Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I figure ill share some info from Donald Prothero's: Bringing Fossils to Life.

Prothero writes a lot of good stuff, usually contains good information on paleontology and he has written a good number of books.

 

In Bringing fossils to Life, he takes time to talk about evolution of plants and just paleobotany in general.

He starts off of course describing stromatolites and early blue-green alga. In the fossil record, this is the most primitive and ancient organism (or product of an organism depending on how you look at stromatolites) on earth.

and he goes through and talks about terrestrial evolution of plants. And so he goes on to talk about more complex plants, bryophytes which are structured in a way that they may transport water throughout their bodies (which previous underwater plants wouldnt have a need for).  He cites the early appearance of liverworts, hornworts and mosses. He notes the appearance of vascular plants in the late ordovician and the presence of spores in the early ordovician to late cambrian.

He then expands into the appearance of tracheophytes.  He cites Rhynia and psilophyton (with larger vascular bundles) from the devonian. Early, simple vascular plants. And cooksonia which I mentioned before (middle silurian to late devonian).Those that use lignin to provide more structural support to resist gravity and to grow tall above others, as well as a greater ability to transport water up the stalk of a plant.

He then goes on to describe trimerophytes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimerophytopsida

Larger, stronger, taller terrestrial plants.

He describes prehistoric lycophtes, pteridophyta and sphenophytes which were much different historically, especially in the carboniferous.

He then talks abotu the appearance of seeds. Seeds contain moisture unlike earlier spores allowing for greater prosperity of plants in more arid environments. The seeds also store nutrients for the new plant to grow in soil. He talks about the earliest seed bearing plants, pteridosperms of the carboniferous, ie glossopteridales.

 

And he keeps going on and on and on about the fossil succession.  First basic alga, then low lyring mosses and liverworts, then byrophytes, then tracheophyles, then pteridosperms, and he doesnt stop there but just to make a point.

 

What we see is a fossil succession. Gradual new plant features appearing in a sequence through earth history. Flowering plants and seeded plants do not appear before primitive mosses. It is a succession, the fossils are there and they do paint the history of evolution in plants. Maybe when I have more time ill continue...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Darth Vader

Flowering plants, angiosperms, mesozoic, Populated by pollinators. He cites the appearance of carpels, petals and sepals. He cites archaefructaceae as a potential predicessor to flowering plants (including roses for darth).

" Over the years many contenders have appeared for first true flower in the fossil record. Some of these were eventually reclassified as nonflowers, while others were dated more accurately to a later geological time. Right now, the best and most unambiguous contender for the title of first true flower is (125-130 million years old)[4]Archaefructus sinensis, described in 1998 by Ge Sun at Jilin University and David Dilcher of the University of Florida. Archaefructus was found in Yixian lake-bed deposits in Liaoning Province of northeast China. Dating from the lower Cretaceous age, its scientific name means 'ancient fruit from China.' In an evolutionary rather than a poetic sense, perhaps we should consider Archaefructus as the mother, the Eve, of all living flowering plants "

And again, these prehistoric and primitive flowering plants did not appear in the cambrian or ordovician, silurian or devonian.  These appeared in mesozoic times, further supporting a fossil succession and a succession of biological evolution of plants through time.

And he goes on and on and on. He does talk about some controversies, is this the first flowering plant? Is that the first flowering plant? Is this closer related? Is that?

But the overriding theme, despite internal critique and some uncertainty as to precisely how evolution of plants occurred, there is still relative clarity in the fact that it did happen, and the fact that a fossil succession does indeed depict the evolution of plants through time.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2017 at 1:18 PM, hasanhh said:

 

My Q is -from what l understand to be different from the general viewpoints- that the above surface part of a plant is the root-support-system; while the fruit, such as apple or pear, is a product not the objective of the plant's growth. An inverted view.

Any A.A.A. ?

@hasanhh

Im not sure what you mean when you say a "product", not an "objective". If I had to guess, i would say that bright colors and nutrients could serve seeds in assisting with their fertilization, as well as assisting in transportation of the seeds by attracting and piggy backing off of living things that can appreciate a good tasting fruit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, iCambrian said:

@hasanhh

Im not sure what you mean when you say a "product", not an "objective".

TRUE:   If I had to guess, i would say that bright colors and nutrients could serve seeds in assisting with their fertilization, as well as assisting in transportation of the seeds by attracting and piggy backing off of living things that can appreciate a good tasting fruit. But we are no discussing bee/insect attractants.

"Product" or "Objective".  We can think that an apple or pear is the "objective" for the plant because that is what we are interested in. Yet l chose "product", a secondary growth with or without seeds. The plant doesn't 'think' about its seeds or fruit. lt just grows like the hairs and moles on our skin. The plant doesn't have a point of view about its products.

Here is something l saw last week which -for me- is odd and unexpected: l was trimming a plum tree and saw many of the plum fruits/seeds growing from the forks of branches with no leaves nearby. The forks were in some cases an inch in diameter. A case different from what l had in school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hasanhh said:

"Product" or "Objective".  We can think that an apple or pear is the "objective" for the plant because that is what we are interested in. Yet l chose "product", a secondary growth with or without seeds. The plant doesn't 'think' about its seeds or fruit. lt just grows like the hairs and moles on our skin. The plant doesn't have a point of view about its products.

Here is something l saw last week which -for me- is odd and unexpected: l was trimming a plum tree and saw many of the plum fruits/seeds growing from the forks of branches with no leaves nearby. The forks were in some cases an inch in diameter. A case different from what l had in school.

  If im understanding correctly, yea that would make sense that the plum is a product (sort of a response for which the plant has no perspective or opinion) as opposed to an objective (some sort of a goal that the plant consciously plans out, or something we view as its goal or the goal of the plant).

So the plant, without consciously picking how its fruit grows, sprouts the fruit.  Independent of our opinion of how that fruit ought to be. It is a product of something beyond itself.

hows that sound?

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×