Monday, February 4, 2013

Plant Growth and Evolution

Clueless

You probably never wondered how plants know which direction to grow. In the soil the roots grow downward and above ground the plant grows upward. This vertical motion seems as natural as Aristotle’s physics. Doesn’t it just happen? But as one researcher explained, while such growth may appear to be a simple plant response, the biological processes that control it are “rather complex.” That would be something of an understatement. For plants only grow in the right direction by the coordinated activity of different cell and tissue types. If one part doesn’t work, the whole thing doesn’t work. And for evolutionists, that means that each part had to evolve for some other reason and then just luckily they all worked together. It’s yet another evolutionary just-so story that isn’t motivated by the evidence, but by belief in the theory.

47 comments:

  1. It’s yet another evolutionary just-so story that isn’t motivated by the evidence, but by belief in the theory.

    I doubt that intelligent evolutionists really believe in the theory. They go along with the flow because doing otherwise would be career suicide. It takes guts and backbones to oppose evolution. They don't have any.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "In the soil the roots grow downward and above ground the plant grows upward."

    Always?

    It's always and only vertical?

    And what if there's no soil?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Plants Grow Differently in Zero Gravity
      by Marc Lallanilla - 10 December 2012 - with video
      Excerpt: Humanity may be a long way from harvesting tomatoes in outer space, but researchers now have a better idea of how plants might grow in such zero gravity conditions.

      Researchers from the University of Florida in Gainesville grew seedlings of Arabidopsis thaliana (also called thale cress) on the International Space Station (ISS) to see how the weightless conditions of outer space would affect root growth. Scientists cultivated the plants in specialized growth units and photographed them every six hours; their root patterns were compared with similar plants grown on the ground at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

      The researchers expected that the roots would grow away from a light source (as they do in soil on the ground), and the ISS experiment confirmed that light acts as a primary determinant in root-growth patterns. But the scientists also measured the diagonal paths or "skewing" of the roots, as well as their "waving," the undulating wiggles and curves that growing roots normally exhibit as a means of avoiding obstacles like rocks.

      Roots apparently don't need gravity to orient their directional skewing. They'll grow away from a light source regardless of gravitational forces. Waving, however, is significantly different in outer space, and the ISS roots curved and waved through their growth medium in a subtler pattern than they would have on Earth.

      Though plants on Earth do use gravity to help determine their direction of growth, "it is clear that gravity is neither essential for root orientation, nor is it the only factor influencing the patterns of root growth," wrote lead authors Anna-Lisa Paul and Robert Ferl in the Dec. 2012 issue of the journal BMC Plant Biology.

      "It seems that other features of the environment are also required to ensure that a root grows away from the seed, thereby enhancing its chances of finding sufficient water and nutrients to ensure its survival."
      http://www.livescience.com/25380-plant-growth-zero-gravity.html

      Delete
  3. Just another 'complex therefore design' post?

    Nothing to see here, people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But they keep adding up don't they Ritchie? The headaches for Darwinists keep worsening.

      Instead of answering, the easy thing to do is just to dismiss the evidence by claiming "argument from incredulity".

      At least ID postulates a sufficient Cause to explain the effect.

      At what point do these inexplainable problems spell the death of evolution?

      Oh that's right. It can't be falsified. It is just another reason for faith in future research.

      Delete
    2. Yes, although I'd say it's also an example of their Gap Strategy.

      The Gap Strategy obviously is simply one of focussing on the gaps - some real, some imagined - in current scientific knowledge and ignoring what is known.

      It's a bit like arguing you can't use a ladder to climb up things because of all those gaps between the steps. In fact, a lot of ladders are more space then they are ladder so it's obvious they can't possibly work.

      CH's little piece about this review article refers to what isn't known yet about exactly how plants respond to gravity - which, for botanists, is the interesting question - but makes no reference to what is known or hypothesized about gravitropic processes in plants. Readers must make their own judgments about why.

      Delete
    3. Ian, evolutionists give themselves way to much credit when they say that there are gaps in their theory. That's being overly generous with what they know. Evolutionists do not have gaps, its more like an empty suit.

      Delete
    4. tokyojim -

      But they keep adding up don't they Ritchie? The headaches for Darwinists keep worsening.

      No, they really don't. They might seem to to you, but that is because all you listen to is ID bloggers reporting every new discovery as a falsification of the previously assumed theories and obsessing over the gaps in our scientific knowledge.

      They will never tell you the progress science makes. They never present new discoveries as validations of theories - only as falsifications. They will never tell you of all the times evolution gets is right.

      If you just stay indoor and watch nothing but news reports of muggings, murders, kidnappings and disasters, you will probably conclude the world is a cruel and wicked place. But this perspective is just the result of you only listening to the bad news (or to people who will spin news to make it sound bad).

      Nor is the God of the Gaps argument any more valid an argument with a larger number of gaps. The logic is still as flawed.

      At least ID postulates a sufficient Cause to explain the effect.

      Does it? What would that be? I'd love to hear.

      At what point do these inexplainable problems spell the death of evolution?

      These are not problems. We know evolution produces increasing complexity. So exactly why a system being more complex than previously imagined would be more problematic for ToE, I really cannot imagine. Perhaps you could explain?

      Oh that's right. It can't be falsified.

      ToE? You must be joking. ToE is highly falsifiable. The fact that it hasn't been is not indicative that it is unfalsifiable - it is indicative that it is probably correct.

      It is ID which is unfalsifiable, because it posits no mechanisms or hypotheses at all.

      Delete
    5. Butt-kissing moron Ritchie:

      Just another 'complex therefore design' post?

      You hate it, don't you, moron? You know why? Because complexity kills Darwinian evolution dead. That's why. Jackass.

      Delete
    6. Ah Louis, my happy little ray of sunshine. Always a pleasure.

      Because complexity kills Darwinian evolution dead.

      No, it really doesn't.

      What is a more complex structure: a man-made wall of bricks and mortar, or a heap of driftwood piled to similar dimensions?

      Seems to me a feature of design would be efficiency - simplicity. So surely 'complexity' would be far more a problem for you?

      Jackass.

      You know, a friend of mine eased her menstrual cramps with fresh fruit and a hot water bottle. You might like to give that a try...?

      Delete
    7. So surely 'complexity' would be far more a problem for you?

      The problem for you is the simplicity of the two neurons between your ears. LOL. And I'm surprised you have female friends given your sexist view of them.

      Delete
    8. Louis

      The problem for you is the simplicity of the two neurons between your ears. LOL.

      How witty. I'm shocked Comedy Central haven't given you your own show with rapier wit like that.

      And I'm surprised you have female friends given your sexist view of them.

      Just trying to be helpful. There must be some reason you're in a frothing rage.

      Delete
    9. Yo, Ritchie. What does Dawkins' asteroid orifice smell like today? LOL.

      Delete
    10. Much as I enjoy watching you making a childish embarrassment of yourself, you'll understand if I don't actually reply to your playground taunts, I hope? Obviously they demean you more than they demean me, but I still feel kinda tainted by association.

      Delete
    11. Ritchie:


      ""Seems to me a feature of design would be efficiency - simplicity. So surely 'complexity' would be far more a problem for you?""

      Lots of things that people designed are really really complex, e.g. the computer I'm typing this on.

      Delete
    12. nat -

      But the computer was built to be as simple and efficient as it could while still fulfilling its intended function, wasn't it? It wasn't designed with lots of unnecessary parts and long-winded kludges.

      It really feels like the whole fallacious 'It's too complicated to have evolved' argument stems from ID-ers still thinking evolution is random chance (another favourite fallacy of theirs). The more complicated a thing is, the less likely it is to occur by random chance. THAT makes sense. But the problem here is that evolution is not random chance.

      Delete
    13. Some computers have more functions that others. Not all those functions are necessary. And lots of things people dsign are not maximally efficient. lots of sub-optimal design out there.

      Delete
    14. Ian H,

      "It's a bit like arguing you can't use a ladder to climb up things because of all those gaps between the steps. In fact, a lot of ladders are more space then they are ladder so it's obvious they can't possibly work."

      But Ian, if a ladder didn't have gaps between the rungs it would not function as a ladder would it. But I guess you could then argue it simply evolved into a ramp. ;)

      Delete
    15. Ritchie,

      "What is a more complex structure: a man-made wall of bricks and mortar, or a heap of driftwood piled to similar dimensions?"

      It's not a case of which is more complex, but of what is more functional and structurally sound.

      So tell us, Ritchie, which do you think is more functional and structurally sound?

      Delete
    16. Nic

      So tell us, Ritchie, which do you think is more functional and structurally sound?


      That totally depends on the function. If it's a castaway trying to start a bonfire or a small mammal trying to ride out some local flooding, the driftwood wins hands down.

      Question for you Nic:

      Which contains more information, a two minute reading of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address or a two minute recording of white noise?

      Delete
    17. nat -

      And designs which are not maximally efficient are considered to be not very good designs, aren't they? They are, frankly, badly designed.

      Delete
    18. Nic -

      It's not a case of which is more complex...

      That seems like an odd thing to say when "Complexity! Therefore, design!" has been a battlecry for ID/Creationists for decades. You might want to tell them that complexity is not the issue.

      So tell us, Ritchie, which do you think is more functional and structurally sound?

      Thornton has it perfectly. You mut first decide what its function is. If the driftwood is sturdy enough to act as a wall, then the brick and mortar wall is more sturdy than it needs to be. Meanwhile the driftwood also doubles as natural habitat.

      Delete
    19. Thorton

      "Which contains more information, a two minute reading of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address or a two minute recording of white noise?"

      Let's say alien transmission vs. white noise. Without much measuring or deep analysis you would notice : structure, regularity, form, timing etc. Somebody trained like that blind guy from movie Contact would recognize type of modulation or phase shift. Even moments between alien transmissions would maybe have some function (like they did in the movie).

      Back to reality.

      Interesting bit is that these days transmission technique called spread spectrum sounds just like white noise to human ear. Spectrum analyzer would reveal that something is going on with seemingly random noise.

      We have to be careful when comparing information content in your example because spread spectrum transmission could be carrying Gettysburg Address as data.

      Delete
  4. Of related interest:

    Roots and Microbes: Bringing a Complex Underground Ecology Into the Lab - August 2012
    Excerpt: As many as 120 different types of bacteria might reside inside the root of a single plant, Dangl says, and the composition of that community is distinct from the microbial population in the local soil. "We want to know the molecular rules that guide the assembly of a community of microbes on the roots that helps a plant grow. Ecologists see this as a 120-variable problem.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120801132440.htm

    Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Design
    Excerpt: The mutual relationship between vascular plants (flowering plants) and arbuscular mycorrihizal fungi (AMF) is the most prevalent known plant symbiosis. Vascular plants provide sites all along their root systems where colonies of AMF can assemble and feed on the nutrients supplied by the plants. In return, the AMF supply phosphorus, nitrogen, and carbon in molecular forms that the vascular plants can readily assimilate. The (overwhelming) challenge for evolutionary models is how to explain by natural means the simultaneous appearance of both vascular plants and AMF.
    http://www.reasons.org/ArbuscularMycorrhizalFungiDesign2

    Novel Nitrogen Uptake Design - Oct. 2009
    Excerpt: The exceptionality of the snow roots and their nitrogen-capturing machinery, their extraordinarily complex designs, and their optimal efficiency qualifies them as evidence, not for evolution, but rather for supernatural design.
    http://www.reasons.org/NovelNitrogenUptakeDesign

    Some Trees 'Farm' Bacteria to Help Supply Nutrients - July 2010
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100729172332.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of somewhat related interest to this topic of 'roots':

      Electric Bugs: New Microbe Forms Living, Deep-Sea Power Cables - Oct. 24, 2012
      Excerpt: The world's deep seafloors are dark and airless places, but vast swaths may pulse gently with energy conducted through a type of newly discovered bacteria that forms living electrical cables.
      The bacteria were first detected in 2010 by researchers perplexed at chemical fluctuations in sediments from the bottom of Aarhus Bay in Denmark. Almost instantaneously linking changing oxygen levels in water with reactions in mud nearly an inch below, the fluctuations occurred too fast to be explained by chemistry.
      Only an electrical signal made sense -- but no known bacteria could transmit electricity across such comparatively vast distances. Were bacteria the size of humans, the signals would be making a journey 12 miles long.,,,
      Seen through an electron microscope, the Desulfobulbaceae -- the researchers haven't yet given them a genus or species name -- appear in blue. They link end-to-end, forming filaments nearly an inch in length.,,,
      In just one teaspoon of mud, the researchers found a full half-mile of Desulfobulbaceae cable, and it's not just a Danish phenomenon. Nielsen said other researchers have sent him samples from seafloors around the world, including Tokyo Bay. It's possible that, at the microbial level, the deep seafloor is humming with current.
      With so much electricity being transferred, are other organisms tapping the lines? Might the Desulfobulbaceae be a power source for entire as-yet-unappreciated deep-sea microbial ecologies, which in turn shape some of the planet's fundamental biogeochemical processes? That's "an interesting possibility," said Nielsen,,
      ,,the Desulfobulbaceae are definitely breaking down iron sulfides and carbonates in deeper sediment, while generating iron oxide and magnesium calcite at the surface, Nielsen said. The latter are important compounds for life in the oceans above, and ultimately on land. If the new Desulfobulbaceae are as widespread and populous as they seem, they could be an important component of life's deep-time cycles.
      http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/10/bacteria-electric-wires/?pid=5171&viewall=true

      Moreover, the overall principle of long term balanced symbiosis, which is in fact what we have with the overall biogeochemical cycles of the earth, is a very anti-random chance fact which pervades the entire ecology of our planet and points powerfully to the intentional craftsmanship of a Designer:

      God's Creation - Symbiotic (Cooperative) Relationships - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4023110

      Delete
    2. "Moreover, the overall principle of long term balanced symbiosis, which is in fact what we have with the overall biogeochemical cycles of the earth, is a very anti-random chance fact which pervades the entire ecology of our planet and points powerfully to the intentional craftsmanship of a Designer:

      God's Creation - Symbiotic (Cooperative) Relationships - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4023110"

      No theology, just all science so far!

      LMAO!


      P.S. Thank Fifi and the FSM for scroll wheels.

      Delete
    3. But The whole truth, I thought Darwinism was suppose to explain, step by tiny step, how organisms evolve extremely complex biological systems to deal with its own immediate needs? How is it that organisms consistently evolve, step by tiny step, extremely complex biological systems to supply the needs of a completely different organism?

      Delete
  5. Cornelius Goebbels

    If one part doesn’t work, the whole thing doesn’t work. And for evolutionists, that means that each part had to evolve for some other reason and then just luckily they all worked together.


    From "what good is half an eye" to "what good is half a plant cell".

    Give CH some credit, he's at least trying to recycle the same tired, stupid Creationist arguments that were already vaporized decades ago.

    His IDiot groupies here will be too dumb to notice, but hey, what else is new?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Moron. Complexity, especially specified complexity kills evolution dead long before it can raise its stupid head to do anything. That's why you stupid jackasses jump up every time complexity is mentioned. You can't stand the pain.

      I've come to the conclusion that evolutionists suffer from one or more of the following:

      1. They have a giant bone to pick with Christianity. Usually were raised in a Christian household, like Thorton here. This leads to psychopathic behavior.

      2. They are dutifully kissing one or more invisible asses somewhere. They are addicted to brownie points. Ritchie is the eminent butt kisser here.

      3. They are paid propagandists. I think Thorton does it for free. Psychopaths don't do it for money.

      4. They are stupid. The stupidity exemplified by the evolutionists who comment here would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

      So there you have it, Thorton. You need to pick at least 2 items from the list. I think 1 and 4 fit you quite well. LOL.

      Delete
    2. I think Evolutionists such as Thorton, Ritchie etc... consider themselves guardians or gatekeepers of "science" and chief representatives.
      In the end, its their stamp of approval on what is considered science or not that counts via their main filter "does it agree with my materialistic philosophy?".

      Delete
    3. I think Evolutionists such as Thorton, Ritchie etc... consider themselves guardians or gatekeepers of "science" and chief representatives.

      It really doesn't take a scientist to see where, and how badly, ID fails.

      In the end, its their stamp of approval on what is considered science or not that counts via their main filter "does it agree with my materialistic philosophy?".

      No, not in the slightest. Science is investigation via the application of the scientific method. Nothing more, nothing less.

      It is the ID-ers (particularly on here) who want to redefine science to allow for the supernatural when that is plainly impossible.

      Delete
  6. Ritchie said,

    "No, not in the slightest. Science is investigation via the application of the scientific method. Nothing more, nothing less."

    The "scientific" investigation you speak of is nothing more than religious Evolutionism masquerading as science. We've known about this for quite some time, Ritchie. I admit it wasn't easy separating the two from each other, but as it stands our hypothesis is correct; there is very little if any science to backup your claims. ID'st will continue using this same tried and tested methodology to expose this realm of nonsense, and I don't think you nor chief Thorton himself can stop it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ic

      The "scientific" investigation you speak of is nothing more than religious Evolutionism masquerading as science.

      No it isn't. Cornleius will tell you it is, but that is because he thinks that scientists disallow supernatural explanations from science out of some ridiculous religious bias and conscious attempt to discount God as an explanation.

      But he is quite wrong. We DO disallow supernatural explanations, but that is because science would simply be impossible if we didn't.

      Consider - if scientists did not restrict themselves to entirely naturalistic theories, then any piece of troublesome data could be dismissed as magic. Data would be meaningless, theories untestable, and scientific discovery would grind to a halt.

      I admit it wasn't easy separating the two from each other,

      You mean it wasn't easy to follow Cornelius' tortured train of logic? No doubt. But it saddens me to see you nevertheless eventually fell for it.

      ID'st will continue using this same tried and tested methodology to expose this realm of nonsense,

      If ID was a working, scientific theory then ID-ers would not need to bother about evolution at all. They could just get on with testing their hypotheses and collating their data and writing articles for scientific journals - y'know, the things scientists actual DO. But they can't. Becuase ID is not a scientific theory. It is sterile. Dead. Non-functional. It is incredibly telling that ID-ers like to call themselves scientists, but they don't actually DO any science.

      The best they can do is to sit on the sidelines trying to pick holes in ToE in the hope that, if they can discredit ToE, it will infer ID is true by default.

      This is the equivalent of Tom Hank's fat, balding younger brother doing nothing but staying home all day, endlessly watching Tom Hanks films and picking over every scene, shot by shot, to find things in his acting to criticise, in the hopes that if he can find enough badly delivered lines he will seem like a great actor by comparison (despite never having been in front of a camera in his life).

      Delete
    2. IC

      But if you are so sure of your position, then allow me to ask you a question that I have asked CH and several of his disciples on here, and yet no-one has even taken a stab at answering - I'm hoping you'll break the mould seeing as how you are so confident of your position.

      If science is not to restrict itself to the assumption of naturalism, then how can a scientist ever know whether he is witnessing a supernatural event? Let's say for argument's sake he wants to know whether oil is flammable. So, in a lab, he gets some oil, exposes it to flame, and yes, it catches fire. How can he tell whether oil really IS flammable, or whether it is not and the oil being on fire is actually magic/a miracle?

      Delete
    3. Ritchie

      But if you are so sure of your position, then allow me to ask you a question that I have asked CH and several of his disciples on here, and yet no-one has even taken a stab at answering - I'm hoping you'll break the mould seeing as how you are so confident of your position.


      I've been asking ID-Creationists the same thing for years too and have never received an answer:

      "Please explain how to do science when you don't assume naturalism but have to allow for unpredictable and random supernatural interference in all your results."

      The IDCers keep screaming "Let my GOD into science labs!!" but they have no idea how to do science once He gets there.

      Delete
    4. Thorton,

      "Please explain how to do science when you don't assume naturalism but have to allow for unpredictable and random supernatural interference in all your results."

      Why would you have to allow for unpredictable and random supernatural interference in all your results?

      After all, many scientists throughout history and today are quite devout in their faith and practice their scientific disciplines without surprises popping out at them all the time.

      My Leafs have just begun a winning streak. Too bad the Leafs and Sharks won't play each other this year, we could really have some fun. :)

      Delete
    5. Nic

      Why would you have to allow for unpredictable and random supernatural interference in all your results?


      If you assume supernatural forces then you have no way to tell if your results are repeatable or not. A vaccine that cures you today may kill you tomorrow depending on the whim of a Loki God.

      After all, many scientists throughout history and today are quite devout in their faith and practice their scientific disciplines without surprises popping out at them all the time.

      That's because every single one assumed only 100% naturalistic laws in their research. That's the only way science gets done.

      The people who demand science incorporate the supernatural have no clue at all how science is done.

      Sharks and Hawks 3-3 after the first 12 minutes. Crazy game!

      Delete
    6. We aren't discussing the supernatural Thorton, stop playing games, you and Ritchie both.

      Relative to nature, technology can be considered "supernatural".
      The reason is tied to probability given known processes, but as mentioned, there is a zero probability that nature can create certain things.
      for example; I can say for a certain there is a zero probability that
      a metal fork (that we use for eating) can be made by nature by some molten pit of metal splashing about and hardening.
      Does nature understand technology, can it create it?
      You think it can create biological systems by chance which we consider at this point an advanced technology.
      There are reasons for our discrepancies, but they have nothing to do with religion.

      Delete
    7. Try to define natural, lets see where this goes.

      Delete
    8. lcplusplus

      We aren't discussing the supernatural Thorton, stop playing games, you and Ritchie both.


      When you demand that science stop using methodological naturalism you are asking for the inclusion of the supernatural by definition.

      Relative to nature, technology can be considered "supernatural".

      No. All technology we know of still is created under naturalistic rules. No MAGIC! No POOF!

      The reason is tied to probability given known processes, but as mentioned, there is a zero probability that nature can create certain things.

      Are humans part of nature?

      Does nature understand technology, can it create it?

      Depends on how you define technology.

      You think it can create biological systems by chance which we consider at this point an advanced technology.

      Nope. No one thinks biological systems are created by chance. That's your nitwit cartoon version of evolution again.

      There are reasons for our discrepancies, but they have nothing to do with religion.

      Just your willful ignorance and stupidity. Got it.

      Delete
    9. Ic++

      Think Thornton got all the points pretty much bang on there.

      You seem to be very confused about what science is and how it operates. This is not surprising since ID/Creationists always misrepresent science.

      Science must assume naturalism - that is all natural effects have natural causes. Basically, scientists are not allow to use 'It was magic' as part of their theories.

      Which is exactly what ID/Creationists try to do. Whenever they say 'It was designed', they are basically saying 'It was magic' until they actually propose methods of design. They must say HOW is was designed, and by whom. And until such a time, 'design' is no explanation at all.

      And yes, this is all done for the purpose of religion. Some ID/Creationists fight ToE because it renders a conscious designer of life unnecessary. Some because they actively want to promote the existence of life as evidence for God. But it boils down to the same thing in the end - ID/Creationism is opposed by scientists and supported by religious groups with religious motivations. Period.

      Delete
    10. "Think Thornton got all the points pretty much bang on there."

      Yaa think Ritchie? I'm not surprised you agree with him on everything.

      ...and then you go on to repeat what he said in a different way.

      As far as I can tell, Ritchie, you and Thorton are the exact same person. If not then you should be.

      Delete
    11. I agree with him because he is correct. A notion further supported by your inability to rebut his points.

      You want me to disagree with him on principle just to assert my individuality? Get a clue.

      Delete
    12. lcplusplus

      As far as I can tell, Ritchie, you and Thorton are the exact same person. If not then you should be.


      Actually Ritchie I took that as a compliment. :)

      Delete
  7. Ic++

    ID'st will continue using this same tried and tested methodology to expose this realm of nonsense, and I don't think you nor chief Thorton himself can stop it.


    Perhaps spending the effort on your own theory would be more productive and persuasive. Are you saying one of the hypothesis of ID is that the evidence for theToE is unpersuasive?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Cornelius Hunter: You probably never wondered how plants know which direction to grow.

    Well, Darwin did. Then experimentally demonstrated blue light–induced phototropic response.

    Phototropism: Bending towards Enlightenment: Charles Darwin (1809–1882) further explored the inductive nature and mechanistic connection between phototropism and gravitropism. He proposed that the back and forth circumnutation associated with plant growth could be directed by a stimulus such as light or gravity (Darwin, 1880). Although Darwin's circumnutation theory of tropism served to propose a common mechanism underlying gravitropism and phototropism, the most significant discovery from his studies of plant movements was his demonstration that the site of photoperception at the shoot tip and the location of curvature are separable. From his observations, Darwin was able to propose that a transmissible substance produced in the tip is responsible for inducing curvature in lower regions of the plant (Darwin, 1880). This insightful discovery eventually lead to the discovery of the first plant hormone, auxin.

    ReplyDelete