The Orchid
adman
"..analysis, published recently in the journal Nature, indicates orchids
arose some 76 to 84 million years ago, much longer ago than many scientists
had estimated. The extinct bee they studied, preserved in amber with a mass
of orchid pollen on its back, represents some of the only direct evidence of
pollination in the fossil record."
How about THAT. Some observable evidence that says orchids, the very same
types we have today, lived 76-84 Million years ago AND were pollinated in
the exact same way.
-----
Lets continue:
"Orchids' ambiguous fossil record has fed a longstanding debate over their
age, with various scientists pegging the family at anywhere from 26 to 112
million years old. "
Oh! I get it now! They first made a GUESS of "26 to 112 million years old.
" and this new discovery says the guess was wrong. humm...
-------
Next:
"Our analysis places orchids far toward the older end of the range that had
been postulated, suggesting the family was fairly young at the time of the
extinction of the dinosaurs some 65 million years ago," Ramírez says. "It
appears, based on our molecular clock analyses, that they began to flourish
shortly after the mass extinction at the so-called 'K/T boundary' between
the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods, which decimated many of Earth's
species."
Well, well. I guess evolution DOES NOT apply to Orchids. Imagine that. They
look the same, they are polinated by bees, we even found some observable
pollen 65 million years old.
-------
Finally:
"The specimen is one of just a few fossils known to illustrate directly a
plant-pollinator association. The specific placement of the pollen on the
bee's back not only confirms the grains were placed through active
pollination -- as opposed to a random encounter with an orchid -- but also
sheds light on the exact type and shape of orchid flower that produced the
pollen tens of millions of years ago."
Just one of a few fossils known to illustrate directly a plant-pollinator
association? Facinating stuff this nature magazine is! And, Not random? how
shocking. and an active bee to flower pollination process 65 million years
ago? wow.
-----
But wait, there is more to the story:
"This result is puzzling and fascinating at the same time because modern
species of Vanilla orchids are locally distributed throughout the tropical
regions of the world," says Ramírez. "But we know that tropical continents
began to split apart about 100 million years ago, and thus our estimates of
60 to 70 million years for the age of Vanilla suggest that tropical
continents were still experiencing significant biotic exchange much after
their dramatic split."
I just love how one discovery can change another. Kinda like dominos.
Anyway...This looks like Another Guess with regard to continent shift proven
wrong by a flower Why yes, i think it is. Gee, can i make guesses for a
living to?!
Gosh, you just never know what is around every corner with this evolution
stuff eh?
One thing for sure, the pollination mechanism worked back then in exactly
the same way as it does today. And that ancient orchids are identical to
present-day ones.No guessing there. Nature Magazine would not print it
otherwise. Right?
OK, now that we have established there has been no evolution to the orchid;
in addition, we have established there has been no evolution to the orchids
reproductive process. We established this by a scientific magazine with a
good reputation, reporting on scientists that are obviously qualified.
Can anyone explain why evolution would skip flowers such as the Orchid? Can
anyone explain why the Orchid, a rather delicate plant when young, could
survive a massive extinction when nature should be selecting the strongest
to survive at that point?
Maybe evolution does not happen to the degree some wish to believe. Yes.
Thats it.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070829143719.htm
http://youngorchids.wordpress.com/
Dan Luke
"adman" wrote:
> How about THAT. Some observable evidence that says orchids, the very same
> types we have today,
Nope. The evidence does not say orchids were the "very same types" then as
today.
> lived 76-84 Million years ago AND were pollinated in
> the exact same way.
By an extinct type of bee.
>
> Lets continue:
Let's not.
--
Dan
"Don't make me nervous when I'm holdin a baseball bat."
-Big Joe Turner
geo...@hotmail.com
> From "Nature" posted on "sciencedaily"
>
> "..analysis, published recently in the journal Nature, indicates orchids
> arose some 76 to 84 million years ago, much longer ago than many scientists
> had estimated. The extinct bee they studied, preserved in amber with a mass
> of orchid pollen on its back, represents some of the only direct evidence of
> pollination in the fossil record."
>
> How about THAT. Some observable evidence that says orchids, the very same
> types we have today, lived 76-84 Million years ago AND were pollinated in
> the exact same way.
The same evidence that you deny when it doesn't support your side?
> -----
>
> Lets continue:
>
> "Orchids' ambiguous fossil record has fed a longstanding debate over their
> age, with various scientists pegging the family at anywhere from 26 to 112
> million years old. "
>
> Oh! I get it now! They first made a GUESS of "26 to 112 million years old.
A testable GUESS is called a hypothesis, twit, and it's been tested.
That's called science.
> " and this new discovery says the guess was wrong. humm...
in what world does '76-84 million' not fall between '26-112 million',
twit?
>
> -------
>
> Next:
>
> "Our analysis places orchids far toward the older end of the range that had
> been postulated, suggesting the family was fairly young at the time of the
> extinction of the dinosaurs some 65 million years ago," Ramírez says. "It
> appears, based on our molecular clock analyses, that they began to flourish
> shortly after the mass extinction at the so-called 'K/T boundary' between
> the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods, which decimated many of Earth's
> species."
>
> Well, well. I guess evolution DOES NOT apply to Orchids. Imagine that. They
> look the same, they are polinated by bees, we even found some observable
> pollen 65 million years old.
So you can now extrapolate back 65 million years when it supports you,
but any other time it's 'were you there?'. Hypocrite.
>
> -------
>
> Finally:
>
> "The specimen is one of just a few fossils known to illustrate directly a
> plant-pollinator association. The specific placement of the pollen on the
> bee's back not only confirms the grains were placed through active
> pollination -- as opposed to a random encounter with an orchid -- but also
> sheds light on the exact type and shape of orchid flower that produced the
> pollen tens of millions of years ago."
>
> Just one of a few fossils known to illustrate directly a plant-pollinator
> association? Facinating stuff this nature magazine is! And, Not random? how
> shocking. and an active bee to flower pollination process 65 million years
> ago? wow.
Er, bees are that old. We have some of them in amber, as you posted.
Are you really this stupid? I don't think you are, you've been shown
wrong enough times to get the idea. Still, it's educational to go over
your trolling and find the errors.
>
> -----
>
> But wait, there is more to the story:
>
> "This result is puzzling and fascinating at the same time because modern
> species of Vanilla orchids are locally distributed throughout the tropical
> regions of the world," says Ramírez. "But we know that tropical continents
> began to split apart about 100 million years ago, and thus our estimates of
> 60 to 70 million years for the age of Vanilla suggest that tropical
> continents were still experiencing significant biotic exchange much after
> their dramatic split."
>
> I just love how one discovery can change another. Kinda like dominos.
> Anyway...This looks like Another Guess with regard to continent shift proven
> wrong by a flower Why yes, i think it is. Gee, can i make guesses for a
> living to?!
Yes, and if you test them, you'll be a scientist.
>
> Gosh, you just never know what is around every corner with this evolution
> stuff eh?
That's why it's interesting.
>
> One thing for sure, the pollination mechanism worked back then in exactly
> the same way as it does today. And that ancient orchids are identical to
> present-day ones.No guessing there. Nature Magazine would not print it
> otherwise. Right?
Way to lie there, since scientific language always includes an
estimate of just how sure scientists are.
>
> OK, now that we have established there has been no evolution to the orchid;
> in addition, we have established there has been no evolution to the orchids
> reproductive process. We established this by a scientific magazine with a
> good reputation, reporting on scientists that are obviously qualified.
No, you established it by lying.
>
> Can anyone explain why evolution would skip flowers such as the Orchid? Can
> anyone explain why the Orchid, a rather delicate plant when young, could
> survive a massive extinction when nature should be selecting the strongest
> to survive at that point?
>
> Maybe evolution does not happen to the degree some wish to believe. Yes.
> Thats it.
>
I dread to ponder what will happen if the people who are actually this
stupid get their wish.
John Stockwell
> From "Nature" posted on "sciencedaily"
>
> "..analysis, published recently in the journal Nature, indicates orchids
> arose some 76 to 84 million years ago, much longer ago than many scientists
> had estimated. The extinct bee they studied, preserved in amber with a mass
> of orchid pollen on its back, represents some of the only direct evidence of
> pollination in the fossil record."
>
> How about THAT. Some observable evidence that says orchids, the very same
> types we have today, lived 76-84 Million years ago AND were pollinated in
> the exact same way.
You are distorting the article by claiming that these are the "very
same
types as today". The term "orchid" refers to a "family". You know,
kingdom-phylum-class-order-family-genus-species. We can say that
these orchids are members of the same family as orchids we see today.
> -----
>
> Lets continue:
>
> "Orchids' ambiguous fossil record has fed a longstanding debate over their
> age, with various scientists pegging the family at anywhere from 26 to 112
> million years old. "
You see, the article says "family" not genus or species.
>
> Oh! I get it now! They first made a GUESS of "26 to 112 million years old.
> " and this new discovery says the guess was wrong. humm...
Yep. Living fields like science change, dead fields like creationism
keep
repeating the same bogus crap.
>
> -------
>
> Next:
>
> "Our analysis places orchids far toward the older end of the range that had
> been postulated, suggesting the family was fairly young at the time of the
> extinction of the dinosaurs some 65 million years ago," Ramírez says. "It
> appears, based on our molecular clock analyses, that they began to flourish
> shortly after the mass extinction at the so-called 'K/T boundary' between
> the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods, which decimated many of Earth's
> species."
>
> Well, well. I guess evolution DOES NOT apply to Orchids. Imagine that. They
> look the same, they are polinated by bees, we even found some observable
> pollen 65 million years old.
Of course, evolution applies to orchids, which is why these are not
the
same genus or species as modern orchids.
>
> -------
>
> Finally:
>
> "The specimen is one of just a few fossils known to illustrate directly a
> plant-pollinator association. The specific placement of the pollen on the
> bee's back not only confirms the grains were placed through active
> pollination -- as opposed to a random encounter with an orchid -- but also
> sheds light on the exact type and shape of orchid flower that produced the
> pollen tens of millions of years ago."
>
> Just one of a few fossils known to illustrate directly a plant-pollinator
> association? Facinating stuff this nature magazine is! And, Not random? how
> shocking. and an active bee to flower pollination process 65 million years
> ago? wow.
It is a wow. It pushes back a family of plants and their symbiotic
connection
to a bee (we are not talking about modern bees here). See for example
what bees were are talking about here:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/10/061025-oldest-bee.html
>
> -----
>
> But wait, there is more to the story:
>
> "This result is puzzling and fascinating at the same time because modern
> species of Vanilla orchids are locally distributed throughout the tropical
> regions of the world," says Ramírez. "But we know that tropical continents
> began to split apart about 100 million years ago, and thus our estimates of
> 60 to 70 million years for the age of Vanilla suggest that tropical
> continents were still experiencing significant biotic exchange much after
> their dramatic split."
>
> I just love how one discovery can change another. Kinda like dominos.
> Anyway...This looks like Another Guess with regard to continent shift proven
> wrong by a flower Why yes, i think it is. Gee, can i make guesses for a
> living to?!
Sorry, adman, but these are not guesses, but inferences based on data.
>
> Gosh, you just never know what is around every corner with this evolution
> stuff eh?
>
> One thing for sure, the pollination mechanism worked back then in exactly
> the same way as it does today. And that ancient orchids are identical to
> present-day ones.No guessing there. Nature Magazine would not print it
> otherwise. Right?
>
> OK, now that we have established there has been no evolution to the orchid;
> in addition, we have established there has been no evolution to the orchids
> reproductive process. We established this by a scientific magazine with a
> good reputation, reporting on scientists that are obviously qualified.
>
> Can anyone explain why evolution would skip flowers such as the Orchid? Can
> anyone explain why the Orchid, a rather delicate plant when young, could
> survive a massive extinction when nature should be selecting the strongest
> to survive at that point?
>
> Maybe evolution does not happen to the degree some wish to believe. Yes.
> Thats it.
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070829143719.htmhttp://youngorchids.wordpress.com/
Evolution didn't skip the orchid. It would be impossible to understand
these
results if we didn't have evolution to help us explain them, because
these
ancient orchids are definitly *not* the same as todays orchids.
Of course, adman is incapable of appreciating the science for what it
is.
It's kind of like handing a million dollars to a person, and having
them use
it for toilet paper, or to light cigarettes. Poor adman, he deserves
only
our pity, poor stupid bastard.
-John
*Hemidactylus*
>
[snip]
>
> You are distorting the article by claiming that these are the "very
> same
> types as today". The term "orchid" refers to a "family". You know,
> kingdom-phylum-class-order-family-genus-species. We can say that
> these orchids are members of the same family as orchids we see today.
>
of King Phillip coming over for good spaghetti it's King David who is
favored by botanists.
Mark VandeWettering
> From "Nature" posted on "sciencedaily"
>
> "..analysis, published recently in the journal Nature, indicates orchids
> arose some 76 to 84 million years ago, much longer ago than many scientists
> had estimated. The extinct bee they studied, preserved in amber with a mass
> of orchid pollen on its back, represents some of the only direct evidence of
> pollination in the fossil record."
>
> How about THAT. Some observable evidence that says orchids, the very same
> types we have today, lived 76-84 Million years ago AND were pollinated in
> the exact same way.
Sigh. Orchids existed 76 to 84 million years ago. Nobody said "the very
same types" of orchids did.
> -----
>
> Lets continue:
>
> "Orchids' ambiguous fossil record has fed a longstanding debate over their
> age, with various scientists pegging the family at anywhere from 26 to 112
> million years old. "
>
> Oh! I get it now! They first made a GUESS of "26 to 112 million years old.
> " and this new discovery says the guess was wrong. humm...
Uh. 76 to 84 million years is properly contained in the interval of 26
to 112 million years.
> -------
>
> Next:
>
> "Our analysis places orchids far toward the older end of the range that had
> been postulated, suggesting the family was fairly young at the time of the
> extinction of the dinosaurs some 65 million years ago," Ramírez says. "It
> appears, based on our molecular clock analyses, that they began to flourish
> shortly after the mass extinction at the so-called 'K/T boundary' between
> the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods, which decimated many of Earth's
> species."
>
> Well, well. I guess evolution DOES NOT apply to Orchids. Imagine that. They
> look the same, they are polinated by bees, we even found some observable
> pollen 65 million years old.
Wow. I imagined that the argument you would try to use would be wrong, probably
involving some misunderstanding of the coadaptation that orchids and pollinating
insects have, but wow. This is positively cretinous.
> -------
>
> Finally:
>
> "The specimen is one of just a few fossils known to illustrate directly a
> plant-pollinator association. The specific placement of the pollen on the
> bee's back not only confirms the grains were placed through active
> pollination -- as opposed to a random encounter with an orchid -- but also
> sheds light on the exact type and shape of orchid flower that produced the
> pollen tens of millions of years ago."
>
> Just one of a few fossils known to illustrate directly a plant-pollinator
> association? Facinating stuff this nature magazine is! And, Not random? how
> shocking. and an active bee to flower pollination process 65 million years
> ago? wow.
Indeed. Pretty cool.
> -----
>
> But wait, there is more to the story:
>
> "This result is puzzling and fascinating at the same time because modern
> species of Vanilla orchids are locally distributed throughout the tropical
> regions of the world," says Ramírez. "But we know that tropical continents
> began to split apart about 100 million years ago, and thus our estimates of
> 60 to 70 million years for the age of Vanilla suggest that tropical
> continents were still experiencing significant biotic exchange much after
> their dramatic split."
>
> I just love how one discovery can change another. Kinda like dominos.
Much better to stick with the old ideas, just ignore the new evidence.
> Anyway...This looks like Another Guess with regard to continent shift proven
> wrong by a flower Why yes, i think it is. Gee, can i make guesses for a
> living to?!
In what sense is the theory of continental shift placed in jeopardy by
this discovery?
> Gosh, you just never know what is around every corner with this evolution
> stuff eh?
>
> One thing for sure, the pollination mechanism worked back then in exactly
> the same way as it does today. And that ancient orchids are identical to
> present-day ones.No guessing there. Nature Magazine would not print it
> otherwise. Right?
>
> OK, now that we have established there has been no evolution to the orchid;
> in addition, we have established there has been no evolution to the orchids
> reproductive process. We established this by a scientific magazine with a
> good reputation, reporting on scientists that are obviously qualified.
>
> Can anyone explain why evolution would skip flowers such as the Orchid? Can
> anyone explain why the Orchid, a rather delicate plant when young, could
> survive a massive extinction when nature should be selecting the strongest
> to survive at that point?
>
> Maybe evolution does not happen to the degree some wish to believe. Yes.
> Thats it.
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070829143719.htm
> http://youngorchids.wordpress.com/
Mark
Grandbank
Nice post. The only thing worse than a Loki is a lazy Loki, and
frankly, you've been dogging it a bit lately. Good to see you tossing
some good old-fashioned slow-pitch screwballs.
KP
adman
OIC. You have more quilifications then the scientists that Nature Mag.
reported on
adman
Funny you.
Can you not read?
The article speaks for itself.
adman
you obviously did not read the article. And if you did, well, you did not
understand it.
> Mark
Mark VandeWettering
I did, and what's more, I understood it. You, apparently, did not. They
did not say what you said they did. They did not claim that ancient orchids
(or ancient bees) were identical to modern forms.
Mark
Boikat
> From "Nature" posted on "sciencedaily"
>
> "..analysis, published recently in the journal Nature, indicates orchids
> arose some 76 to 84 million years ago, much longer ago than many scientists
> had estimated. The extinct bee they studied, preserved in amber with a mass
> of orchid pollen on its back, represents some of the only direct evidence of
> pollination in the fossil record."
>
> How about THAT. Some observable evidence that says orchids, the very same
> types we have today, lived 76-84 Million years ago AND were pollinated in
> the exact same way.
Where does it say "the very same types as we have today"? Why is the
mode of pollination via bees be a problem?
> -----
>
> Lets continue:
>
> "Orchids' ambiguous fossil record has fed a longstanding debate over their
> age, with various scientists pegging the family at anywhere from 26 to 112
> million years old. "
>
> Oh! I get it now! They first made a GUESS of "26 to 112 million years old.
> " and this new discovery says the guess was wrong. humm...
Odd, that the "new guess" appears to narrow down the age to a narrower
time range within the earlier estimate.
>
> -------
>
> Next:
>
> "Our analysis places orchids far toward the older end of the range that had
> been postulated, suggesting the family was fairly young at the time of the
> extinction of the dinosaurs some 65 million years ago," Ramírez says. "It
> appears, based on our molecular clock analyses, that they began to flourish
> shortly after the mass extinction at the so-called 'K/T boundary' between
> the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods, which decimated many of Earth's
> species."
>
> Well, well. I guess evolution DOES NOT apply to Orchids. Imagine that. They
> look the same, they are polinated by bees, we even found some observable
> pollen 65 million years old.
Whee does it say they "looked the same"? Pollination by bees is not a
problem either. Aside from demonstrating your continued imbicilic
idea that a theory, in this case, the age of the Orchid lineage, is
modified by new data, did you have a point?
>
> -------
>
> Finally:
>
> "The specimen is one of just a few fossils known to illustrate directly a
> plant-pollinator association. The specific placement of the pollen on the
> bee's back not only confirms the grains were placed through active
> pollination -- as opposed to a random encounter with an orchid -- but also
> sheds light on the exact type and shape of orchid flower that produced the
> pollen tens of millions of years ago."
>
> Just one of a few fossils known to illustrate directly a plant-pollinator
> association? Facinating stuff this nature magazine is! And, Not random? how
> shocking. and an active bee to flower pollination process 65 million years
> ago? wow.
In the thread about the evolution of digits (That's fingers and toes,
to the uneducated, like adman) you refered to "Nature" as a "Rag".
Why do you find that the orhid and bee pollination relationship being
65 million years old so startling?
>
> -----
>
> But wait, there is more to the story:
>
> "This result is puzzling and fascinating at the same time because modern
> species of Vanilla orchids are locally distributed throughout the tropical
> regions of the world," says Ramírez. "But we know that tropical continents
> began to split apart about 100 million years ago, and thus our estimates of
> 60 to 70 million years for the age of Vanilla suggest that tropical
> continents were still experiencing significant biotic exchange much after
> their dramatic split."
>
> I just love how one discovery can change another. Kinda like dominos.
> Anyway...This looks like Another Guess with regard to continent shift proven
> wrong by a flower Why yes, i think it is. Gee, can i make guesses for a
> living to?!
No. Where do you get that from the quoted text? Or do you imagine
that when the "tropical continents" split appart they did so at
breakneck speed, like a special effect in a Ciecel B. Demille epic,
with the continent ripping arpart and goind their separate ways over
the space of an aftrernoon? No, the theory of Plate Tectonics is
quite safe, no matter what your imagination is telling you.
>
> Gosh, you just never know what is around every corner with this evolution
> stuff eh?
No. What's even more amazing is how you still seem to think a
revision of a theory is reason to giggle like a clown because you
think that is a flaw in science.
>
> One thing for sure, the pollination mechanism worked back then in exactly
> the same way as it does today.
Big deal.
> And that ancient orchids are identical to
> present-day ones.
I dentical or similar. So what?
> No guessing there. Nature Magazine would not print it
> otherwise. Right?
But you think "Nature" is a "rag".
>
> OK, now that we have established there has been no evolution to the orchid;
You've established no such thing. And what's this "we" shit? You got
a pet mouse in your pocket?
> in addition, we have established there has been no evolution to the orchids
> reproductive process.
So what? If it works, it is not de-selected by natural selection.
> We established this by a scientific magazine with a
> good reputation, reporting on scientists that are obviously qualified.
But the only thing you've established is that you apparently are
seeing some sort of "disproof" of evolution where there is no such
disproof. If I were you, I would not listen to a mouse in your
pocket, It doesn't seem any smarter than you are.
>
> Can anyone explain why evolution would skip flowers such as the Orchid?
Who says it did? If there are few minior changes, of even if nione at
all, that only means that the orchid have developed a reproductive
stratagy that works extreamly well.
> Can
> anyone explain why the Orchid, a rather delicate plant when young, could
> survive a massive extinction when nature should be selecting the strongest
> to survive at that point?
I know this will probably come as a shock to you, but thoses *seed*
thingies that are the result of the bees pollination can last for
years, or even decades, and still geminate.
>
> Maybe evolution does not happen to the degree some wish to believe. Yes.
> Thats it.
No. You and your mouse are simply too stupid to understand a few
basic principles of evolution. One error you have is that you seem to
be under the impression that radical changes *has* to occur over what
ammounts to a rather "medium" stretch of geological time. That is a
mistaken impression on your part, but one that is common with those
who are ignorant of the subject.
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070829143719.htmhttp://youngorchids.wordpress.com/
Boikat
adman
I'll let the real scientists and Nature Mag know you disagree.
I'm sure they will get a laugh
Boikat
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
There went another batch of irony meters. They just don't make them
like they used to.
Boikat
Boikat
No. His reading comprehencion skills are better than your's,
however. Oh, that's right. It's not a comprehencion problem, it's
your problem with intellectual honesty that's the problem. You know,
your willfully misrepresenting what was actually written.
Boikat
Boikat
>
> > Boikat
>
> I'll let the real scientists and Nature Mag know you disagree.
You go ahead and do that. Please post the *unaltered* e-mail exchange
here as I would certainly verify the exchange. Personally, I don't
think you got the balls.
>
> I'm sure they will get a laugh
I wonder who they will really be laughing at?
Boikat
Mike Dworetsky
news:BsYBk.32764$IB6....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
It said perfectly reasonable things, adman, too bad you lack reading
comprehension ability.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Ilas
news:8pVBk.32694$IB6....@bignews8.bellsouth.net:
> From "Nature" posted on "sciencedaily"
>
> "..analysis, published recently in the journal Nature, indicates
> orchids arose some 76 to 84 million years ago, much longer ago than
> many scientists had estimated. The extinct bee they studied, preserved
> in amber with a mass of orchid pollen on its back, represents some of
> the only direct evidence of pollination in the fossil record."
>
> How about THAT. Some observable evidence that says orchids, the very
> same types we have today, lived 76-84 Million years ago AND were
> pollinated in the exact same way.
> -----
>
> Lets continue:
>
> "Orchids' ambiguous fossil record has fed a longstanding debate over
> their age, with various scientists pegging the family at anywhere from
> 26 to 112 million years old. "
>
> Oh! I get it now! They first made a GUESS of "26 to 112 million years
> old. " and this new discovery says the guess was wrong. humm...
Yes, indeed. And if you're caught doing speeds estimated between 95 and 105
mph on the motorway, you'll be able to stump the nice policeman and walk
away scot free by saying you were clearly doing between 100 and 102 mph.
Give it a try, it's bound to work.
adman
Wrong.
The bee is extinct. The pollen the same, the flower the same.
"The modern species of *Vanilla* orchids are locally distributed" AND "our
estimates of 60 to 70 million years for the age of *Vanilla*" that they
found clearly indicates the same flower. pssst.. it was in the same
paragraph above.
Like i said, you obviously did not read the article. And if you did, well,
g...@risky-biz.com
>
> > Boikat
>
> I'll let the real scientists and Nature Mag know you disagree.
>
> I'm sure they will get a laugh
I suggest, quite seriously, that you do indeed write to them. Ask them
if *they* think their research supports the idea that orchids, bees
and all other species did not evolve from a common ancestor, but were
created all at once.
Greg Guarino
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>The article speaks for itself.
It does, however your added words just show how little you understood
of it.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
He did, he did, you clearly didn't.
>
>
>
>> Mark
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Oh nobody is disagreeing with them - just with your spin on it.
>
>I'm sure they will get a laugh
At you, sure.
--
Bob.
Boikat
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> >> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
It only sounds like they are talking about the same species to *you*.
Boikat
chris thompson
>
> > Evolution didn't skip the orchid. It would be impossible to understand
> > these
> > results if we didn't have evolution to help us explain them, because
> > these
> > ancient orchids are definitly *not* the same as todays orchids.
>
> > Of course, adman is incapable of appreciating the science for what it
> > is.
> > It's kind of like handing a million dollars to a person, and having
> > them use
> > it for toilet paper, or to light cigarettes. Poor adman, he deserves
> > only
> > our pity, poor stupid bastard.
>
> > -John
>
> Funny you.
>
> Can you not read?
>
> The article speaks for itself.
Yes, and right now it's saying, "Adman's an idiot."
Chris
John Stockwell
>
> > Evolution didn't skip the orchid. It would be impossible to understand
> > these
> > results if we didn't have evolution to help us explain them, because
> > these
> > ancient orchids are definitly *not* the same as todays orchids.
>
> > Of course, adman is incapable of appreciating the science for what it
> > is.
> > It's kind of like handing a million dollars to a person, and having
> > them use
> > it for toilet paper, or to light cigarettes. Poor adman, he deserves
> > only
> > our pity, poor stupid bastard.
>
> > -John
>
> Funny you.
>
> Can you not read?
>
> The article speaks for itself.
Indeed it does. The article is an overwhelming example of science
advancing, and of the importance and usefulness of evolution as
a standard model.
Also, your "commentary" speaks for itself---an act of intellectual
vandalism by a cowardly wastrel, who hides behind a pseudonym.
-John Stockwell
John Stockwell
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> > On 2008-09-23, adman <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> >> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> >>>> From "Nature" posted on "sciencedaily"
>
> >>>> "..analysis, published recently in the journal Nature, indicates
> >>>> orchids arose some 76 to 84 million years ago, much longer ago than
> >>>> many scientists had estimated. The extinct bee they studied,
> >>>> preserved in amber with a mass of orchid pollen on its back,
> >>>> represents some of the only direct evidence of pollination in the
> >>>> fossil record."
>
> >>>> How about THAT. Some observable evidence that says orchids, the
> >>>> very same types we have today, lived 76-84 Million years ago AND
> >>>> were pollinated in the exact same way.
>
> >>> very
> >>> same types" of orchids did.
>
>
> >>>> Lets continue:
>
> >>>> "Orchids' ambiguous fossil record has fed a longstanding debate
> >>>> over their age, with various scientists pegging the family at
> >>>> anywhere from 26 to 112 million years old. "
>
> >>>> years old. " and this new discovery says the guess was wrong.
> >>>> humm...
>
> >>> 26
> >>> to 112 million years.
>
> >>>> -------
>
> >>>> Next:
>
> >>>> "Our analysis places orchids far toward the older end of the range
> >>>> that had been postulated, suggesting the family was fairly young at
> >>>> the time of the extinction of the dinosaurs some 65 million years
> >>>> ago," Ramírez says. "It appears, based on our molecular clock
> >>>> analyses, that they began to flourish shortly after the mass
> >>>> extinction at the so-called 'K/T boundary' between the Cretaceous
> >>>> and Tertiary periods, which decimated many of Earth's species."
>
> >>>> Well, well. I guess evolution DOES NOT apply to Orchids. Imagine
> >>>> that. They look the same, they are polinated by bees, we even found
> >>>> some observable pollen 65 million years old.
>
> >>> wrong, probably involving some misunderstanding of the coadaptation
> >>> that orchids and pollinating insects have, but wow. This is
> >>> positively cretinous.
>
>
> >>>> Finally:
>
> >>>> "The specimen is one of just a few fossils known to illustrate
> >>>> directly a plant-pollinator association. The specific placement of
> >>>> the pollen on the bee's back not only confirms the grains were
> >>>> placed through active pollination -- as opposed to a random
> >>>> encounter with an orchid -- but also sheds light on the exact type
> >>>> and shape of orchid flower that produced the pollen tens of
> >>>> millions of years ago."
>
> >>>> Just one of a few fossils known to illustrate directly a
> >>>> plant-pollinator association? Facinating stuff this nature magazine
> >>>> is! And, Not random? how shocking. and an active bee to flower
> >>>> pollination process 65 million years ago? wow.
>
>
> >>>> -----
>
> >>>> But wait, there is more to the story:
>
> >>>> "This result is puzzling and fascinating at the same time because
> >>>> modern species of Vanilla orchids are locally distributed
> >>>> throughout the tropical regions of the world," says Ramírez. "But
> >>>> we know that tropical continents began to split apart about 100
> >>>> million years ago, and thus our estimates of 60 to 70 million
> >>>> years for the age of Vanilla suggest that tropical continents were
> >>>> still experiencing significant biotic exchange much after their
> >>>> dramatic split."
>
> >>>> I just love how one discovery can change another. Kinda like
> >>>> dominos.
>
> >>> evidence.
>
> >>>> shift proven wrong by a flower Why yes, i think it is. Gee, can i
> >>>> make guesses for a living to?!
>
> >>> by this discovery?
>
> >>>> evolution stuff eh?
>
> >>>> One thing for sure, the pollination mechanism worked back then in
> >>>> exactly the same way as it does today. And that ancient orchids are
> >>>> identical to present-day ones.No guessing there. Nature Magazine
> >>>> would not print it otherwise. Right?
>
> >>>> OK, now that we have established there has been no evolution to the
> >>>> orchid; in addition, we have established there has been no
> >>>> evolution to the orchids reproductive process. We established this
> >>>> by a scientific magazine with a good reputation, reporting on
> >>>> scientists that are obviously qualified.
>
> >>>> Can anyone explain why evolution would skip flowers such as the
> >>>> Orchid? Can anyone explain why the Orchid, a rather delicate plant
> >>>> when young, could survive a massive extinction when nature should
> >>>> be selecting the strongest to survive at that point?
>
> >>>> Maybe evolution does not happen to the degree some wish to believe.
> >>>> Yes. Thats it.
>
John Stockwell
Thanks. So, instead of "kill poor cats on four gas stoves" it is
"kill dead cats on four gas stoves".
Mark VandeWettering
Vanilla orchids are a genus, consisting of 110 modern species.
> Like i said, you obviously did not read the article. And if you did, well,
> you did not understand it.
Right back atcha.
Mark
Augray
in <Y72Ck.37228$XT1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net> :
Actually, the correct quote is:
"This result is puzzling and fascinating at the same time because
modern species of Vanilla orchids are locally distributed
throughout the tropical regions of the world," says Ramírez.
It's pretty obvious that in this instance, "species" is plural. An
additional clue is given earlier in the article:
To their surprise, they found that certain groups of modern
orchids, including the highly prized genus Vanilla, evolved very
early during the rise of the plant family.
Hence, "Vanilla" is a genus, not a species, and any claim that "the
flower the same" is baseless.
>Like i said, you obviously did not read the article. And if you did, well,
>you did not understand it.
Well, *someone* didn't understand it.
buck2thrice
Geoproc posted a nice little rebuttal to adman - but adman ignored it
(what a shock!)... this part of geoproc's rebuttal needs to be restated
though because it says it all:
(to paraphrase) Adman is a twit!
James Beck
gr...@hotmail.ett says...
>
> From "Nature" posted on "sciencedaily"
>
> "..analysis, published recently in the journal Nature, indicates orchids
> arose some 76 to 84 million years ago, much longer ago than many scientists
> had estimated.
>
As has been posted many times, you need to go back to school, then go
back and read the article again. I think after a little reading
comprehension, things would be much clearer.
You can always tell a creationist, you just can't tell him much.
John Stockwell
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> >> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
Sorry, adman, but the fossils represent members of a genus that still
exists today. The article does not say that they are the same
*species*
that we see today. So, you will just have to take your can of spray
paint and tag something else, vandal.
-John
Will in New Haven
But they are both Orchid-Kind, dontcha know. The problem with Adman is
that people respond to him.
--
Will in New Haven
er...@swva.net
> >> From "Nature" posted on "sciencedaily"
>
> >> "..analysis, published recently in the journal Nature, indicates
> >> orchids arose some 76 to 84 million years ago, much longer ago than
> >> many scientists had estimated. The extinct bee they studied,
> >> preserved in amber with a mass of orchid pollen on its back,
> >> represents some of the only direct evidence of pollination in the
> >> fossil record."
>
> >> How about THAT. Some observable evidence that says orchids, the very
> >> same types we have today, lived 76-84 Million years ago AND were
> >> pollinated in the exact same way.
>
>
>
> >> Lets continue:
>
> >> "Orchids' ambiguous fossil record has fed a longstanding debate over
> >> their age, with various scientists pegging the family at anywhere
> >> from 26 to 112 million years old. "
>
> >> Oh! I get it now! They first made a GUESS of "26 to 112 million
> >> years old.
>
> > That's called science.
>
>
> > twit?
>
>
> >> Next:
>
> >> "Our analysis places orchids far toward the older end of the range
> >> that had been postulated, suggesting the family was fairly young at
> >> the time of the extinction of the dinosaurs some 65 million years
> >> ago," Ramírez says. "It appears, based on our molecular clock
> >> analyses, that they began to flourish shortly after the mass
> >> extinction at the so-called 'K/T boundary' between the Cretaceous
> >> and Tertiary periods, which decimated many of Earth's species."
>
> >> Well, well. I guess evolution DOES NOT apply to Orchids. Imagine
> >> that. They look the same, they are polinated by bees, we even found
> >> some observable pollen 65 million years old.
>
> > but any other time it's 'were you there?'. Hypocrite.
>
>
> >> Finally:
>
> >> "The specimen is one of just a few fossils known to illustrate
> >> directly a plant-pollinator association. The specific placement of
> >> the pollen on the bee's back not only confirms the grains were
> >> placed through active pollination -- as opposed to a random
> >> encounter with an orchid -- but also sheds light on the exact type
> >> and shape of orchid flower that produced the pollen tens of millions
> >> of years ago."
>
> >> Just one of a few fossils known to illustrate directly a
> >> plant-pollinator association? Facinating stuff this nature magazine
> >> is! And, Not random? how shocking. and an active bee to flower
> >> pollination process 65 million years ago? wow.
>
> > Are you really this stupid? I don't think you are, you've been shown
> > wrong enough times to get the idea. Still, it's educational to go over
> > your trolling and find the errors.
>
>
> >> But wait, there is more to the story:
>
> >> "This result is puzzling and fascinating at the same time because
> >> modern species of Vanilla orchids are locally distributed throughout
> >> the tropical regions of the world," says Ramírez. "But we know that
> >> tropical continents began to split apart about 100 million years
> >> ago, and thus our estimates of 60 to 70 million years for the age of
> >> Vanilla suggest that tropical continents were still experiencing
> >> significant biotic exchange much after their dramatic split."
>
> >> I just love how one discovery can change another. Kinda like dominos.
> >> shift proven wrong by a flower Why yes, i think it is. Gee, can i
> >> make guesses for a living to?!
>
>
> >> evolution stuff eh?
>
>
> >> exactly the same way as it does today. And that ancient orchids are
> >> identical to present-day ones.No guessing there. Nature Magazine
> >> would not print it otherwise. Right?
>
> > estimate of just how sure scientists are.
>
> >> orchid; in addition, we have established there has been no evolution
> >> to the orchids reproductive process. We established this by a
> >> scientific magazine with a good reputation, reporting on scientists
> >> that are obviously qualified.
>
>
> >> Orchid? Can anyone explain why the Orchid, a rather delicate plant
> >> when young, could survive a massive extinction when nature should be
> >> selecting the strongest to survive at that point?
>
> >> Maybe evolution does not happen to the degree some wish to believe.
> >> Yes. Thats it.
>
> > stupid get their wish.
>
> OIC. You have more quilifications then the scientists that Nature Mag.
> reported on
No, both he and the scientists that Nature magazine reported on have
more qualifications than _you_. You are the only one that drew the
bumblingly incompetent conclusion that any of that stuff in Nature
spoke against evolution.
Eric Root
er...@swva.net
>
> > Boikat
>
> I'll let the real scientists and Nature Mag know you disagree.
>
> I'm sure they will get a laugh
The real scientists disagree with _you_. And any laughing would be at
the moronic creationist that thought the findings in the article spoke
against evolution.
Eric Root
Max
Perhaps. Perhaps it is the creationist "kind" that had adapted.
The Enigmatic One
says...
>One thing for sure, the pollination mechanism worked back then in exactly
>the same way as it does today. And that ancient orchids are identical to
>present-day ones.No guessing there. Nature Magazine would not print it
>otherwise. Right?
You're a fucking moron? Exactly right.
-Tim