, we certainly don't use that data to suggest that buses are inefficient because something of a completely different form and nature is going faster. :lol:

The dynamics of magnetic rails sets very different conditions than that of rubber on concrete. It doesn't mean that buses and highways can't be transformed and evolved to improve their efficiency, yet it is entirely foolish to be under the impression that the photosynthesis ratio of a non-living construction somehow evidences inefficiency on part of plants. Since plants assuming a form akin to solar cells wherein they are capable of being as efficient as solar cells is ruled out, due to the nature and requirements of being a living thing, it simply doesn't matter how efficient solar cells are in the context of how efficient plants are.

The data interpretation that you put forth in this thread is really shoddy, my friend. :shrug:

Quote:
Is it OK if I say that an airplane is faster than an eagle?


Feel free. Just don't phrase that statement in terms of the eagle being inefficient due to the fact that an airplane is faster. :nut:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: fireworks_god]
    #10698106 -

Quote:
While it is interesting to compare the difference between the average speed of a Japanese bullet train to that of a bus on the highway, we certainly don't use that data to suggest that buses are inefficient because something of a completely different form and nature is going faster. 



It is refreshing to see that after all of your time here, you have finally mastered the art of the strawman. :thumbup:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10698261 -

Since I would never expect an actual deconstruction of what I said and a demonstration of precisely how it is a strawman, I'll simply go as far as to say that you're confusing an analogy with that of a strawman. The purpose of an analogy is to apply the same principle and line of thinking in a different situation so as to assist the illumination of which point one is striving to make.
In order for you to brandish about the assertion of strawman successfully, you'll no doubt have to demonstrate a line of reason to support the claim. :wink:

The analogy is perfectly apt. We all realize that a plant is limited in the degree to which it can orientate itself towards increased efficiency in photosynthesis when it has to support critical life functions as well. Solar cells are designed specifically to accomplish only one task.
Plants, of course, can't do this because they are not manufactured, but are, in fact, a life form, in and of themselves.
Thus, it is only rational and reasonable to recognize that the efficiency of solar cells provides no commentary on how efficient plants are, in light of the fact that plants have other needs and other functions which plants must compensate for. The difference is just the same as the differences between the speeds of a bullet train vs. a bus on a highway.

What do you expect, OC? For plants to stop being living beings?
Do you propose that humans are inefficient in the way they inspire air because we also have designed air conditioners and venting ducts that are capable of an air flow with a higher degree of m3/h?
:smirk:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10698270 -

Well I have my opinion on this but you have to excuse my English.

Me thinks that point is to use as small amount of energy  for best possible results. Now, elephants are not plants but they evolve to their size mainly because they need less food in proportion to their weight.  Note that elephants only digest 40% of what they eat, they have to make up for their digestive system's lack of efficiency in volume.
Very small mammals must consume 2 to 3 times their weight daily to survive and elephants, even inefficient as they are - don't.

Anyway.
What would happen to plants if, by some chance, a lot of light emission from sun would be stopped (like by gigantic cloud of ash, for example)?
Most of them would die anyway but those who can thrive with very little light would survive and then that trait would go down evolution path.
I don't see anything that imply existence of intelligent designer.


--------------------


Looping our reflections, our obsessions draw us in
Fix and fixation, no sentience beyond

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: fireworks_god]
    #10698373 -

In summation, we should have stopped development on solar cells long ago, because no matter how inefficient they were, it was an impressive achievement and if 0.1% enegry conversion was good enough for plants, it certainly is good enough for us.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: fireworks_god]
    #10698449 -

Quote:
We all realize that a plant is limited in the degree to which it can orientate itself towards increased efficiency in photosynthesis when it has to support critical life functions as well. Solar cells are designed specifically to accomplish only one task.


We can actually insert an electrode into the thylakoid membrane of the chloroplast of a plant cell and detect current caused by photons hitting the antenna complex. This gives a measurement of how efficiently the plant converts light energy into electrical energy. IIRC it's about 30%, which is higher than what we can currently achieve with solar panels.

Further down the chain the efficiency decreases, as "life function" overheads take their toll, as you said. But since we can actually measure the photon->electron ratio, the efficiency of photosynthesis can be directly compared with photovoltaic panels.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10698472 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
In summation, we should have stopped development on solar cells long ago, because no matter how inefficient they were, it was an impressive achievement and if 0.1% enegry conversion was good enough for plants, it certainly is good enough for us.


Talk about straw-men. :lol:
It is incorrect to summarize that I somehow implied that humans should not have developed solar cells and that we shouldn't continue to stress improving their efficiency, being that it is certainly good for us as well, because I outlined the idea that plants are life-forms which have other functions than photosynthesis that naturally limit their efficiency in photosynthesis and make their rate incomparable to the efficiency of solar cells in the context of plants being inefficient.

Obviously, no one ever suggested this.
I only suggested that trying to provide logical proof in this way that there is either no g*d designing plants, or rather that humans are somehow smarter than this designer, is really, really ridiculous. :grin:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: zouden]
    #10698477 -

zouden said:
This gives a measurement of how efficiently the plant converts light energy into electrical energy. IIRC it's about 30%, which is higher than what we can currently achieve with solar panels.

Further down the chain the efficiency decreases, as "life function" overheads take their toll, as you said. But since we can actually measure the photon->electron ratio, the efficiency of photosynthesis can be directly compared with photovoltaic panels.


Excellent.  :mrburns:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #10698803 -

BlueCoyote said:
Exactly, the efficiency of photosynthesis, measured in volts, has nothing to do with the plant's efficiency of using sunlight.
Thanks fireworks, that's the direction I intend(ed) to discuss.

My inglish may not be the best, but be assured, I have the same troubles to express what I think, even in my native language hehe

[Hey Gomp, do you get what I'm talking about ? :laugh: :thumbup:]


Not at all.. Why would I feel the same as that?

Have you yet not understood that I write like this on purpose, to GET YOU TO UNDERSTAND?

What and idiot you are..

Just cause you cannot make yourself understood, and spell "English" does not mean I do not..

Sorry.. That post was uncalled for, and you are making an ass of yourself..


Most people actually have the brain capacity to understand me..


BTW: I know it was a question, but you just earned a place on my ignore list.. If that is what you think of me, then I will not waste energy telling you why I type as I do.. (Though I already did, not so elaborated, though..)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Gomp]
    #10698943 -

You gotta love people that tell you they're going to ignore you. :lol:


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #10698957 -

... for trying to find a commonality :lol:


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10699026 -

You're missing the point about rate of absorption, etc. And the fact that photosynthesis is much more efficient as a whole process for what it does. A college biology class would enlighten you more on how you really are comparing apples to oranges. PVs use the difference in energy between an electron at its ground state and it's excited state (excited by the sun's energy, the difference is where the 'volt' in photovoltaic comes from), whereas photosynthesis uses these excited electrons to start a cascade of chemical reactions which release much more energy than the electrons falling back to their ground state by themselves.

This is also assuming in a typical western European Christian view of a God and that He created every plant and animal and designed every system to a tee by Himself. We all know that's bullshit.


--------------------
http://flickr.com/photos/mycography - A collection of my fungal photography

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10699157 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
You don't agree with LP that failing to use 99.9% of the available energy is incredibly efficient?


Why are you looking at the 99.9% as a waste? If I can do the job with less than I am MORE efficient, not less.

Lets take weed for example. I have a friend who has a ROOR bong, I tell him why don't you just take a full packing and then be high enough where you don't have to pack it again? He refuses and simply takes tiny hits and keeps packing and packing the piece. If he used less CORRECTLY he would be saving weed and money. He's being more efficient than me because he is using more? Don't think so.

You have such a problem with God man. Whether he is real or not should stop being your agenda, your opinion changes nothing of the cosmos.


--------------------
With Allure I Look to the Sky With Awakened Eyes

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: kydelic]
    #10699386 -

As opposed to god existing or god being a he, for example.


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Rocker232]
    #10699410 -

Quote:
Why are you looking at the 99.9% as a waste? If I can do the job with less than I am MORE efficient, not less.


Because the 99.9% is a waste.  The plant collects that energy and does not use it.  That is a waste.  If the plant were efficiently doing more with less it would have smaller leaves so it wouldn't have to waste all that energy.  But as it stands its inefficient so it has bigger leaves and wastes most of the energy it collects with those leaves.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: zouden]
    #10699557 -

On a tangential note, I will be doing an experiment over the coming months using PVCs to gently stimulate root growth with low current electricity. There is some science behind the idea, but have not seen anything solid on the effect of growing our fave plant.

It will be a small sample size of two control and two stimulated plants, so any results will be merely indicative and not conclusive. I will be taking four plants of the same strain and time from germination, at about three weeks old. They will get the same light, heat, air, water and nutes.

The two sightly larger plants will be the controls and the slightly weaker/smaller plants will get the stimulation. Will take pics every few days for 4-8 weeks to monitor and see if there is any significant difference.


--------------------

Edited by OrgoneConclusion (07/18/09 01:48 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10699577 -

Quote:
I will be taking four plants of the same strain and time from germination, at about three weeks old. They will get the same light, heat, air, water and nutes.


Don't you think that it would be better to take four clones of the same plant, instead of using four different phenos for your experiment? Even plants of the same strain can hugely variate in size and in bud and resin production, and the results would be more uncertain. :shrug:


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #10699652 -

Obviously, you are correct, :thumbup: but as I have one grow area and no mother plant, I cannot do that at this time. As this is only a preliminary experiment, I do not even know what type of current will be required nor if it will have any measurable effect.

If I were to try to develop a practical device for home growers or to write a paper, clones would be a necessity. That is the reason I will be choosing the smaller phenos for the stimulation. No pun here, but I am groping in the dark and will continuously refine later experiments if there seems to be a positive response.

Note to readers: do NOT plug full household current into your grow pots! :nono: On second thought - go for it! I love Darwin Awards. :yesnod:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: DieCommie]
    #10700012 -

Qubit said:
Quote:
Why are you looking at the 99.9% as a waste? If I can do the job with less than I am MORE efficient, not less.


Because the 99.9% is a waste.  The plant collects that energy and does not use it.  That is a waste.


If the plant is collecting the energy and not using it, then where is the energy going?
I thought it was a matter of the plant not collecting 99.9% of the light which reaches its leaves. At least, that is what was said in the original post.
I thought collection was a matter of harnessing it and converting it, not simply having it reach the leaf....

Please clarify because you're only making the discussion more confusing, especially in light of the information Zouden provided that suggests the actual cells doing the photosynthesis are actually converting light energy at around 30%. 

Quote:
  If the plant were efficiently doing more with less it would have smaller leaves so it wouldn't have to waste all that energy.  But as it stands its inefficient so it has bigger leaves and wastes most of the energy it collects with those leaves.


Demonstrate that leaf size is solely determined in relation to photosynthesis, to substantiate the claim that it would have smaller leaves if it was efficiently doing more energy collection with less. :smile:

You still haven't even provided a basis for the assumption that plants are being inefficient.
To label them as being inefficient implies that there is a potential capacity of them being more efficient.
Of course, no one shows any reason why we should think that this is the case.

In the meantime, be sure to characterize anyone disagreeing with you as doing so because "they don't want nature to look bad". :lol:
Doing so really carries a lot of substance behind it. :smirk:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10700043 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
Obviously, you are correct, :thumbup: but as I have one grow area and no mother plant, I cannot do that at this time.


An extension cord, a blue spectrum CFL (20watts), a socket, some electrical tape, and a Rubbermaid container equipped with a computer fan will solve that dilemma for you. :smile: Flowering from clones always seems to pay off dividends.

Phenotype variation will ensure you won't have any usable kind of control, I think, even for just gathering indications.... :wink:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: fireworks_god]
    #10700134 -

Once again a fine suggestion, but it would require waiting for the seedlings to get big enough show sex and become a mother to take clones from - and I want to try this now not wait 2-3 months! :hissyfit:

Seriously, if I take two seedlings that are 25% smaller than the control plants and they outgrow the controls, you don't think that would be indicative that something was going on?

At this point this is a stoner fucking around, not a high schooler trying to win a Science Fair Project nor a botanist going for a Nobel Prize. :shrug:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10700157 -

Then get some god damn feminized seeds, even though I really think that a few extra months isn't such a hassle, especially since this doesn't mean that you'd have to stop flowering while you're waiting for the other female(s) to become ready to take clones from. :shrug:


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:

Edited by MushroomTrip (07/18/09 04:03 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10700202 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
Seriously, if I take two seedlings that are 25% smaller than the control plants and they outgrow the controls, you don't think that would be indicative that something was going on?


It'd be indicative that something would be going on, yes, but 25% difference in size is all within the range of phenotypical variation, especially considering that you're starting at three weeks, a point at which its simply impossible to tell how different two phenotypes will be by the time they've started flowering, even if they are of a similar size at three weeks (IME). The strain would have to be stabilized to the point of being nearly inbred to have enough consistency to not consider phenotype variation as not being a threat to your control.

I'm not saying you need to have it science fair perfect and I'm not saying this to just be difficult but simply because even indications are going to be entirely inconclusive because the difference in how the phenotypes would have grown without the experiment is completely unknown. :wink:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: fireworks_god]
    #10700241 -

When the electrostim plants grow to 2 meters in 3 weeks and leave their pots to attack me while I am sleeping...


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #10700277 -

MushroomTrip said:
Then get some god damn feminized seeds, even though I really think that a few extra months isn't such a hassle, especially since this doesn't mean that you'd have to stop flowering while you're waiting for the other female(s) to become ready to take clones from. :shrug:


More people doing this equals faster and more precise addition to the knowledge pool, so get off your goddamned ass and help me out by doing your own goddammned experiment! Must I do EVERYTHING!?



Sorry, I lost it there. (This has been a shameless plug for my Free Will thread.) :sorry:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: fireworks_god]
    #10700530 -

kydelic said:
You're missing the point about rate of absorption, etc. And the fact that photosynthesis is much more efficient as a whole process for what it does. A college biology class would enlighten you more on how you really are comparing apples to oranges. PVs use the difference in energy between an electron at its ground state and it's excited state (excited by the sun's energy, the difference is where the 'volt' in photovoltaic comes from), whereas photosynthesis uses these excited electrons to start a cascade of chemical reactions which release much more energy than the electrons falling back to their ground state by themselves.

This is also assuming in a typical western European Christian view of a God and that He created every plant and animal and designed every system to a tee by Himself. We all know that's bullshit.


How can those reactions release more energy? Where is the energy coming from? I think it'd be the other way around, the process of putting the energy into a usable (chemical) form is lossy.


fireworks_god said:
Qubit said:
Quote:
Why are you looking at the 99.9% as a waste? If I can do the job with less than I am MORE efficient, not less.


Because the 99.9% is a waste.  The plant collects that energy and does not use it.  That is a waste.


If the plant is collecting the energy and not using it, then where is the energy going?
I thought it was a matter of the plant not collecting 99.9% of the light which reaches its leaves. At least, that is what was said in the original post.
I thought collection was a matter of harnessing it and converting it, not simply having it reach the leaf....

Please clarify because you're only making the discussion more confusing, especially in light of the information Zouden provided that suggests the actual cells doing the photosynthesis are actually converting light energy at around 30%. 



Right, time for me to look up where I got that figure from. In my honours thesis (2007) I wrote,
Quote:
Photosynthesis has a light collecting efficiency of ~30%, but the maximum efficiency of conversion to usable chemical energy (after losses due to fluorescence and the inefficiencies of CO2 fixation) is closer to that of traditional photovoltaic cells (~10%) [1].


Wikipedia's explanation is better than mine. It discusses the fact only 45% of sunlight is usable (of the right colour). The rest is reflected, absorbed or transmitted. The theoretical maximum of conversion from sunlight to energy is 11%.

To answer your question of "If the plant is collecting the energy and not using it, then where is the energy going?" I'd say it's accounted in a few places:
-collected is not the same as harvested. When the sun shines on the leaf, some of it passes right through, but the rest is "collected". Some of that is harvested, but the rest (like the green colour) is reflected and absorbed. So reflection and absorption account for some of the energy.
-the photosynthetic process generates waste heat.
-the light-antenna complexes can easily be saturated by photons. Any extra energy they receive is emitted as infra-red light.

So, in other words, any energy that falls on the plant that isn't used is turned into heat or emitted as photons. It's quite a substantial amount.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: zouden]
    #10700721 -

Thanks for the info. Apparently the number I quoted in the OP of 0.1% was sunlight-to-biomass efficiency whereas the overall photosynthetic efficiency of total solar radiation is 3-6%. That seems much more reasonable.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10701772 -

Quote:
How can those reactions release more energy? Where is the energy coming from? I think it'd be the other way around, the process of putting the energy into a usable (chemical) form is lossy.


More energy than simply the electrons falling back to ground, there is more because there is energy from the nutrients that the plants absorb through soil and water. The photons help induce a chemical reactions, and the excited electrons (IIRC) act as supports for the different cycles within photosynthesis.


--------------------
http://flickr.com/photos/mycography - A collection of my fungal photography

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: fireworks_god]
    #10701981 -

fireworks_god said:
If the plant is collecting the energy and not using it, then where is the energy going?



Waste heat of course, the same place nearly all waste energy goes.  It doesnt hang around for other plants to use it, which is what is implied when .1% (or 6%) efficiency is interpreted as good.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: kydelic]
    #10702177 -

kydelic said:
Quote:
How can those reactions release more energy? Where is the energy coming from? I think it'd be the other way around, the process of putting the energy into a usable (chemical) form is lossy.


More energy than simply the electrons falling back to ground, there is more because there is energy from the nutrients that the plants absorb through soil and water. The photons help induce a chemical reactions, and the excited electrons (IIRC) act as supports for the different cycles within photosynthesis.


If that's the case then photosynthesis is even less efficient than it seems, because it's using energy from other sources.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: zouden]
    #10702246 -

Down with green energy! :mad2: :thumbdown:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Plant evolution and God [Re: Gomp]
    #10702383 -

Ump hehe, sorry, gomp this was a joke :rolleyes:
edit: Maybe you could become my translator ? :grin:


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'

Edited by BlueCoyote (07/19/09 03:48 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9  [ show all ]

Shop: MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Distinguishing Peoples, Plants, Animals, & God World Spirit 641 12 05/13/03 04:39 PM
by Teragon
* Philosophical evidence that God Probably does not exist.
( 1 2 3 all )		 SpecialEd 9,929 52 02/07/04 06:30 PM
by nubious
* A question about God...
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 JohnnyRespect 6,695 76 05/13/03 11:20 AM
by 3MJ3
* christians and evolution Lazerouth 882 9 09/20/03 03:55 PM
by fireworks_god
* Psychedelics and the Evolution of the Human Brain DoctorJ 3,799 19 10/29/03 09:57 PM
by Mushmonkey
* Do You Believe In God?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 EffedS 7,042 92 09/08/03 09:58 AM
by Clover
* The Seven Steps of Human Evolution
( 1 2 3 all )		 ShroomismM 6,621 42 05/23/09 11:39 AM
by OrgoneConclusion
* Our Symbiotic Relatinship With Plant Life Spokesman 981 10 11/24/03 08:58 AM
by bumski

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
7,726 topic views. 0 members, 123 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.086 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 14 queries.