Perhaps this article has been dumbed down far enough for them to understand: Behind the Controversy: How Evolution Works

Yeah....I'm still around

Evolution does imply change for the better. but take it in Context.

Lets use cars as an anology.
You have many species[models] each requiring different things. Now nature determines by what standards one is measured.

Lets equate Materials to population growth and Gas to population restraint.

On one hand we have the SUV which is larger and more muscular.

On the other we have the Car which is light and easily destroyed.

Hands up one would say SUV as it stands chance of surviving a collision.

But consider fuel economy the car can travel the sane distance as the Suv on say a quarter of the amount. This means 4 cars can be fueled fueled by the supplys of one SUV.

Next we have materials since an Suv is larger and bulkier it requires more materials to build this also implies it takes longer to build. This means the car would take half the materials and half the time. meaning 2 new cars to every 1 SUv

So in retrospect well use math to decide superiority.

If we have a fuel supply limit of swy ten units [one= suv fuel]
and a populatiin growth rate equal to 2cars and 1 Suv

what will our end ratio be Cars vs SUvs.

4:1=2 units
(+2:1=+1.5 units) times 5 results to

16:6 thus consuming 9.5 units

Oh wait as there is half a unit left population growth continues but as there is not enough for another SUV we must divide this up amongst the cars producing 2 more cars for a grand total of

18:6 now this is your normal balance as produced by population restraints [10 units of gas]

now lets show death at a 1:1 decline there is no impact but at 2:2 we see something interesting as the there is a full unit up for grabs after the fist growth. however the second growth curb is continued but we now have a competion of resources.
lets look at possible outcomes

1. the cars lose resulting in 2 deaths and balance is restored.

2. there is a draw resulting in 3 deaths [2:1] the process repeats itself.

3. The Suv's lose resulting in one death and a half unit freed up
the production of 2 new cars results to fill the void (22:5)


so what do you classify as better? Why?

http://www.rbge.org.uk/science/cryptogamic...ogy/green-algae

According to the Royal Botanic Garden in Edinburgh, Scotland, green algae are plants. There are probably several algae linages. Perhaps it is one of these other linages that you are referring to.
Doug

va=algae
One entry found.

alga




Main Entry: al·ga
Pronunciation: \ˈal-gə\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural al·gae \ˈal-(ˌ)jē\ also algas
Etymology: Latin, seaweed
Date: 1551
: a plant or plantlike organism of any of several phyla, divisions, or classes of chiefly aquatic usually chlorophyll-containing nonvascular organisms of polyphyletic origin that usually include the green, yellow-green, brown, and red algae in the eukaryotes and especially formerly the cyanobacteria in the prokaryotes
— al·gal \-gəl\ adjective



You better go and give back you phd. only plants contain chlorophyll.

double post

if all else fails go by role in food chain.

Plants are always at the bottom [with few exceptions]

I think you just like to say that word. Do you like to talk dirty? Kidding.

[quote]NO EVOLUTION MEANS A CHANGE IN ALLELE FREQUENCY OVER A GENERATION.[quote]

This is the thing that gets me. First, I was referring to evolution in the colloquial sense. You know, new animals being created by evolutionary forces? What like 95% of the people actually believe it to mean. Of course I understand the scientific definition - and there's a problem with it.

For evolution to occur you need a healthy population - right? What happens in the beginning? What about the very first organism? What about the first organism to receive changes in allele frequency? What does it pass those changes on to? At some point, when you go back far enough there's just one right?

Similarly, by very definition there can only be one Supreme Being. That's not to say that there are no other spiritual beings but it would make sense that the one Supreme Being was responsible for creating the universe. The fact that the Egyptians believed in Ra, and many other gods doesn't change anything or make their religion correct. The Babylonians had their gods too and predate the Egyptians. Some of these early Babylonian gods are still worshipped by various groups of pagans today. Does that matter? No.

Oh really, so cyanobacteria is a plant is daniel?
Chlorophyll.


Plants = KINGDOM PLANTAE

Algae = KINGDOM PROTISTA

SO THEY ARE NOT PLANTS. You better give back you high school diploma daniel.


Feel free to contact Dr David Thomas and the University of Bangor and ask him why. His field is Algae and he numerous books on the field.

What people believe as is irrelevant. Science is not a democracy all it means is most people are wrong.

Bacteria have very fast evolution rates and all self replicate, any self replicating species can make a healthy population. Bacteria are not comparable to large multicellular organisms in terms of reproduction.

The fact is if you want one religious belief to be considered as science, you have to take them all. It is only by the Christian definition that there is only one. Hindu's for example would disagree with that idea.

Nowt wrong with talking dirty .

Chlorophyll is a green pigment found in most plants, algae, and cyanobacteria. Its name is derived from Greek: χλωρός (chloros "green") and φύλλον (phyllon "leaf"). Chlorophyll absorbs light most strongly in the blue and red but poorly in the green portions of the electromagnetic spectrum, hence the green color of chlorophyll-containing tissues like plant leaves.[1]





The other great contribution of the cyanobacteria is the origin of plants. The chloroplast with which plants make food for themselves is actually a cyanobacterium living within the plant's cells. Sometime in the late Proterozoic, or in the early Cambrian, cyanobacteria began to take up residence within certain eukaryote cells, making food for the eukaryote host in return for a home. This event is known as endosymbiosis, and is also the origin of the eukaryotic mitochondrion.


Yes a plant

NO IT IS A PROKARYOTE, NO PROKARYOTE IS A PLANT. IT IS THE ORIGIN CAN YOU NOT COMPREHEND THE DIFFERENCE.

Algae = Protista
Plant = Plantae
CyanBACTERIA = A BACTERIA

It is a bacteria because it is a single cell plant. It has a cell wall. It makes it's own food. It does not have a root system, or a leaf these is the only things that doesn't make it a plant. Everything else about it is a plant. You cannot evolve an animal from a plant, nor can you evolve a plant from an animal. By the way if anything proves the existance of God it is the bacteria.





Edited to include leaves.

You both could very well be right.....

Algae are a diverse group of organisms that cause mayhem even when professional systematists and biologists try to define them in relation to other organisms. There are sufficient morphological, physiological and ecological similarities between them to make the term 'algae' an acceptable one, yet it seems that the term 'algae' means different things to different people. However, this does not mean that we should shy away from naming them aptly, nor does this mean that we should stop trying to understand the taxonomic relationships amongst the algae, and between algae and other organisms.

Through the years, algal classification has been very unstable. Placements at the kingdom and lower levels, are currently still dynamic. It is interesting to trace the changes in their position in the hierarchy of life.

SOURCE

More links at the source.

thank you.

If we ever plan on terriforming mars it is the algae that we will use.

No it is NOT, serious are you that slow.

Bacteria = Prokaryote
Plant = Eukaryote

Why is that so difficult for you. You are arguing what you have absolutely no clue what so ever about. Seriously did you hit your head on something.

A bacteria is not a singled cell animal, plant, fungi or protist, it completely blinking different. Did you even attend one biology class in school?

Difference between plants and algae

If you want to clarify this, feel free to contact David Thomas who is an algae expect at Bangor uni where I did my BSc.

If anyone is interested in Algae (I'm not but I had to read it) Algae.

Not exciting and very expensive but it is one of the best guides to the algal world. (That one has a nicer cover than mine though)

Bacteria is not a single celled organism? You said you took pride in scientific accuracy.

Bacteria: Tiny, single-celled, prokaryotic organisms that reproduce by cell division and usually have rigid cell walls. Bacteria are very diverse. They can be shaped like spheres, rods or spirals and can be found in virtually any environment. The earliest fossils found on Earth are bacteria, almost 3.3 billion years old.

Source; http://www-sedgwick.esc.cam.ac.uk/education/glossary.html

I think that the discussion should morph into how it would be possible for multi-celled organisms with a cell nucleus and chromosomes to evolve from single celled organisms with no nucleus and no chromosomes. Since evolution involves changes in gene frequency in populations; where did the first genes come from?

It would seem that some of the great skeptics here could turn their skeptical powers on this notion and that of abiogenesis.

I said it is not a single celled animal, plant, fungi or protist. Never mentioned organism. It is not any of those things.

If you are going to criticise, at least criticism something I have actually stated instead of miss quoting.

I hope you'll see why I was not wrong and give me and retract you statement.

OK you're right; but you could have clarified yourself from the start and avoided the confusion. Now, how about the second part of my post. What's your response to that?

This is probable a good idea. I tried to get it started but we got on to the algae and bacteria thing.


Mattshark the only things on this planet that produces it's own food are plants. So from my point of view anything that produces it's own food is a plant. All animals get their food directly or indirectly from the plants.
I never took a biology class in school but I watched biology 101 for a couple of years on PBS. Yes I know that algae and bacteria are not plants. but the ones that produce their own food should be. Just like a sponge is classed as an animal.

BACTERIA AND ALGAE ARE NOT PLANTS! CYANOBACTERIA ARE NOT PLANTS! WHY IS THIS SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND! YOU ARE WRONG BACTERIA CAN BE AUTOTRPOHIC!
AUTOTROPH.
CHEMOAUTOTROPH

I couldn't care less what blinking program you watched you are wrong, get over it. You point of view is ignorant of reality and meaningless. No bacteria is a plant by definition.

Maybe you should reread my last post.

I have and you are still in correct in your point of view. There are huge distinct differences and Bacteria are extremely different and not all autotrophs photosynthesise or are even remotely related to plants.

I was just pointing out other Kingdoms. Animals, plants, fungi and protists. Just to define the difference between these and bacteria. The other groups (with the exception of Animalia) have single celled organisms with in them but they are distinctly different to bacteria. Even prokaryote cell walls differ from those found in bacteria.
Sorry for any confusion.
What about the second part?

I said the ones that do should be. Not the ones that don't. fungi do not and are not called plants.

How did any cell decide to use chlorophyll for food production.

Danielost, Can you admit that not understanding a given phenomena is not a reason to randomly assign a specific meaning to it?

Seriously, how do you expect people to take you seriously as a thinker if you make up your definitions for things that already have definitions on the fly?

They shouldn't be though they are to different. I was referring to autotrophic bacteria. They produce their own food and not all are photosynthetic.
There are clear differences between plants, algae and cyanobacteria, just because they all photosynthesise doesn't mean, to help you, they should be put in what would be a paraphyletic group.

They don't decide, decisions are made by things that can choose.

The wind doesn't decide to blow it just does.

How is it possible for single celled organisms with no nucleus or chromosomes to evolve into multi-celled organisms with a cell nucleus and chromosomes. If evolution involves changes in allele frequency from generation to generation - there were no alleles to change frequency. Please explain how this could be so.

OK where did the chlorophyll come from how did it get into the cells to be used.


How did it become part of the genetic code for that type of cell.

There is still genetic material and there are chromosomes in prokaryotes. Nucleus is not needed to have DNA.

I did post about endosymbiosis further up and about colonial organisms.

I am not sure that is known exactly but if you are interested here is a paper looking at it.
Evolution of Chlorophyll and Bacteriochlorophyll.

This could be difficult to understand daniel.


Chlorophyll a and b exist in chloroplasts or plastids.

Chloroplasts are one of the many different types of organelles in the plant cell. They are generally considered to have originated as endosymbiotic cyanobacteria (i.e. blue-green algae). Further observations show they closely resemble cyanobacteria. All eukaryote chloroplasts are thought to derive directly or indirectly from a single endosymbiotic event. Chloroplasts are similar to mitochondria but chloroplasts are found only in plants and protista. The chloroplast is surrounded by a double-layered composite membrane with an intermembrane space; it has its own DNA and is involved in energy metabolism. Further, it has reticulations, or many infoldings, filling the inner spaces.

The question is why

Endosymbiosis of cyanobacteria.

Let me clerify The question is why only plants. Why not animals, if animals had it they wouldn't need to eat the plants or each other.

Then they'd be plants not animals .

They evolved from different bacteria.

In other words you don't know.

Because this process does not produce enough energy to power something like an animal.



In this case, we do, but even if we didn't...so what?

This process not only powers the plant but then powers the animals.

Daniel - If every species on earth, plant, animal or otherwise used photosythesis to survive, I feel it would disrupt
the whole planets cycle.


My question to you scientists, is would this cause carbon dioxide depletion and over saturation of oxygen
in the atmosphere?

Not quite accurate. The process powers many, many, many plants...alongside minerals from the earth. Only after that, do all of these plants power the animal. Not very efficient.



Hmm...It is possible, however I would imagine that there would come a time when the carbon dioxide being released by decaying organic matter would balance out the oxygen being produced. I'm not sure if life as we know it could be sustained in that scenario.

The extra O2 would certainly make the atmosphere more volatile though.

One can only imagine the hellish forest fires back in the dinosaur age.

to say the least !

Much worse again in the Carboniferous.



lol, light a cigarette and take out half a city!