http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchid
Why does orchidslive in trees than in soil?or does orchids need soil?
No, because orchids are related to parasites too! Orchids do not need soil, but it does need water for photosynthesis process. My Gran plant the orchids in hanging pots with coal, not with soil.
Reply:the orchid is a bloom from a plant or tree that is in the soil
Reply:I still have a few orchids, but 20 yrs ago I had more than 20 and I belonged to the American Orchid Society (link below). There are different families of orchids, like cattleya, dendrobium, Phalaenopsis. Some grow in trees and are called epiphytes and some grow in soil like regular plants are are called terrestial. The epiphytes are NOT parasitic, but use the host trees to anchor themselves and get closer to the sun or rain and derive their nutrients from falling dead insects, bird and animal manure or decaying vegetation.
Vanilla is the seed of an species of orchid. There are over 25,000 natural species of orchids and many more hybrids which are raised by enthusiasts. It is quite a challenging hobby growing orchids, I can tell you.
Another type of plant, the bromeliads, native to South America can also either live in trees or in the ground. But they are another story.
Rubber Slippers
Monday, November 16, 2009
Did God think mustard seed is the smallest seed[or the people who wrote the bible misquoted God]see below?
Matthew 13:31-32 states that %26quot;The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed... is the smallest of all seeds but when it is grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree.%26quot;
there are smaller seeds eg orchid seeds
Did God think mustard seed is the smallest seed[or the people who wrote the bible misquoted God]see below?
Either option is bad news for christianity
The first option means God was wrong. Which means that God isn%26#039;t infallable.
The first option means the God can%26#039;t control what%26#039;s happening to the bible, which means the bible is unreliable.
Reply:Bah, yes, I made a mistake. It should read
%26quot;The second option means that God can%26#039;t control...%26quot;
I was in a hurry Report It
Reply:Jesus was merely using the example of the mustard seed because it was what the people he was speaking to could relate to. It was the smallest seed they had ever dealt with.
Reply:At that time and place, the mustard was the smallest known to those people, and the smallest that grows into something great! He was using a metaphor for those people to understand! They understood that a musterd seed was small, and that it became something big! Just like eve if their faith is small, God will make it into something big!!! Reading into things a bit much. That was ment to be a metaphor for those people to understand! they understood that quite well!!!
Reply:I think Jesus chose this particular seed for a reason because he was very careful with his choice of words. I%26#039;m not familiar with the seed or the plant, but I guess it was less to do with the seed and more to do with visible smallness of the seed and how large a plant it grows into. I%26#039;m sure there are even smaller seeds than orchid seeds, some of which would be invisible to the naked eye. In theory you could have nearly single cell seeds (but I guess that depends on what you define a seed is), so the actual size isn%26#039;t important.
Reply:I think you%26#039;re being a bit literal. Whatever Jesus was supposed to be saying, I don%26#039;t think it was a botany lesson.
Reply:Of the trees that were native to that region at the time of his ministry, it was the smallest seed. Orchids are not trees; full grown orchids are quite small next to mustard trees.
Context, my friend, context.
Reply:The Greatest of Shrubs, that sounds like a Pokémon.
%26quot;The Greatest of Shrubs! Sudowoodo, I choose you!%26quot;
Reply:Hmmm you cut out %26quot;it is the smallest of all YOUR seeds%26quot;... Maybe the people did not have orchid seeds so they couldn%26#039;t relate with it. Parables were always meant to have a relative meaning for the listener.
Reply:The other option, is that Jesus was just this guy, see?
Reply:It says least not smallest. Jesus talks about least as poor or not powerful when he refers to people, it isnt necessarily the size.
Reply:This is a comparison of small seed in comparison with the outgrowth.
Reply:ya...its all cult bs
there are smaller seeds eg orchid seeds
Did God think mustard seed is the smallest seed[or the people who wrote the bible misquoted God]see below?
Either option is bad news for christianity
The first option means God was wrong. Which means that God isn%26#039;t infallable.
The first option means the God can%26#039;t control what%26#039;s happening to the bible, which means the bible is unreliable.
Reply:Bah, yes, I made a mistake. It should read
%26quot;The second option means that God can%26#039;t control...%26quot;
I was in a hurry Report It
Reply:Jesus was merely using the example of the mustard seed because it was what the people he was speaking to could relate to. It was the smallest seed they had ever dealt with.
Reply:At that time and place, the mustard was the smallest known to those people, and the smallest that grows into something great! He was using a metaphor for those people to understand! They understood that a musterd seed was small, and that it became something big! Just like eve if their faith is small, God will make it into something big!!! Reading into things a bit much. That was ment to be a metaphor for those people to understand! they understood that quite well!!!
Reply:I think Jesus chose this particular seed for a reason because he was very careful with his choice of words. I%26#039;m not familiar with the seed or the plant, but I guess it was less to do with the seed and more to do with visible smallness of the seed and how large a plant it grows into. I%26#039;m sure there are even smaller seeds than orchid seeds, some of which would be invisible to the naked eye. In theory you could have nearly single cell seeds (but I guess that depends on what you define a seed is), so the actual size isn%26#039;t important.
Reply:I think you%26#039;re being a bit literal. Whatever Jesus was supposed to be saying, I don%26#039;t think it was a botany lesson.
Reply:Of the trees that were native to that region at the time of his ministry, it was the smallest seed. Orchids are not trees; full grown orchids are quite small next to mustard trees.
Context, my friend, context.
Reply:The Greatest of Shrubs, that sounds like a Pokémon.
%26quot;The Greatest of Shrubs! Sudowoodo, I choose you!%26quot;
Reply:Hmmm you cut out %26quot;it is the smallest of all YOUR seeds%26quot;... Maybe the people did not have orchid seeds so they couldn%26#039;t relate with it. Parables were always meant to have a relative meaning for the listener.
Reply:The other option, is that Jesus was just this guy, see?
Reply:It says least not smallest. Jesus talks about least as poor or not powerful when he refers to people, it isnt necessarily the size.
Reply:This is a comparison of small seed in comparison with the outgrowth.
Reply:ya...its all cult bs
Classify please????
classify these things under win pollinated or animal pollinated...
pine tree:?
carnation
rose
ragweed
african violet
orchid
grass
lily
and cactus
take guesses if you have no clue i just need homework help
Classify please????
pine tree: The pollen grain has wings on each side that aid in dispersal through the air.
carnation: In the wild, cross-pollination of carnation relies on insect pollinators.
rose: Bee pollinated
ragweed: Wind - One ragweed plant is capable of producing over a billion grains of pollen per season. Ragweed produces an estimated 100 million tons of pollen each year in the US alone.
african violet: %26quot;Knowledge of the pollination biology and breeding systems of the genus is scanty. Some, if not all, of the species appear to be self-compatible. In the botanical gardens Saintpaulia is sometimes self-pollinated by thrips (who eat the pollen), which can result in the production of seed-pods. Crooked styles that grow into the anthers have also been observed to lead to self-fertilization in the greenhouses (J. Smith, pers. com.). Wilson (1898) carried out some flower biological studies on Saintpaulia ionantha and was of the opinion that fertilization requires an insect visit because the pollen is not shed spontaneously. He thought that self-pollination cannot take place because the style protrudes away from the anthers (herkogamy, the spatial separation of the anthers and the pistil). Wilson also suggested a possible mechanism of anther dehischence: the insect, when trying to reach the nectary at the base of the ovary, passes its head between the filaments and gets caught. When it tries to release itself pollen is shaken out of the anthers.%26quot; [http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/jkolehma/artic...
orchid: Insect pollination, primarily. Orchids are exceptional in that perhaps as many as one third of the 30,000 or so species achieve pollination by deception. That is, they lure animal pollinators to the flower by false promises of food, but do not provide any. Most of these species are ‘food deceptive’ falsely advertising the presence of food by bright colors and sweet scents.
grass: Wind pollination is often most effective in plants that are normally gregarious e.g. grasses in grasslands.
lily: For the Cahaba lily pollination is by the plebian sphinx moth, Paratrea plebeja
and cactus: Nectar-feeding bats are the primary pollinators of the Organpipe cactus. Senita has a recently discovered mutualistic relationship with a moth that deliberately pollinates the flowers and uses the developing fruit as food for its larvae. Cactus bees (Lithurge spp.) pollinate the flowers of the fishhook barrel cactus.
A general rule and grouping is:
Biotic pollination (by organisms)
Entomophily: pollination by insects
Bees, wasps and occasionally ants
Beetles
Moths and Butterflies
Flies
Zoophily: pollination by vertebrates such as birds or bats
Hummingbird
Sunbird
Spiderhunter
Honeyeater
Abiotic pollination
Anemophily: pollination by wind
very common in grasses
Most Conifers
Many deciduous trees
Reply:Definitely wind are: pine, ragweed, grass
pine tree:?
carnation
rose
ragweed
african violet
orchid
grass
lily
and cactus
take guesses if you have no clue i just need homework help
Classify please????
pine tree: The pollen grain has wings on each side that aid in dispersal through the air.
carnation: In the wild, cross-pollination of carnation relies on insect pollinators.
rose: Bee pollinated
ragweed: Wind - One ragweed plant is capable of producing over a billion grains of pollen per season. Ragweed produces an estimated 100 million tons of pollen each year in the US alone.
african violet: %26quot;Knowledge of the pollination biology and breeding systems of the genus is scanty. Some, if not all, of the species appear to be self-compatible. In the botanical gardens Saintpaulia is sometimes self-pollinated by thrips (who eat the pollen), which can result in the production of seed-pods. Crooked styles that grow into the anthers have also been observed to lead to self-fertilization in the greenhouses (J. Smith, pers. com.). Wilson (1898) carried out some flower biological studies on Saintpaulia ionantha and was of the opinion that fertilization requires an insect visit because the pollen is not shed spontaneously. He thought that self-pollination cannot take place because the style protrudes away from the anthers (herkogamy, the spatial separation of the anthers and the pistil). Wilson also suggested a possible mechanism of anther dehischence: the insect, when trying to reach the nectary at the base of the ovary, passes its head between the filaments and gets caught. When it tries to release itself pollen is shaken out of the anthers.%26quot; [http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/jkolehma/artic...
orchid: Insect pollination, primarily. Orchids are exceptional in that perhaps as many as one third of the 30,000 or so species achieve pollination by deception. That is, they lure animal pollinators to the flower by false promises of food, but do not provide any. Most of these species are ‘food deceptive’ falsely advertising the presence of food by bright colors and sweet scents.
grass: Wind pollination is often most effective in plants that are normally gregarious e.g. grasses in grasslands.
lily: For the Cahaba lily pollination is by the plebian sphinx moth, Paratrea plebeja
and cactus: Nectar-feeding bats are the primary pollinators of the Organpipe cactus. Senita has a recently discovered mutualistic relationship with a moth that deliberately pollinates the flowers and uses the developing fruit as food for its larvae. Cactus bees (Lithurge spp.) pollinate the flowers of the fishhook barrel cactus.
A general rule and grouping is:
Biotic pollination (by organisms)
Entomophily: pollination by insects
Bees, wasps and occasionally ants
Beetles
Moths and Butterflies
Flies
Zoophily: pollination by vertebrates such as birds or bats
Hummingbird
Sunbird
Spiderhunter
Honeyeater
Abiotic pollination
Anemophily: pollination by wind
very common in grasses
Most Conifers
Many deciduous trees
Reply:Definitely wind are: pine, ragweed, grass
Are there any "holes" in the Theory of Evolution?
I have gathered the following quotes from some %26quot;real%26quot; scientists who have a problem with the evolution theory as it is commonly taught:
Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation%26quot; (Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist/paleontologist and former evolutionist).
%26quot;most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true%26quot; (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago).
%26quot;As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record%26quot; (Tom Kemp, Oxford University).
%26quot;The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools.Clearly some refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is %26#039;no doubt%26#039; how man originated: if only they had the evidence...%26quot; (William R. Fix, The Bone Pedlars, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p. 150).
%26quot;The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places%26quot; (Francis Hitching, archaeologist).
%26quot;The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply%26quot; (J. O%26#039;Rourke in the American Journal of Science).
%26quot;In most people%26#039;s minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It%26#039;s those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation%26quot; (Dr. Gary Parker, biologist/paleontologist and former ardent evolutionist).
%26quot;Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them%26quot; (David Kitts, paleontologist and evolutionist).
%26quot;I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm tree have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition%26quot; (Dr. Eldred Corner, professor of botany at Cambridge University, England: Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961, p. 97).
%26quot;So firmly does the modern geologist believe in evolution up from simple organisms to complex ones over huge time spans, that he is perfectly willing to use the theory of evolution to prove the theory of evolution [p.128]one is applying the theory of evolution to prove the correctness of evolution. For we are assuming that the oldest formations contain only the most primitive and least complex organisms, which is the base assumption of Darwinism [p.127]. If we now assume that only simple organisms will occur in old formations, we are assuming the basic premise of Darwinism to be correct. To use, therefore, for dating purposes, the assumption that only simple organisms will be present in old formations is to thoroughly beg the whole question. It is arguing in a circle [p.128]%26quot; Arthur E Wilder-Smith, Man%26#039;s Origin, Man%26#039;s Destiny, Harold Shaw Publishers, 1968, pp. 127,128).
%26quot;It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain%26quot; (R. H. Rastall, lecturer in economic geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 10, Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, p. 168).
%26quot;I admit that an awful lot of that [fantasy] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now, I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we%26#039;ve got science as truth and we have a problem%26quot; (Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist and evolutionist).
%26quot;But as by THIS THEORY innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we NOT find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?%26quot; -Charles Darwin
To the above fact, even the most world renown (evolutionary) biologists agree....%26quot; New species almost always appear suddenly in the fossil record with NO intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks in the same region. The fossil record with its abrupt transitions OFFERS NO SUPPORT for gradual change%26quot;. - Stephen J. Gould (Natural History , June, 1977, p.22)
%26quot;The extreme rarity (of transitional forms) in the fossil record persists as the %26#039;trade secret%26#039; of palentology. The evolutionary tree (diagrams) that adorn our textbooks is.....NOT the evidence of fossils%26quot;. - Stephen Gould (Natural History, 1977, vol.86, p.13)
Are there any %26quot;holes%26quot; in the Theory of Evolution?
Quote mining (giving partial-quotes to give the false impression that the author is saying the exact *opposite* of what he said) is the most despicable, lowlife, intellectually bankrupt excuse for an %26quot;argument%26quot; that Creationists have come up with. You should be roundly embarassed for repeating them!
The problem is that each of them requires us to actually give the *full quote* in order to show that they are being used dishonestly. So by packing a bunch of them in a single post, the only way to answer would be to post *PAGES* of the full quotations.
For example, you quote Darwin. Here%26#039;s the full quote:
%26quot;But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be much more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed; the imperfection of the record being chiefly due to organic beings not inhabiting profound depths of the sea, and to their remains being embedded and preserved to a future age only in masses of sediment sufficiently thick and extensive to withstand an enormous amount of future degradation; and such fossiliferous masses can be accumulated only where much sediment is deposited on the shallow bed of the sea, whilst it slowly subsides. These contingencies will concur only rarely, and after enormously long intervals. Whilst the bed of the sea is stationary or is rising, or when very little sediment is being deposited, there will be blanks in our geological history. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been made only at intervals of time immensely remote.%26quot;
(Origin of Species, Chapter 6 ... see source if you don%26#039;t believe me.)
In other words, Darwin asks a question, and then answers it.
But posting only the question, and then implying that Darwin was admitting %26quot;holes%26quot; in the theory of evolution, you are engaging in outright, despicable, dishonest *DECEIT*.
The fact that Creationists invariably have to engage in such clear acts of deception are clear indication that they have nothing. They got no game.
----
P.S. OK, I accept your word that you are not a Creationist, but merely a Christian asking a question. That%26#039;s fair.
But my point is that you are relying on DISHONEST SOURCES to get your information about evolution. If they will give you partial quotations in order to present the illusion that scientists %26quot;have problems with the evolutionary theory%26quot; ... something so EASY to show is dishonest ... then everything else they are saying has NO CREDIBILITY.
In other words, you should be painfully aware that these CREATIONIST WEB SITES YOU ARE QUOTING FROM ARE ***LYING*** TO YOU! They lie *blatantly*. Stay away from them!
If you are truly an honest Christian ... then stay away from *dishonest* sources!
Reply:I have to say I am absolutely shocked ... and impressed with your open-mindedness!
Sorry if I was hard on you. Quote mining is a particular pet peeve .... and I realize that many people don%26#039;t know just how dishonest these sources are. Report It
Reply:Wow, quote mining much?
Reply:oh for heaven%26#039;s sake...
genesis1 gives all the answers, in a metaphorical style appropriate to the people of that time. Literalists will cringe, people who can wrap their minds around a metaphor will see the truth. Period. I was able to explain this stuff to my son when he was three. this is not brain surgery. genesis 1 explains everything. metaphorically
Is there something that contradicts Darwin here? uh, yeah, the whole spontaneous-generation thing. An idiot could be excused for believing that mice spontaneously generated in corncribs 150 years ago, but anyone with a basic understanding of microbiology cannot believe that a single-celled-organism could
asemble itself
respire, eat, breathe and crap
reproduce
we are created. Period. now, whether our Creator is the God of Abraham or Jesus or Mohammed or Buddah or whatever, we can discuss these things. Bur we are created, and it was a LONG process...
Reply:You quote a lot of things about abrupt transitions rather than gradual change. It%26#039;s called punctuated equilibrium and your quotes that confuse this theory are over thirty years old (punctuated equilibrium was first discussed at Harvard in the 1970s).
Also, we are not descended from apes. We just share a recent common ancestor.
Reply:could be...now think about this if we really evolved from apes why are they still here? The only thing linking us is similarities but we do have similar genetic structures to other animals such as the rat and the pig
Reply:Evolution theory does indeed have many holes. And does not satisactorily explain how it all started. Big bang theory, normally. From a singularity, that magically had all the things in it required to start the universe, and life, as we know it. The other side of the coin, however, is creation theory. Adam and Eve, created in God%26#039;s image. Who then procreated. But to further that, their children must have had relations with each other. Not only against the teachings of the bible, but what about mongolism? And then, the bible says the Earth was purged except for Noah and the ark. Again, the Earth was repopulated from only two individuals. Both theories are full of holes, really. I expect the true answer is a mix of both. Just my own idea, but what about the singularity as divine? And the resulting universe by design? This would explain much.....
Reply:Dr. Gary Parker is a big fat liar. He claims to be a biologist but he either doesn%26#039;t understand or intentionally misrepresents many ideas that are central to biology. Trust his word at your own peril.
EDIT: What you essentially want everybody to do is demonstrate the evidence that supports evolution. You%26#039;re asking us to write volumes that have already been written. If you don%26#039;t find them convincing, then you%26#039;re simply wasting your time here.
Reply:Others have addressed the quotes themselves very well (like Secretsauce and Voren). I%26#039;d just like to add that the fossil record isn%26#039;t the only evidence backing up evolution theory. It%26#039;s also supported by a huge amount of genetic data (sequence homology, endogenous retroviruses, etc) that lines up nicely next to the fossil evidence that we do have.
Reply:One of your quotes up there suggest that there are as many fossils on earth as there are flavors of ben and jerry%26#039;s ice cream and then some, but that simply is not the case. Fossils can easily be mistaken for rocks. And the truth of the matter is, fossils are actualy a rarity in paleontology/archaeology/anthropology/bi... It takes very special circumstances for a fossil to be made. The only reason why the famous A. Apithecine %26quot;Lucy%26quot; was so well preserved was because she was found near an area that was flooded as soon as she died. Most organisms rot for a while before anything happens to them. The key to fossils is ultimate preservation. That%26#039;s why you just don%26#039;t find random bodies hanging around Egypt, and only the most carefully preserved mummies are found. Most fossil we find are actually just teeth and parts of the cranium and legs. You can tell alot from that, but it%26#039;s not enough to propose %26quot;missing links%26quot; perse. Truth is, since the dawn of searching for our ancestors, which was around ONLY 1800, we have found up to 20 %26quot;forms%26quot; of our ancestor, ranging from VERY ape-like (Famous skeleton Tomai) to VERY humanlike (Neanderthals).
Reply:MY RESPONSES IN %26quot;CAPS%26quot;:
I have gathered the following quotes from some %26quot;real%26quot; scientists who have a problem with the evolution theory as it is commonly taught:
Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation%26quot; (Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist/paleontologist and former evolutionist). REALLY? HOW? CARE TO EXPLAIN, OR JUST MAKE BROAD STATEMENTS THAT CAN%26#039;T BE PROVED OR DISPROVED?
%26quot;most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true%26quot; (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago). REALLY? HOW IS IT NOT TRUE? I%26#039;D LIKE TO KNOW........
%26quot;As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record%26quot; (Tom Kemp, Oxford University). RADIOACTIVE DATING METHODS WILL SHOW THIS STATEMENT IS COMPLETELY FALSE.
%26quot;The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools.Clearly some refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is %26#039;no doubt%26#039; how man originated: if only they had the evidence...%26quot; (William R. Fix, The Bone Pedlars, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p. 150). WHO IS THIS PERSON TALKING ABOUT, AND WHAT STATEMENTS IS HE REFERING TO? ANY GOOD SCIENTIST WILL ALWAYS BASE ANY STATEMENT THEY MAKE ON THE AVAILABLE FACTS AT HAND.
%26quot;The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places%26quot; (Francis Hitching, archaeologist). REALLY, LIKE WHERE? ARE YOU SAYING THE FOSSILS THAT WE HAVE ARE UNIMPORTANT, AND WE HAVE LEARNED NOTHING FROM THEM? WHAT KIND OF FOSSILS WOULD YOU CONSIDER IMPORTANT?
%26quot;The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply%26quot; (J. O%26#039;Rourke in the American Journal of Science). RADIOACTIVE DATING METHODS HAVE BEEN VERIFIED AND REVERIFIED AD NAUSEUM. IT%26#039;S NOT CIRCULAR REASONING. IGNORANCE OF PROVEN SCIENTIFIC METHODS IS THE PROBLEM.
%26quot;In most people%26#039;s minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It%26#039;s those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation%26quot; (Dr. Gary Parker, biologist/paleontologist and former ardent evolutionist). %26quot;TRANSITION%26quot; FOSSILS EXIST. AND NOT JUST A FEW, MANY EXIST. FROM FISH WITH THE BEGININGS OF LIMBS TO DINOSAURS WITH FEATHERS TO PRIMATES WITH HIP STRUCTURES SHOWING THE BEGINNINGS OF BIPEDIALISM, THESE FOSSILS DO EXIST. CREATIONIST REFUSE TO SEE THE EVIDENCE, BUT IT EXISTS.
%26quot;Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them%26quot; (David Kitts, paleontologist and evolutionist). AGAIN, NOT TRUE.
%26quot;I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm tree have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition%26quot; (Dr. Eldred Corner, professor of botany at Cambridge University, England: Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961, p. 97). THE EVIDENCE EXISTS.
%26quot;So firmly does the modern geologist believe in evolution up from simple organisms to complex ones over huge time spans, that he is perfectly willing to use the theory of evolution to prove the theory of evolution [p.128]one is applying the theory of evolution to prove the correctness of evolution. For we are assuming that the oldest formations contain only the most primitive and least complex organisms, which is the base assumption of Darwinism [p.127]. If we now assume that only simple organisms will occur in old formations, we are assuming the basic premise of Darwinism to be correct. To use, therefore, for dating purposes, the assumption that only simple organisms will be present in old formations is to thoroughly beg the whole question. It is arguing in a circle [p.128]%26quot; Arthur E Wilder-Smith, Man%26#039;s Origin, Man%26#039;s Destiny, Harold Shaw Publishers, 1968, pp. 127,128). THIS PERSON%26#039;S UNDERSTANDING OF EVOLUTOIN AND NATURAL SELECTION IS SERIOUSLY LACKING.
%26quot;It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain%26quot; (R. H. Rastall, lecturer in economic geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 10, Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, p. 168). AGAIN, RADIOACTIVE DATING HAS BEEN PROVEN CORRECT.
%26quot;I admit that an awful lot of that [fantasy] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now, I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we%26#039;ve got science as truth and we have a problem%26quot; (Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist and evolutionist). THIS IS AN INTELLIGENT STATEMENT. THEORIES NEED TO BE CONTINUALLY REFINED AS MORE AND MORE EVIDENCE COMES TO LIGHT. THE EVOLUTION OF MODERN HORSES BASED ON SOMETHING STATED 50 YEARS AGO IS NO DOUBT INCORRECT BASED ON THE INFORMATION GATHERED IN THE LAST 50 YEARS. INCORPORATING THE LATEST INFORMATION INTO THE THEORY WILL REVEAL A MUCH CLEARER AND MORE ACCURATE ANSWER. AND THE THEORY WILL CONTINUE TO GET BETTER AND BETTER AS MORE AND MORE INFORMATION IS ASSIMILATED AND UNDERSTOOD.
%26quot;But as by THIS THEORY innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we NOT find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?%26quot; -Charles Darwin
FOSSILS ARE NOT EASILY FORMED; HOWEVER, WE DO FIND THEM IN THE FOSSIL RECORD.
To the above fact, even the most world renown (evolutionary) biologists agree....%26quot; New species almost always appear suddenly in the fossil record with NO intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks in the same region. The fossil record with its abrupt transitions OFFERS NO SUPPORT for gradual change%26quot;. - Stephen J. Gould (Natural History , June, 1977, p.22) GOULD WAS CLEARLY A GENIUS AND A SUPPORTER OF NATURAL SELECTION AND EVOLUTION. BUT, HE BELIEVED IN A MODIFIED VERSION CALLED PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUMISM, WHERE CHANGED HAPPENED QUICKLY THEN STAYED THAT WAY FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME. THERE IS EVIDENCE FOR THIS. TIME WILL TELL IF HE IS CORRECT, BUT WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, IT IS STILL EVOLUTION AND NATURAL SELECTION.
%26quot;The extreme rarity (of transitional forms) in the fossil record persists as the %26#039;trade secret%26#039; of palentology. The evolutionary tree (diagrams) that adorn our textbooks is.....NOT the evidence of fossils%26quot;. - Stephen Gould (Natural History, 1977, vol.86, p.13) SEE ABOVE
2 minutes ago - 3 days left to answer.
Additional Details
54 seconds ago
Sorry it%26#039;s so long. My question is, are these guys telling us the truth...ARE so-called %26quot;evolutionists%26quot; so married to the theory that they simply can%26#039;t see or admit that the theory COULD be wrong? ANY GOOD SICENTIST WILL ADMIT THAT A THEORY COULD BE WRONG. THEY ARE CONSTRUCTING THE BEST POSSIBLE %26quot;FIT%26quot; OF THE DATA AT HAND. IF THE DATA DOESN%26#039;T FIT, THEY THROW OUT THE THEORY AND DEVELOP A NEW ONE. THIS IS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. IT WORKS.
Reply:in some cases, such as parker, these are people who are committed to a wholly different idea of history, where the bible must be interpreted in a certain way and never questioned. so naturally they are skeptical of evolution, they think that something entirely different happened. oddly, rather than coming up with evidence for their scenario, we more often find them distorting or ignoring the evidence for evolution, as if that helps their case.
in other cases, such as gould, eldredge, darwin, it is scientists being appropriately skeptical, trying to make sure that the ideas they promote actually fit with extant evidence, or identify undiscovered evidence that could support or refute their ideas. often the questions are rhetorical and answered in the very next passage... leaving that out is dishonest. also many of these writings are very old (as science goes) and have since been settled... almost nothing that darwin had to say is relevant to modern biological research for instance.
mixing all these writers, who had quite different agendas, wrote with vastly different knowledge bases, and and are taken out of context, appears designed to create the impression that there is no match between evidence and evolutionary theory. this is far from the truth, as one would find if one bothered to read accounts of the history or current state of biological research, rather than a more or less random collection of mined quotes.
%26quot;Why, for instance, is this %26quot;common ancestor%26quot; so difficult to track down?%26quot;
fundamentally it is because one cannot establish heredity from fossils... you need dna to do that, and even that cannot be absolutely certain. at best fossils can establish the degree of *relatedness*. given three fossils (or one fossil and two extant organisms), you can say A is more closely related to B than it is to C. any given fossil could be the second cousin of the ancestor, or the ancestor itself, so to speak. the data is unfortunately not that good. but to go from this small uncertainty and discount the whole idea that there ever was a common ancestor is absurd. that would render all sorts of observations about the characteristics of fossils and extant species unexplained, that are quite adequately explained by common ancestry. there is no reason to expect that all species will produce fossils... from what is known about fossilisation, it is expected to be an incomplete, biased sample of all species that have ever existed:
http://www.geology.ucdavis.edu/~cowen/Hi...
nevertheless, one can still draw conclusions. the fossil record is hardly the only evidence for evolution, either. there is also a wealth of genetic, anatomical, behavioural, biochemical and biogeographic evidence pertaining to extant organisms which, together with fossils, produces a more or less clear picture of the history of life depending on the quality of the evidence, which is quite variable. in a way it%26#039;s quite remarkable that anything can be said about events that likely happened millions or even billions of years ago.
Reply:Ask yourself one question. Are humans exactly the same as they were in the beginning? There are many different races, all of which originated from Adam and Eve, according to the Bible.
There are two possible explanations:
The Tower of Babel caused everyone on earth to suddenly change color.
Evolution caused the change in skin pigment (people living further from the equator developed lighter skin to absorb the lower levels of sunlight for vitamin D).
We dont need to study fossils to witness evolution, we only need to look around us.
Reply:most of these people conveniently ignore the fact that some, in fact many, fossils are simply eroded away before they can be found and studied. This is why many creationists assume that species spontaneously appear, because their evolutionary record has been erased by erosion.
Reply:NO
Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation%26quot; (Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist/paleontologist and former evolutionist).
%26quot;most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true%26quot; (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago).
%26quot;As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record%26quot; (Tom Kemp, Oxford University).
%26quot;The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools.Clearly some refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is %26#039;no doubt%26#039; how man originated: if only they had the evidence...%26quot; (William R. Fix, The Bone Pedlars, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p. 150).
%26quot;The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places%26quot; (Francis Hitching, archaeologist).
%26quot;The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply%26quot; (J. O%26#039;Rourke in the American Journal of Science).
%26quot;In most people%26#039;s minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It%26#039;s those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation%26quot; (Dr. Gary Parker, biologist/paleontologist and former ardent evolutionist).
%26quot;Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them%26quot; (David Kitts, paleontologist and evolutionist).
%26quot;I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm tree have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition%26quot; (Dr. Eldred Corner, professor of botany at Cambridge University, England: Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961, p. 97).
%26quot;So firmly does the modern geologist believe in evolution up from simple organisms to complex ones over huge time spans, that he is perfectly willing to use the theory of evolution to prove the theory of evolution [p.128]one is applying the theory of evolution to prove the correctness of evolution. For we are assuming that the oldest formations contain only the most primitive and least complex organisms, which is the base assumption of Darwinism [p.127]. If we now assume that only simple organisms will occur in old formations, we are assuming the basic premise of Darwinism to be correct. To use, therefore, for dating purposes, the assumption that only simple organisms will be present in old formations is to thoroughly beg the whole question. It is arguing in a circle [p.128]%26quot; Arthur E Wilder-Smith, Man%26#039;s Origin, Man%26#039;s Destiny, Harold Shaw Publishers, 1968, pp. 127,128).
%26quot;It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain%26quot; (R. H. Rastall, lecturer in economic geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 10, Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, p. 168).
%26quot;I admit that an awful lot of that [fantasy] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now, I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we%26#039;ve got science as truth and we have a problem%26quot; (Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist and evolutionist).
%26quot;But as by THIS THEORY innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we NOT find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?%26quot; -Charles Darwin
To the above fact, even the most world renown (evolutionary) biologists agree....%26quot; New species almost always appear suddenly in the fossil record with NO intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks in the same region. The fossil record with its abrupt transitions OFFERS NO SUPPORT for gradual change%26quot;. - Stephen J. Gould (Natural History , June, 1977, p.22)
%26quot;The extreme rarity (of transitional forms) in the fossil record persists as the %26#039;trade secret%26#039; of palentology. The evolutionary tree (diagrams) that adorn our textbooks is.....NOT the evidence of fossils%26quot;. - Stephen Gould (Natural History, 1977, vol.86, p.13)
Are there any %26quot;holes%26quot; in the Theory of Evolution?
Quote mining (giving partial-quotes to give the false impression that the author is saying the exact *opposite* of what he said) is the most despicable, lowlife, intellectually bankrupt excuse for an %26quot;argument%26quot; that Creationists have come up with. You should be roundly embarassed for repeating them!
The problem is that each of them requires us to actually give the *full quote* in order to show that they are being used dishonestly. So by packing a bunch of them in a single post, the only way to answer would be to post *PAGES* of the full quotations.
For example, you quote Darwin. Here%26#039;s the full quote:
%26quot;But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be much more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed; the imperfection of the record being chiefly due to organic beings not inhabiting profound depths of the sea, and to their remains being embedded and preserved to a future age only in masses of sediment sufficiently thick and extensive to withstand an enormous amount of future degradation; and such fossiliferous masses can be accumulated only where much sediment is deposited on the shallow bed of the sea, whilst it slowly subsides. These contingencies will concur only rarely, and after enormously long intervals. Whilst the bed of the sea is stationary or is rising, or when very little sediment is being deposited, there will be blanks in our geological history. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been made only at intervals of time immensely remote.%26quot;
(Origin of Species, Chapter 6 ... see source if you don%26#039;t believe me.)
In other words, Darwin asks a question, and then answers it.
But posting only the question, and then implying that Darwin was admitting %26quot;holes%26quot; in the theory of evolution, you are engaging in outright, despicable, dishonest *DECEIT*.
The fact that Creationists invariably have to engage in such clear acts of deception are clear indication that they have nothing. They got no game.
----
P.S. OK, I accept your word that you are not a Creationist, but merely a Christian asking a question. That%26#039;s fair.
But my point is that you are relying on DISHONEST SOURCES to get your information about evolution. If they will give you partial quotations in order to present the illusion that scientists %26quot;have problems with the evolutionary theory%26quot; ... something so EASY to show is dishonest ... then everything else they are saying has NO CREDIBILITY.
In other words, you should be painfully aware that these CREATIONIST WEB SITES YOU ARE QUOTING FROM ARE ***LYING*** TO YOU! They lie *blatantly*. Stay away from them!
If you are truly an honest Christian ... then stay away from *dishonest* sources!
Reply:I have to say I am absolutely shocked ... and impressed with your open-mindedness!
Sorry if I was hard on you. Quote mining is a particular pet peeve .... and I realize that many people don%26#039;t know just how dishonest these sources are. Report It
Reply:Wow, quote mining much?
Reply:oh for heaven%26#039;s sake...
genesis1 gives all the answers, in a metaphorical style appropriate to the people of that time. Literalists will cringe, people who can wrap their minds around a metaphor will see the truth. Period. I was able to explain this stuff to my son when he was three. this is not brain surgery. genesis 1 explains everything. metaphorically
Is there something that contradicts Darwin here? uh, yeah, the whole spontaneous-generation thing. An idiot could be excused for believing that mice spontaneously generated in corncribs 150 years ago, but anyone with a basic understanding of microbiology cannot believe that a single-celled-organism could
asemble itself
respire, eat, breathe and crap
reproduce
we are created. Period. now, whether our Creator is the God of Abraham or Jesus or Mohammed or Buddah or whatever, we can discuss these things. Bur we are created, and it was a LONG process...
Reply:You quote a lot of things about abrupt transitions rather than gradual change. It%26#039;s called punctuated equilibrium and your quotes that confuse this theory are over thirty years old (punctuated equilibrium was first discussed at Harvard in the 1970s).
Also, we are not descended from apes. We just share a recent common ancestor.
Reply:could be...now think about this if we really evolved from apes why are they still here? The only thing linking us is similarities but we do have similar genetic structures to other animals such as the rat and the pig
Reply:Evolution theory does indeed have many holes. And does not satisactorily explain how it all started. Big bang theory, normally. From a singularity, that magically had all the things in it required to start the universe, and life, as we know it. The other side of the coin, however, is creation theory. Adam and Eve, created in God%26#039;s image. Who then procreated. But to further that, their children must have had relations with each other. Not only against the teachings of the bible, but what about mongolism? And then, the bible says the Earth was purged except for Noah and the ark. Again, the Earth was repopulated from only two individuals. Both theories are full of holes, really. I expect the true answer is a mix of both. Just my own idea, but what about the singularity as divine? And the resulting universe by design? This would explain much.....
Reply:Dr. Gary Parker is a big fat liar. He claims to be a biologist but he either doesn%26#039;t understand or intentionally misrepresents many ideas that are central to biology. Trust his word at your own peril.
EDIT: What you essentially want everybody to do is demonstrate the evidence that supports evolution. You%26#039;re asking us to write volumes that have already been written. If you don%26#039;t find them convincing, then you%26#039;re simply wasting your time here.
Reply:Others have addressed the quotes themselves very well (like Secretsauce and Voren). I%26#039;d just like to add that the fossil record isn%26#039;t the only evidence backing up evolution theory. It%26#039;s also supported by a huge amount of genetic data (sequence homology, endogenous retroviruses, etc) that lines up nicely next to the fossil evidence that we do have.
Reply:One of your quotes up there suggest that there are as many fossils on earth as there are flavors of ben and jerry%26#039;s ice cream and then some, but that simply is not the case. Fossils can easily be mistaken for rocks. And the truth of the matter is, fossils are actualy a rarity in paleontology/archaeology/anthropology/bi... It takes very special circumstances for a fossil to be made. The only reason why the famous A. Apithecine %26quot;Lucy%26quot; was so well preserved was because she was found near an area that was flooded as soon as she died. Most organisms rot for a while before anything happens to them. The key to fossils is ultimate preservation. That%26#039;s why you just don%26#039;t find random bodies hanging around Egypt, and only the most carefully preserved mummies are found. Most fossil we find are actually just teeth and parts of the cranium and legs. You can tell alot from that, but it%26#039;s not enough to propose %26quot;missing links%26quot; perse. Truth is, since the dawn of searching for our ancestors, which was around ONLY 1800, we have found up to 20 %26quot;forms%26quot; of our ancestor, ranging from VERY ape-like (Famous skeleton Tomai) to VERY humanlike (Neanderthals).
Reply:MY RESPONSES IN %26quot;CAPS%26quot;:
I have gathered the following quotes from some %26quot;real%26quot; scientists who have a problem with the evolution theory as it is commonly taught:
Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation%26quot; (Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist/paleontologist and former evolutionist). REALLY? HOW? CARE TO EXPLAIN, OR JUST MAKE BROAD STATEMENTS THAT CAN%26#039;T BE PROVED OR DISPROVED?
%26quot;most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true%26quot; (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago). REALLY? HOW IS IT NOT TRUE? I%26#039;D LIKE TO KNOW........
%26quot;As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record%26quot; (Tom Kemp, Oxford University). RADIOACTIVE DATING METHODS WILL SHOW THIS STATEMENT IS COMPLETELY FALSE.
%26quot;The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools.Clearly some refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is %26#039;no doubt%26#039; how man originated: if only they had the evidence...%26quot; (William R. Fix, The Bone Pedlars, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p. 150). WHO IS THIS PERSON TALKING ABOUT, AND WHAT STATEMENTS IS HE REFERING TO? ANY GOOD SCIENTIST WILL ALWAYS BASE ANY STATEMENT THEY MAKE ON THE AVAILABLE FACTS AT HAND.
%26quot;The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places%26quot; (Francis Hitching, archaeologist). REALLY, LIKE WHERE? ARE YOU SAYING THE FOSSILS THAT WE HAVE ARE UNIMPORTANT, AND WE HAVE LEARNED NOTHING FROM THEM? WHAT KIND OF FOSSILS WOULD YOU CONSIDER IMPORTANT?
%26quot;The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply%26quot; (J. O%26#039;Rourke in the American Journal of Science). RADIOACTIVE DATING METHODS HAVE BEEN VERIFIED AND REVERIFIED AD NAUSEUM. IT%26#039;S NOT CIRCULAR REASONING. IGNORANCE OF PROVEN SCIENTIFIC METHODS IS THE PROBLEM.
%26quot;In most people%26#039;s minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It%26#039;s those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation%26quot; (Dr. Gary Parker, biologist/paleontologist and former ardent evolutionist). %26quot;TRANSITION%26quot; FOSSILS EXIST. AND NOT JUST A FEW, MANY EXIST. FROM FISH WITH THE BEGININGS OF LIMBS TO DINOSAURS WITH FEATHERS TO PRIMATES WITH HIP STRUCTURES SHOWING THE BEGINNINGS OF BIPEDIALISM, THESE FOSSILS DO EXIST. CREATIONIST REFUSE TO SEE THE EVIDENCE, BUT IT EXISTS.
%26quot;Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them%26quot; (David Kitts, paleontologist and evolutionist). AGAIN, NOT TRUE.
%26quot;I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm tree have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition%26quot; (Dr. Eldred Corner, professor of botany at Cambridge University, England: Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961, p. 97). THE EVIDENCE EXISTS.
%26quot;So firmly does the modern geologist believe in evolution up from simple organisms to complex ones over huge time spans, that he is perfectly willing to use the theory of evolution to prove the theory of evolution [p.128]one is applying the theory of evolution to prove the correctness of evolution. For we are assuming that the oldest formations contain only the most primitive and least complex organisms, which is the base assumption of Darwinism [p.127]. If we now assume that only simple organisms will occur in old formations, we are assuming the basic premise of Darwinism to be correct. To use, therefore, for dating purposes, the assumption that only simple organisms will be present in old formations is to thoroughly beg the whole question. It is arguing in a circle [p.128]%26quot; Arthur E Wilder-Smith, Man%26#039;s Origin, Man%26#039;s Destiny, Harold Shaw Publishers, 1968, pp. 127,128). THIS PERSON%26#039;S UNDERSTANDING OF EVOLUTOIN AND NATURAL SELECTION IS SERIOUSLY LACKING.
%26quot;It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain%26quot; (R. H. Rastall, lecturer in economic geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 10, Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, p. 168). AGAIN, RADIOACTIVE DATING HAS BEEN PROVEN CORRECT.
%26quot;I admit that an awful lot of that [fantasy] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now, I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we%26#039;ve got science as truth and we have a problem%26quot; (Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist and evolutionist). THIS IS AN INTELLIGENT STATEMENT. THEORIES NEED TO BE CONTINUALLY REFINED AS MORE AND MORE EVIDENCE COMES TO LIGHT. THE EVOLUTION OF MODERN HORSES BASED ON SOMETHING STATED 50 YEARS AGO IS NO DOUBT INCORRECT BASED ON THE INFORMATION GATHERED IN THE LAST 50 YEARS. INCORPORATING THE LATEST INFORMATION INTO THE THEORY WILL REVEAL A MUCH CLEARER AND MORE ACCURATE ANSWER. AND THE THEORY WILL CONTINUE TO GET BETTER AND BETTER AS MORE AND MORE INFORMATION IS ASSIMILATED AND UNDERSTOOD.
%26quot;But as by THIS THEORY innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we NOT find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?%26quot; -Charles Darwin
FOSSILS ARE NOT EASILY FORMED; HOWEVER, WE DO FIND THEM IN THE FOSSIL RECORD.
To the above fact, even the most world renown (evolutionary) biologists agree....%26quot; New species almost always appear suddenly in the fossil record with NO intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks in the same region. The fossil record with its abrupt transitions OFFERS NO SUPPORT for gradual change%26quot;. - Stephen J. Gould (Natural History , June, 1977, p.22) GOULD WAS CLEARLY A GENIUS AND A SUPPORTER OF NATURAL SELECTION AND EVOLUTION. BUT, HE BELIEVED IN A MODIFIED VERSION CALLED PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUMISM, WHERE CHANGED HAPPENED QUICKLY THEN STAYED THAT WAY FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME. THERE IS EVIDENCE FOR THIS. TIME WILL TELL IF HE IS CORRECT, BUT WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, IT IS STILL EVOLUTION AND NATURAL SELECTION.
%26quot;The extreme rarity (of transitional forms) in the fossil record persists as the %26#039;trade secret%26#039; of palentology. The evolutionary tree (diagrams) that adorn our textbooks is.....NOT the evidence of fossils%26quot;. - Stephen Gould (Natural History, 1977, vol.86, p.13) SEE ABOVE
2 minutes ago - 3 days left to answer.
Additional Details
54 seconds ago
Sorry it%26#039;s so long. My question is, are these guys telling us the truth...ARE so-called %26quot;evolutionists%26quot; so married to the theory that they simply can%26#039;t see or admit that the theory COULD be wrong? ANY GOOD SICENTIST WILL ADMIT THAT A THEORY COULD BE WRONG. THEY ARE CONSTRUCTING THE BEST POSSIBLE %26quot;FIT%26quot; OF THE DATA AT HAND. IF THE DATA DOESN%26#039;T FIT, THEY THROW OUT THE THEORY AND DEVELOP A NEW ONE. THIS IS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. IT WORKS.
Reply:in some cases, such as parker, these are people who are committed to a wholly different idea of history, where the bible must be interpreted in a certain way and never questioned. so naturally they are skeptical of evolution, they think that something entirely different happened. oddly, rather than coming up with evidence for their scenario, we more often find them distorting or ignoring the evidence for evolution, as if that helps their case.
in other cases, such as gould, eldredge, darwin, it is scientists being appropriately skeptical, trying to make sure that the ideas they promote actually fit with extant evidence, or identify undiscovered evidence that could support or refute their ideas. often the questions are rhetorical and answered in the very next passage... leaving that out is dishonest. also many of these writings are very old (as science goes) and have since been settled... almost nothing that darwin had to say is relevant to modern biological research for instance.
mixing all these writers, who had quite different agendas, wrote with vastly different knowledge bases, and and are taken out of context, appears designed to create the impression that there is no match between evidence and evolutionary theory. this is far from the truth, as one would find if one bothered to read accounts of the history or current state of biological research, rather than a more or less random collection of mined quotes.
%26quot;Why, for instance, is this %26quot;common ancestor%26quot; so difficult to track down?%26quot;
fundamentally it is because one cannot establish heredity from fossils... you need dna to do that, and even that cannot be absolutely certain. at best fossils can establish the degree of *relatedness*. given three fossils (or one fossil and two extant organisms), you can say A is more closely related to B than it is to C. any given fossil could be the second cousin of the ancestor, or the ancestor itself, so to speak. the data is unfortunately not that good. but to go from this small uncertainty and discount the whole idea that there ever was a common ancestor is absurd. that would render all sorts of observations about the characteristics of fossils and extant species unexplained, that are quite adequately explained by common ancestry. there is no reason to expect that all species will produce fossils... from what is known about fossilisation, it is expected to be an incomplete, biased sample of all species that have ever existed:
http://www.geology.ucdavis.edu/~cowen/Hi...
nevertheless, one can still draw conclusions. the fossil record is hardly the only evidence for evolution, either. there is also a wealth of genetic, anatomical, behavioural, biochemical and biogeographic evidence pertaining to extant organisms which, together with fossils, produces a more or less clear picture of the history of life depending on the quality of the evidence, which is quite variable. in a way it%26#039;s quite remarkable that anything can be said about events that likely happened millions or even billions of years ago.
Reply:Ask yourself one question. Are humans exactly the same as they were in the beginning? There are many different races, all of which originated from Adam and Eve, according to the Bible.
There are two possible explanations:
The Tower of Babel caused everyone on earth to suddenly change color.
Evolution caused the change in skin pigment (people living further from the equator developed lighter skin to absorb the lower levels of sunlight for vitamin D).
We dont need to study fossils to witness evolution, we only need to look around us.
Reply:most of these people conveniently ignore the fact that some, in fact many, fossils are simply eroded away before they can be found and studied. This is why many creationists assume that species spontaneously appear, because their evolutionary record has been erased by erosion.
Reply:NO
What biome is this?
abiotic factor: hot %26amp; wet year-round; thin nutrient poor soil.
dominant plants: orchids; broad-leaved trees w/leaves year round; ferns; large woody vines%26amp;climbing plants.
dominant wildlife: sloths, tapirs, capybaras, monkeys, toucans, parrots, parakeets, piranhas, caymans, anacondas
geographic distribution: south/central america, s.e. asia, parts of africa%26amp;australia
What biome is this?
tropical rain forest
Reply:tropics/rain forest
get well flowers
dominant plants: orchids; broad-leaved trees w/leaves year round; ferns; large woody vines%26amp;climbing plants.
dominant wildlife: sloths, tapirs, capybaras, monkeys, toucans, parrots, parakeets, piranhas, caymans, anacondas
geographic distribution: south/central america, s.e. asia, parts of africa%26amp;australia
What biome is this?
tropical rain forest
Reply:tropics/rain forest
get well flowers
How can i keep my mom's hanging plants healthy?
i gave my mom some hanging plants, i dont know what theyre called, but they look like orchids hanging on trees only without flowers, they%26#039;re almost wilting already, their leaves are turning brownish, but my mom waters them daily?
How can i keep my mom%26#039;s hanging plants healthy?
Find out what kind of plants they are and how to care for them. There should have been a tag in the basket saying what they are.
Or make another question and send us a picture and we can help you.
Your mom probably is overwatering them and they will die if it continues.
Reply:Try removing all the brown leaves, this will help the still healthy leaves to get more food. Also check with the place you bought the plants, and see about care for them. They might need special care.
XD You are a good son !!!
Reply:You really need to find out what kind of plants they are. Your mom could be overwatering them or they could be getting too much sun, or not enough. Too many variables.
How can i keep my mom%26#039;s hanging plants healthy?
Find out what kind of plants they are and how to care for them. There should have been a tag in the basket saying what they are.
Or make another question and send us a picture and we can help you.
Your mom probably is overwatering them and they will die if it continues.
Reply:Try removing all the brown leaves, this will help the still healthy leaves to get more food. Also check with the place you bought the plants, and see about care for them. They might need special care.
XD You are a good son !!!
Reply:You really need to find out what kind of plants they are. Your mom could be overwatering them or they could be getting too much sun, or not enough. Too many variables.
How do u clean the artificial plants which collect dust?
My artifical orchids or silk trees are beautiful, but collect dust. Is there an easy way to clean them?
How do u clean the artificial plants which collect dust?
There are sprays you can use to clean silk flowers. I would take your tree outside and spray, out of direct sunlight of course!
You may also be able to make your own solution with water and a little Dawn, spray the tree liberally and rinse with the hose. Depends on what kind of pot its in.
Good luck!
Reply:you can wipe them with a wet or special dust cloth, or a duster. If they are quite dirty and there are no parts that can be damaged by water (especially ones that made of plastic) - stick them under the shower (not hot, low pressure). Some of plants made from textile can be washed like that too - try first on a small patch.
Reply:Put some dish soap in a tub.Take the plant and swish it in the water,litely.Then rinse the same way.Hang upside down to dry.Now they are clean.I buy at yard sales and refresh all the time..
Reply:The orchids I clean in the kitchen sink with the sprayer on low. The trees I usually spray with a water hose. After they are dry - use artificial leave and flower spray to restore any shine %26amp; help with future cleaning.
Reply:may be use small duster... clean each part one by one....
Reply:Take them all outside (if possible) and use a good feather duster on them, followed up by the Garden hose. Then leave them outside to dry( a couple hours).
If cleaning them outdoors isn%26#039;t an option, First dust them well , then run them under your shower to clean.
Reply:Simply mix a 50/50 solution of white vinegar and water. If the silk flowers are very expensive, test for colorfastness in an inconspicuous area of the flower before spritzing liberally.
Also, for simple dusting, clean with a hair dryer set on high fan, cool air. Or simply slip a length of panty hose over your vacuum nozzle and vacuum the flowers.
For silk flowers that are not colorfast, try this. Place cornmeal in a brown bag or plastic bag, and place the flower into the bag. Shake gently to remove caked on dust and dirt. This will not remove any stains, however
How do u clean the artificial plants which collect dust?
There are sprays you can use to clean silk flowers. I would take your tree outside and spray, out of direct sunlight of course!
You may also be able to make your own solution with water and a little Dawn, spray the tree liberally and rinse with the hose. Depends on what kind of pot its in.
Good luck!
Reply:you can wipe them with a wet or special dust cloth, or a duster. If they are quite dirty and there are no parts that can be damaged by water (especially ones that made of plastic) - stick them under the shower (not hot, low pressure). Some of plants made from textile can be washed like that too - try first on a small patch.
Reply:Put some dish soap in a tub.Take the plant and swish it in the water,litely.Then rinse the same way.Hang upside down to dry.Now they are clean.I buy at yard sales and refresh all the time..
Reply:The orchids I clean in the kitchen sink with the sprayer on low. The trees I usually spray with a water hose. After they are dry - use artificial leave and flower spray to restore any shine %26amp; help with future cleaning.
Reply:may be use small duster... clean each part one by one....
Reply:Take them all outside (if possible) and use a good feather duster on them, followed up by the Garden hose. Then leave them outside to dry( a couple hours).
If cleaning them outdoors isn%26#039;t an option, First dust them well , then run them under your shower to clean.
Reply:Simply mix a 50/50 solution of white vinegar and water. If the silk flowers are very expensive, test for colorfastness in an inconspicuous area of the flower before spritzing liberally.
Also, for simple dusting, clean with a hair dryer set on high fan, cool air. Or simply slip a length of panty hose over your vacuum nozzle and vacuum the flowers.
For silk flowers that are not colorfast, try this. Place cornmeal in a brown bag or plastic bag, and place the flower into the bag. Shake gently to remove caked on dust and dirt. This will not remove any stains, however
"Zen" themed wedding centerpieces?
Our wedding is following a Japanese/Zen garden style wedding. Our colors will probably be dark browns, creams, whites, greens and possibly a pink/purple color which will be present in the flowers. We are planning on using things like orchids/bear grass/bamboo/bonsai trees/magnolia/cherry blossoms. Nothing is set in stone yet so we are kind of just trying to find ideas and see what we like. Does anyone have ideas for a center piece? We have thought of a few things such as a small Zen garden with a branch of magnolia or cherry blossoms or perhaps a simple potted orchid. We also considered bamboo shoots in simple vases with stones and water in the bottom. Perhaps a bonsai tree in the center or a simple water fountain(we are leading away from this idea because they can have a humming noise that could be a bit distracting, as well as a power chord, unless we get batter powered). Does anyone have any ideas? All suggestions, simple and extravagant, are welcome.
%26quot;Zen%26quot; themed wedding centerpieces?
I found a few links to some ideas
http://www.japaneseweddingfavors.com/ima...
http://www.wrapables.com/images/product/...
http://www.maddylane-decor.com/images/ze...
http://www.hometone.org/images/reflectio...
http://www.japaneseweddingfavors.com/ima...
http://www.japanesegifts.com/images/chin...
not sure if they will work for you but, they might get your ideas flowing
Good Luck!!
Reply:How about a little rock garden with the rake for the middle of each table? With vases that hold a stalk of bamboo or cherry blossoms to add some color and bring up the eye vertically? It could be a fun thing for people to play with while they%26#039;re socializing.
I agree, nothing electric or battery operated...the humming will be distracting during the toasts, etc.
http://www.zengarden.co.za/
http://www.officeplayground.com/zengarde...
Reply:How about doing a big vase with stalks of lucky bamboo for every guest and you can tie a a note around each stalk then each guest can take home a piece of lucky bamboo as a favor.
Reply:How about small bonsai trees? They could be potted in pink or purple.
Reply:Theres no such thing as a Zen garden.. actually they dont go together but I do think a Japanese garden would be inspiring for your centrepieces! I think a single potted orchid would be lovely, with moss. Bamboo is cool but is kind of overdone. Although, I have been to this one garden that used bamboo with hidden lights and the green in the bamboo was glowing! But this was at night so the effect was great. A shallow dish with flowers floating in water would be lovely. You could use rocks with names printed/stamped on for place cards.
**bbbara: Yes I have been to Ryoanji several times. Its a rock garden, or dry garden, but its not a Zen garden. Im not trying to be rude, Im just letting the asker know that the terminology is slightly off. She might not even care, and thats fine.
%26quot;Zen garden%26quot; is a commonly used term, but it is incorrect. Even in Japan this term is sometimes used as a way to attract foreigners to sites, but its still incorrect. They need money and people want a Zen garden, they give them a %26quot;Zen garden%26quot;.
Reply:Here ya go:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40715137@N0...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kk_wedding/...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40715137@N0...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8312543@N07...
http://www.japaneseweddingfavors.com/ima...
http://www.japaneseweddingfavors.com/tab...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pamgutierre...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/15379571@N0...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmac3/23794...
best wishes................
EDIT: (revised)
fizzy.... fyi
i grew up in Japan this is a zen garden!
http://www.phototravels.net/japan/photo-...
it%26#039;s a rock and sand only garden found in Buddhist temples.
%26quot;Zen%26quot; is actually a form of Buddhism and the gardens were created by the priests long ago to help the monks enter into a calm meditative state. (per buddhist history)
%26quot;Zen%26quot; themed wedding centerpieces?
I found a few links to some ideas
http://www.japaneseweddingfavors.com/ima...
http://www.wrapables.com/images/product/...
http://www.maddylane-decor.com/images/ze...
http://www.hometone.org/images/reflectio...
http://www.japaneseweddingfavors.com/ima...
http://www.japanesegifts.com/images/chin...
not sure if they will work for you but, they might get your ideas flowing
Good Luck!!
Reply:How about a little rock garden with the rake for the middle of each table? With vases that hold a stalk of bamboo or cherry blossoms to add some color and bring up the eye vertically? It could be a fun thing for people to play with while they%26#039;re socializing.
I agree, nothing electric or battery operated...the humming will be distracting during the toasts, etc.
http://www.zengarden.co.za/
http://www.officeplayground.com/zengarde...
Reply:How about doing a big vase with stalks of lucky bamboo for every guest and you can tie a a note around each stalk then each guest can take home a piece of lucky bamboo as a favor.
Reply:How about small bonsai trees? They could be potted in pink or purple.
Reply:Theres no such thing as a Zen garden.. actually they dont go together but I do think a Japanese garden would be inspiring for your centrepieces! I think a single potted orchid would be lovely, with moss. Bamboo is cool but is kind of overdone. Although, I have been to this one garden that used bamboo with hidden lights and the green in the bamboo was glowing! But this was at night so the effect was great. A shallow dish with flowers floating in water would be lovely. You could use rocks with names printed/stamped on for place cards.
**bbbara: Yes I have been to Ryoanji several times. Its a rock garden, or dry garden, but its not a Zen garden. Im not trying to be rude, Im just letting the asker know that the terminology is slightly off. She might not even care, and thats fine.
%26quot;Zen garden%26quot; is a commonly used term, but it is incorrect. Even in Japan this term is sometimes used as a way to attract foreigners to sites, but its still incorrect. They need money and people want a Zen garden, they give them a %26quot;Zen garden%26quot;.
Reply:Here ya go:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40715137@N0...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kk_wedding/...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40715137@N0...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8312543@N07...
http://www.japaneseweddingfavors.com/ima...
http://www.japaneseweddingfavors.com/tab...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pamgutierre...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/15379571@N0...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmac3/23794...
best wishes................
EDIT: (revised)
fizzy.... fyi
i grew up in Japan this is a zen garden!
http://www.phototravels.net/japan/photo-...
it%26#039;s a rock and sand only garden found in Buddhist temples.
%26quot;Zen%26quot; is actually a form of Buddhism and the gardens were created by the priests long ago to help the monks enter into a calm meditative state. (per buddhist history)
Help with bio!!!!?
Im not sure about these question.....
1. Why must primary consumers eat large numbers of plants?
2. What would happen ot the food chains in an area if all the plants were to die?
3. What happens to most of the energy at each level of a food chain?
4. Explain how the relationship between orchid platns and a tree might chage from commenaslisms and parasitism?
Help with bio!!!!?
1. primary consumers need plants because its their main source of energy...plants have the most direct energy from the sun
2. the food chains would all die off. the primary consumers would be first, and everything that ate them would die off soon after.
3. it decreases as it gets further away from plants
4. i dont really know what this questions asking
Reply:1. Most of the primary consumers you%26#039;re thinking of have only a limited ability to use the energy stored in plants. Cattle and other herbivores are very inefficient at extracting energy from cellulose, the major component of plants on land, for example. Also, plants contain calcium, iron, and other things animals need, but not greatly concentrated; hence, there%26#039;s a need to eat lots of plant matter.
2. The consumers would either die, or move to another area.
3. The energy is lost as heat by the consumers, as they move and use the energy they gained from the previous level(s).
4. In the commensal relationship, an orchid would simply use the tree as a place to be; its modified roots would act as a holdfast and keep the orchid in place. In a parasitic relationship, the orchid%26#039;s roots would go into the limb of the tree, and use the tree as a source of nutrients (phloem) and maybe even a source of minerals (xylem) depending on how far its roots drilled into the tree.
1. Why must primary consumers eat large numbers of plants?
2. What would happen ot the food chains in an area if all the plants were to die?
3. What happens to most of the energy at each level of a food chain?
4. Explain how the relationship between orchid platns and a tree might chage from commenaslisms and parasitism?
Help with bio!!!!?
1. primary consumers need plants because its their main source of energy...plants have the most direct energy from the sun
2. the food chains would all die off. the primary consumers would be first, and everything that ate them would die off soon after.
3. it decreases as it gets further away from plants
4. i dont really know what this questions asking
Reply:1. Most of the primary consumers you%26#039;re thinking of have only a limited ability to use the energy stored in plants. Cattle and other herbivores are very inefficient at extracting energy from cellulose, the major component of plants on land, for example. Also, plants contain calcium, iron, and other things animals need, but not greatly concentrated; hence, there%26#039;s a need to eat lots of plant matter.
2. The consumers would either die, or move to another area.
3. The energy is lost as heat by the consumers, as they move and use the energy they gained from the previous level(s).
4. In the commensal relationship, an orchid would simply use the tree as a place to be; its modified roots would act as a holdfast and keep the orchid in place. In a parasitic relationship, the orchid%26#039;s roots would go into the limb of the tree, and use the tree as a source of nutrients (phloem) and maybe even a source of minerals (xylem) depending on how far its roots drilled into the tree.
Is this a metaphor?
in this poem:
%26quot;The stark white ring-barked forests,
All tragic to the moon,
The sapphire-misted mountains,
The hot gold rush of noon.
Green tangle of the brushes,
Where lithe lianas coil,
And orchids deck the tree tops
And ferns the warm dark soil.%26quot;
where it says %26quot;sapphire-misted mountains%26quot;
would that be a metaphor?
Is this a metaphor?
no its not a metaphor its just imagery
Reply:Not really. If it said the mist among the mountains were as blue as the blues saphire, that would be a metaphore.
This is more of an allegory
%26quot;The stark white ring-barked forests,
All tragic to the moon,
The sapphire-misted mountains,
The hot gold rush of noon.
Green tangle of the brushes,
Where lithe lianas coil,
And orchids deck the tree tops
And ferns the warm dark soil.%26quot;
where it says %26quot;sapphire-misted mountains%26quot;
would that be a metaphor?
Is this a metaphor?
no its not a metaphor its just imagery
Reply:Not really. If it said the mist among the mountains were as blue as the blues saphire, that would be a metaphore.
This is more of an allegory
Which of the following statements explains why the growth of orchids on the high branches of tropical trees is
The orchids draw nourishment from the trees.
The trees are neither benefited nor harmed.
The orchids keep parasites away.
The trees receive nutrients from the orchids.
Which of the following statements explains why the growth of orchids on the high branches of tropical trees is
for most orchids that are grown in the wild, orchids look for a variety of light intensities, so in tropical trees, they will be found at various heights, each height representing a different light intensity. Orchids actually require a fungus that can grow in knooks and crannies of a tree. the orchids get a growing medium and water from the fungus and the orchids supply sugar to the fungus for it to grow on.
Reply:I believe it%26#039;s all of the above.
Reply:The second one. Why is this hard?
Reply:2nd one sounds good
beaded necklace
The trees are neither benefited nor harmed.
The orchids keep parasites away.
The trees receive nutrients from the orchids.
Which of the following statements explains why the growth of orchids on the high branches of tropical trees is
for most orchids that are grown in the wild, orchids look for a variety of light intensities, so in tropical trees, they will be found at various heights, each height representing a different light intensity. Orchids actually require a fungus that can grow in knooks and crannies of a tree. the orchids get a growing medium and water from the fungus and the orchids supply sugar to the fungus for it to grow on.
Reply:I believe it%26#039;s all of the above.
Reply:The second one. Why is this hard?
Reply:2nd one sounds good
beaded necklace
Can someone help me with this math qns..please tell me the steps to solving the ans too..thx?
Rose Park has 3/4 as many trees as Tulip Parl. The ratio of the number of trees in Orchid Park to the number of trees in Rose Park is 4:5. tulip Park has 200 more trees than Orchid Park. How many trees are there in Orchid Park What is the total number of trees that have to be added to Orchid Park and Rose Park so that both have the same number as Tulip Park
Can someone help me with this math qns..please tell me the steps to solving the ans too..thx?
R: no. of trees in Rose park
T: no. of trees in tulip park
P: no. of tress in orchid park
R = (3/4)T
P = (4/5)R
T - R = 200
T - (3/4)T = 200
(1/4)T = 200
T = 800
R = (3/4)T = (3/4) * 800 = 600
P = (4/5)R = (4/5)*600 = 480
no. of trees to be added to rose park = 800 - 600 = 200
no. of trees to be added to orchid park = 800 - 480 = 320
Total no of trees to be added = 200 + 320 = 520
Reply:let x be the number of trees in Rose Park.
let y be the number of trees in Tulip Park.
let z be the number of trees in Orchid Park.
from first sentence: x = (3/4)y --- (1)
from second sentence: z = (4/5)x --- (2)
from third sentence: y - 200 = z --- (3)
substitute (1) and (2) into (3):
(4/3)x - 200 = (4/5)x
(8/15)x = 200
x = 375
therefore, y = 500 and z = 300
total number of trees to be added
= (y - z) + (y - x)
= (500 - 300) + (500-375)
=200 + 125
=325
Can someone help me with this math qns..please tell me the steps to solving the ans too..thx?
R: no. of trees in Rose park
T: no. of trees in tulip park
P: no. of tress in orchid park
R = (3/4)T
P = (4/5)R
T - R = 200
T - (3/4)T = 200
(1/4)T = 200
T = 800
R = (3/4)T = (3/4) * 800 = 600
P = (4/5)R = (4/5)*600 = 480
no. of trees to be added to rose park = 800 - 600 = 200
no. of trees to be added to orchid park = 800 - 480 = 320
Total no of trees to be added = 200 + 320 = 520
Reply:let x be the number of trees in Rose Park.
let y be the number of trees in Tulip Park.
let z be the number of trees in Orchid Park.
from first sentence: x = (3/4)y --- (1)
from second sentence: z = (4/5)x --- (2)
from third sentence: y - 200 = z --- (3)
substitute (1) and (2) into (3):
(4/3)x - 200 = (4/5)x
(8/15)x = 200
x = 375
therefore, y = 500 and z = 300
total number of trees to be added
= (y - z) + (y - x)
= (500 - 300) + (500-375)
=200 + 125
=325
Should outdoor orchids and ficus trees be placed in the sun or shade?
Most orchids will do best in a filtered light environment, such as under a tree with a high canopy. That will allow it to get lots of bright, indirect light. As far as a ficus, it can tolerate full sun as long as it has been acclimated to it a little at a time. If you put a ficus outside in full sun from a sheltered, indoor place, it may get very angry at you and drop all it%26#039;s leaves at once. (It may do that anyway, even if you don%26#039;t. They%26#039;re kind of picky that way)
Should outdoor orchids and ficus trees be placed in the sun or shade?
sun
Reply:Both prefer the sun and good drainage. Your orchid might not flower unless it gets plenty of sun.
Reply:Neither! LoL! JK I don%26#039; t know.
Should outdoor orchids and ficus trees be placed in the sun or shade?
sun
Reply:Both prefer the sun and good drainage. Your orchid might not flower unless it gets plenty of sun.
Reply:Neither! LoL! JK I don%26#039; t know.
Organisms that exhibit the ff: ecological relationship?
1.) mutualism
2.) predation
3.) scavenging
4.) competition
5.) commensalism
6.) parasitism
7.) amensalism
example:tree trunk-----orchid---mutualism
please list down as many as you can in each.......pls!!!
Organisms that exhibit the ff: ecological relationship?
1) MUTUALISM : mutualism is an interaction between two or more species, where both species derive benefit
e.g-
*In the acacia example, certain ants (e.g. Pseudomyrmex spinicola) nest inside the plant%26#039;s thorns. In exchange for food and shelter, ants protect acacias from attack by herbivores and competition from other plants. The ants reduce competition by trimming back vegetation that shades the shrub.
*Some species of ants also %26quot;farm%26quot; aphids, protecting them on the plant they eat, and eating the honeydew that the aphids secrete.
*A famous land version of symbiosis is the relationship of the Egyptian Plover bird and the crocodile. In this relationship, the bird is well known for preying on parasites that feed on crocodiles. To that end, the crocodile openly invites the bird to hunt on its body, even going so far as to open its jaws to allow the bird enter the mouth safely to hunt-literally plucking leeches from its gums. For the bird, this relationship not only is a ready source of food, but a safe one considering that few predator species would dare strike at the bird at such proximity to its host.
*Many plants will function in a voluntary mutualistic relationship as companion plants, providing each other with shelter, fertilization, the repelling of pests, et cetera. For example, beans may grow up cornstalks as a trellis, while fixing nitrogen in the soil for the corn, as exploited in the three sisters gardening technique.
2)PREDATION : predation describes a biological interaction where a predator organism feeds on another living organism or organisms known as prey.
e.g -
*Lion hunting buffalo, deer, wilbeest
*Baleen whales, eat millions of microscopic plankton at once, the unicellular prey being broken down well after entering the whale.
*Hunting by cat family members and other carnivores
3)Scavenging : it is consumption of already dead animals
e.g -
*raven feeding on dead fish
*vultures feeding on carrions
*hyneas feeding on carrions
4)COMPETITION : Competition within and between species is an important topic in biology, specifically in the field of ecology. Competition between members of a species (%26quot;intraspecific%26quot;) is the driving force behind evolution and natural selection; the competition for resources such as food, water, territory, and sunlight results in the ultimate survival and dominance of the variation of the species best suited for survival. Competition is also present between species (%26quot;interspecific%26quot;). A limited amount of resources are available and several species may depend on these resources. Thus, each of the species competes with the others to gain the resources.
e.g -
*a smaller tree will receive less sunlight from an adjacent tree that is larger than it in a rain forest. The larger tree is competing with the smaller one
* in a forest if it is occupied by more than one predator, they will compete with each other for getting prey
5) Commensalism : relationship between two living organisms where one benefits and the other is neither harmed nor helped.
e.g -
*use of waste food by second animals, like the carcass eaters who follow hunting animals, but wait until they have finished their meal.
*few bacteria live in our gut wall but do not harm us and they get nutition from the food we eat
6) Parasitism : one organism, usually physically smaller of the two (the parasite) benefits and the other (the host) is harmed.
e.g -
*Many endoparasites acquire hosts by gaining entrance to their tissue; others enter the host when it consumes certain raw foods, as in the case of the nematode Ascaris lumbricoides, an endoparasite of the human intestine. A. lumbricoides produces large numbers of eggs which are passed from the host%26#039;s digestive tract and pancreas into the external environment, relying on other humans to inadvertently ingest them in places without good sanitation
*Some aquatic leeches, for example, locate hosts by sensing movement and then confirm their identity through skin temperature and chemical cues before attaching
*Parasitoids are parasites that use another organism%26#039;s tissue for their own nutritional benefit until the host dies from loss of needed tissues or nutrients. Parasitoids are also known as necrotroph.
*In contrast, Biotrophic parasites cannot survive in a dead host and therefore keep their hosts alive. Many viruses, for example, are biotrophic because they use the host%26#039;s genetic and cellular processes to multiply
7)Amensalism : is a biological interaction between two species in which one impedes or restricts the success of the other without being affected positively or negatively by the presence of the other.
e.g -
*penicillium secrete penicillin, a chemical that kills bacteria. *black walnut tree (Juglans nigra), which secrete juglone, a chemical that harms or kills some species of neighboring plants, from its roots.
*Antibiosis or allelopathy also explain similar interactions.
2.) predation
3.) scavenging
4.) competition
5.) commensalism
6.) parasitism
7.) amensalism
example:tree trunk-----orchid---mutualism
please list down as many as you can in each.......pls!!!
Organisms that exhibit the ff: ecological relationship?
1) MUTUALISM : mutualism is an interaction between two or more species, where both species derive benefit
e.g-
*In the acacia example, certain ants (e.g. Pseudomyrmex spinicola) nest inside the plant%26#039;s thorns. In exchange for food and shelter, ants protect acacias from attack by herbivores and competition from other plants. The ants reduce competition by trimming back vegetation that shades the shrub.
*Some species of ants also %26quot;farm%26quot; aphids, protecting them on the plant they eat, and eating the honeydew that the aphids secrete.
*A famous land version of symbiosis is the relationship of the Egyptian Plover bird and the crocodile. In this relationship, the bird is well known for preying on parasites that feed on crocodiles. To that end, the crocodile openly invites the bird to hunt on its body, even going so far as to open its jaws to allow the bird enter the mouth safely to hunt-literally plucking leeches from its gums. For the bird, this relationship not only is a ready source of food, but a safe one considering that few predator species would dare strike at the bird at such proximity to its host.
*Many plants will function in a voluntary mutualistic relationship as companion plants, providing each other with shelter, fertilization, the repelling of pests, et cetera. For example, beans may grow up cornstalks as a trellis, while fixing nitrogen in the soil for the corn, as exploited in the three sisters gardening technique.
2)PREDATION : predation describes a biological interaction where a predator organism feeds on another living organism or organisms known as prey.
e.g -
*Lion hunting buffalo, deer, wilbeest
*Baleen whales, eat millions of microscopic plankton at once, the unicellular prey being broken down well after entering the whale.
*Hunting by cat family members and other carnivores
3)Scavenging : it is consumption of already dead animals
e.g -
*raven feeding on dead fish
*vultures feeding on carrions
*hyneas feeding on carrions
4)COMPETITION : Competition within and between species is an important topic in biology, specifically in the field of ecology. Competition between members of a species (%26quot;intraspecific%26quot;) is the driving force behind evolution and natural selection; the competition for resources such as food, water, territory, and sunlight results in the ultimate survival and dominance of the variation of the species best suited for survival. Competition is also present between species (%26quot;interspecific%26quot;). A limited amount of resources are available and several species may depend on these resources. Thus, each of the species competes with the others to gain the resources.
e.g -
*a smaller tree will receive less sunlight from an adjacent tree that is larger than it in a rain forest. The larger tree is competing with the smaller one
* in a forest if it is occupied by more than one predator, they will compete with each other for getting prey
5) Commensalism : relationship between two living organisms where one benefits and the other is neither harmed nor helped.
e.g -
*use of waste food by second animals, like the carcass eaters who follow hunting animals, but wait until they have finished their meal.
*few bacteria live in our gut wall but do not harm us and they get nutition from the food we eat
6) Parasitism : one organism, usually physically smaller of the two (the parasite) benefits and the other (the host) is harmed.
e.g -
*Many endoparasites acquire hosts by gaining entrance to their tissue; others enter the host when it consumes certain raw foods, as in the case of the nematode Ascaris lumbricoides, an endoparasite of the human intestine. A. lumbricoides produces large numbers of eggs which are passed from the host%26#039;s digestive tract and pancreas into the external environment, relying on other humans to inadvertently ingest them in places without good sanitation
*Some aquatic leeches, for example, locate hosts by sensing movement and then confirm their identity through skin temperature and chemical cues before attaching
*Parasitoids are parasites that use another organism%26#039;s tissue for their own nutritional benefit until the host dies from loss of needed tissues or nutrients. Parasitoids are also known as necrotroph.
*In contrast, Biotrophic parasites cannot survive in a dead host and therefore keep their hosts alive. Many viruses, for example, are biotrophic because they use the host%26#039;s genetic and cellular processes to multiply
7)Amensalism : is a biological interaction between two species in which one impedes or restricts the success of the other without being affected positively or negatively by the presence of the other.
e.g -
*penicillium secrete penicillin, a chemical that kills bacteria. *black walnut tree (Juglans nigra), which secrete juglone, a chemical that harms or kills some species of neighboring plants, from its roots.
*Antibiosis or allelopathy also explain similar interactions.
What are some plants on trees? ex: orchids. i need 10? thanks!?
plants that grow on trees or needs trees to survive.. thanks
What are some plants on trees? ex: orchids. i need 10? thanks!?
orchids for sure (dendrobium/ cymbidium, etc)....
air plants (like old man%26#039;s beard (tillandsia usnoides)...)
bromeliads....
epiphyllum family (eg: night flowering cerus, easter cactus)....
rainforest trees (ficus)
ferns (eg: bird%26#039;s nest/ stag - horn and - elk horn)
parasites (like mistletoe , lichen...)
is that enough? how many did i get?
Reply:Billbergia nutans (Queen%26#039;s Tears) is another.
http://www.emerisa.com/product.aspx?p=96...
Reply:If you mean flowers that grow on trees:
Magnolias
Camellias
Orchids
Apple Blossom
Cherry Blossom
Dogwood
Pear Blossoms
Citrus Blossom
Redbud
Crepe Myrtle
Reply:Ressurection fern
Spanish moss
Mushrooms
Poison Oak and Ivy
I%26#039;ve seen hemlock growing in maple trees.
Reply:google epiphytes
mistletoe, staghorn, elkhorn, tree fern, maidenhair fern, bromeliad
Reply:Mistletoe...it is a parasitic plant that grows on apple trees
Reply:i think orchids are the only one...
Reply:From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphyte
Mosses
Orchids
bromeliads such as Spanish moss
%26quot;Some epiphytic plants are large trees that begin their lives high in the forest canopy. Over decades they send roots down the trunk of a host tree eventually overpowering and replacing it. The strangler fig and the northern rātā (Metrosideros spp.) of New Zealand are examples of this. Epiphytes that end up as free standing trees are also called hemiphytes.%26quot;
domain name registration
What are some plants on trees? ex: orchids. i need 10? thanks!?
orchids for sure (dendrobium/ cymbidium, etc)....
air plants (like old man%26#039;s beard (tillandsia usnoides)...)
bromeliads....
epiphyllum family (eg: night flowering cerus, easter cactus)....
rainforest trees (ficus)
ferns (eg: bird%26#039;s nest/ stag - horn and - elk horn)
parasites (like mistletoe , lichen...)
is that enough? how many did i get?
Reply:Billbergia nutans (Queen%26#039;s Tears) is another.
http://www.emerisa.com/product.aspx?p=96...
Reply:If you mean flowers that grow on trees:
Magnolias
Camellias
Orchids
Apple Blossom
Cherry Blossom
Dogwood
Pear Blossoms
Citrus Blossom
Redbud
Crepe Myrtle
Reply:Ressurection fern
Spanish moss
Mushrooms
Poison Oak and Ivy
I%26#039;ve seen hemlock growing in maple trees.
Reply:google epiphytes
mistletoe, staghorn, elkhorn, tree fern, maidenhair fern, bromeliad
Reply:Mistletoe...it is a parasitic plant that grows on apple trees
Reply:i think orchids are the only one...
Reply:From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphyte
Mosses
Orchids
bromeliads such as Spanish moss
%26quot;Some epiphytic plants are large trees that begin their lives high in the forest canopy. Over decades they send roots down the trunk of a host tree eventually overpowering and replacing it. The strangler fig and the northern rātā (Metrosideros spp.) of New Zealand are examples of this. Epiphytes that end up as free standing trees are also called hemiphytes.%26quot;
domain name registration
Bio question?
Your teacher wants you to construct a phylogenetic tree of orchids. He gives you tissue from seven orchid species and one lily. What is the most likely reason he gave you the lily?
A) to serve as an outgroup
B) to see if it%26#039;s a cryptic orchid species
C) to see if the lily and the orchids show all the same shared derived characters (synapomorphies)
D) see if you were paying attention
Bio question?
A, outgroup
Outgroups are often used in creating phylogenetic trees, because you can compare each of the species you%26#039;re trying to map to that one odd species - in this case, the lily. Seeing how many differences each orchid has with the lily helps you realize how closely related the orchid species are.
Reply:A.
Reply:What do you think? That%26#039;s pretty amusing, though - you%26#039;ve got a good teacher!
A) to serve as an outgroup
B) to see if it%26#039;s a cryptic orchid species
C) to see if the lily and the orchids show all the same shared derived characters (synapomorphies)
D) see if you were paying attention
Bio question?
A, outgroup
Outgroups are often used in creating phylogenetic trees, because you can compare each of the species you%26#039;re trying to map to that one odd species - in this case, the lily. Seeing how many differences each orchid has with the lily helps you realize how closely related the orchid species are.
Reply:A.
Reply:What do you think? That%26#039;s pretty amusing, though - you%26#039;ve got a good teacher!
What are some plants on trees? ex: orchids. i need 10? thanks!?
plants that grow on trees or needs trees to survive.. thanks
What are some plants on trees? ex: orchids. i need 10? thanks!?
Bromeliads, moss, roots, and wooden vines.
Reply:how bout mushrooms??
Reply:Sorry I can%26#039;t think of ten, but you can add mistletoe to your list....
What are some plants on trees? ex: orchids. i need 10? thanks!?
Bromeliads, moss, roots, and wooden vines.
Reply:how bout mushrooms??
Reply:Sorry I can%26#039;t think of ten, but you can add mistletoe to your list....
What are some plants on trees? ex: orchids. i need 10? thanks!?
plants that grow on trees or needs trees to survive.. thanks
What are some plants on trees? ex: orchids. i need 10? thanks!?
Ferns,Ivy
Check these out:(I think they grow on trees.They fall into the %26quot;Vine%26quot; category.)
-Passion Flower
-Trumpet Creeper
-Honeysuckle
-Five Leaf Akebia(this one is purple)
Reply:mistletoe (sp?)
Reply:epiphytes - Resurrection fern, Staghorn Fern, bromeliads, orchids, Spanish Moss, lichen, liverworts, Epiphyllum (orchid cactus)
hemiphytes - strangler fig and the northern rātā (NZ)
Reply:moss, mushrooms, vines
What are some plants on trees? ex: orchids. i need 10? thanks!?
Ferns,Ivy
Check these out:(I think they grow on trees.They fall into the %26quot;Vine%26quot; category.)
-Passion Flower
-Trumpet Creeper
-Honeysuckle
-Five Leaf Akebia(this one is purple)
Reply:mistletoe (sp?)
Reply:epiphytes - Resurrection fern, Staghorn Fern, bromeliads, orchids, Spanish Moss, lichen, liverworts, Epiphyllum (orchid cactus)
hemiphytes - strangler fig and the northern rātā (NZ)
Reply:moss, mushrooms, vines
What are some plants on trees? ex: orchids. i need 10? thanks!?
plants that grow on trees or needs trees to survive.. thanks
What are some plants on trees? ex: orchids. i need 10? thanks!?
12 plants for you.
orchids, bromeliads, lichens (fungus), philodendrons, Impatiens, microsorum musifolium (specialized ferns), begonia ,spanish moss, cacti, succulents, lianas (climbers), and vines (similar to lianas)
AND I almost forgot GRAPES can grow on trees, too.
flowers anniversary
What are some plants on trees? ex: orchids. i need 10? thanks!?
12 plants for you.
orchids, bromeliads, lichens (fungus), philodendrons, Impatiens, microsorum musifolium (specialized ferns), begonia ,spanish moss, cacti, succulents, lianas (climbers), and vines (similar to lianas)
AND I almost forgot GRAPES can grow on trees, too.
flowers anniversary
Orchids growing on trees...?
I%26#039;m doing a project for my science class where we design our own plant. I%26#039;m drawing a plant in a rainforest and it%26#039;s going to be an epiphyte (don%26#039;t know if I spelled that right). I was inspired by the orchid flowers that grew on the trees for my plant. However, when we do this, we have to explain in detail about the pollinators and the seed dispersal. I was wondering, how should the seed be dispersed in order for it to successfully land on a tree branch? Can a seed just grow on a tree branch? How did the orchid start growing on the tree branch?
Orchids growing on trees...?
Orchids are the most numerous and successful of all flowering plants. Many live in tropical forests attached to trees as epiphytes, but there are ground living kinds on every continent except antarctica.
Tree living orchids live in association with special species of fungus which live in the orchid%26#039;s roots. The fungus penetrates tree bark and breaks it down. This releases small amounts of minerals necessary for the orchid%26#039;s growth. The minerals themselves came from the earth. They were carried up the tree and became part of the bark. The orchid keeps its fungus healthy by providing it with carbohydrates. Fungi can%26#039;t photosynthesize like plants, and rely on their orchid to supply them their food.
Unlike flowers like daisies or roses, orchid flowers usually have a single species of insect which polinates it. The insect polinates no other flower and the orchid has modified its form, fragrance and anatomy to accomidate this one species of insect. The structure of the flower usually exactly matches the porportions of the insect%26#039;s body so that the pollen is placed in the best spot to be delivered to the next flower.
Sometimes orchids even help the polination of other plants as well. Brazil nuts come from brazil nut trees. They grow in the Amazon rain forest. large tracts of forest were cut down and groves of Brazil nut trees planted. Curiously, none of them ever produced nuts. Extensive research revealed the pollinating species of bee only collected pollen once impregnated by the male bee. Females were only attracted to male bees if they were covered in an essential oil the males had collected from Gongorga orchids. These are very rare and the males had to fly many miles through the forst to find them. The scent of the male told the female he was strong and healthy enough to have found this orchid. When the original forest was cut down to plant Brazil nut trees, all the orchids were eliminated. The males could not find the perfume females required to allow them to mate. The female bees were never impregnated and hence, never pollinated the flowers of the Brazil nut tree. This was why the trees planted artificially never produced nuts. orchids frequently are involved in many associations with a number of different species, and this sophistication is why most scientists concider them the most evolved plants on earth.
Orchid seed is unique in the sence there is no food stored for the orchid embryo. Seeds like corn and beans have vast amounts of starch and oil available for the young plant to help it grow large enough to develop its own green leaves. Orchid seeds are just an embryo and a thin seed membrane. This simple design allows orchids to produce millions of seeds at a time. The seeds themselves are as fine as dust and carried away on the wind. If the seed lands within the vicinity of a beneficial species of fungus, the fungus penetrates the embryo and begins to provide it the minerals it needs. However, only a tiny number of seeds ever land where germination is possible. The orchid overcomes this by producing vast numbers of tiny seeds.
Reply:normally the seeds which are fine almost dust like would be dispersed by rain or wind. They need to land on the roots of where another orchid grows so that the bacteria that lives on the roots (or this may be found in wedges on trees in dead matter) will provide the means for the germination process otherwise the seeds won%26#039;t grow.
pollination is done by insects, birds, bats, moths. etc.
Reply:Scientists speculate the orchids took the trees to escape competition from other plants.
Reply:Orchid seeds are tiny and can disperse on the wind. Of course, not all will land where the conditions are right for them to grow, but each orchid seed pod contains thousands of seeds. Because of the large number produced, at least a few will get to the right places.
When an orchid seed germinates, it%26#039;s not growing on just tree bark. Leaves and debris collect in places where branched meet and cracks in the bark, and moss also grows on the trees. Birds, tree-dwelling mammals, and insects supply %26quot;fertilizer%26quot; by way of their droppings.
In rainforests where orchids live, the trees can grow so densely that little light reaches the ground. Orchids need to grow higher than ground level in order to get enough light for photosynthesis, so growing partway up a tree is an advantage. The first orchids may have been carried there by wind or birds. Of course, not all orchids are epiphytes (and you did spell that correctly!). In temperate forests, some species grow on the ground (lady%26#039;s slipper orchids for example), and Australia has two species of orchids which grow (and flower) completely underground.
Since your plant is something you%26#039;re creating, you could have small dust-like seeds like real orchids to be dispersed by wind, or have it be something eaten by tree-dwelling birds or insects that spread the seeds when they defecate.
NOTE: regarding Charles D%26#039;s answer, it%26#039;s a fungus, not a bacterium which associate with orchid roots. While the presence of other orchids indicate that the fungus would be present at that location, the presence of other orchids aren%26#039;t required - in fact, if too many orchids would grow in a single location, they would compete with each other for the few resources that exist. A large mass can break off a branch from their own weight, and without access to light, all would die.
And the need for the fungi is higher in the terrestrial species such as lady slipper orchids, but slight in epiphytes.
http://www.anos.org.au/groups/newzealand...
http://pubs.caes.uga.edu/caespubs/hortic...
Orchids growing on trees...?
Orchids are the most numerous and successful of all flowering plants. Many live in tropical forests attached to trees as epiphytes, but there are ground living kinds on every continent except antarctica.
Tree living orchids live in association with special species of fungus which live in the orchid%26#039;s roots. The fungus penetrates tree bark and breaks it down. This releases small amounts of minerals necessary for the orchid%26#039;s growth. The minerals themselves came from the earth. They were carried up the tree and became part of the bark. The orchid keeps its fungus healthy by providing it with carbohydrates. Fungi can%26#039;t photosynthesize like plants, and rely on their orchid to supply them their food.
Unlike flowers like daisies or roses, orchid flowers usually have a single species of insect which polinates it. The insect polinates no other flower and the orchid has modified its form, fragrance and anatomy to accomidate this one species of insect. The structure of the flower usually exactly matches the porportions of the insect%26#039;s body so that the pollen is placed in the best spot to be delivered to the next flower.
Sometimes orchids even help the polination of other plants as well. Brazil nuts come from brazil nut trees. They grow in the Amazon rain forest. large tracts of forest were cut down and groves of Brazil nut trees planted. Curiously, none of them ever produced nuts. Extensive research revealed the pollinating species of bee only collected pollen once impregnated by the male bee. Females were only attracted to male bees if they were covered in an essential oil the males had collected from Gongorga orchids. These are very rare and the males had to fly many miles through the forst to find them. The scent of the male told the female he was strong and healthy enough to have found this orchid. When the original forest was cut down to plant Brazil nut trees, all the orchids were eliminated. The males could not find the perfume females required to allow them to mate. The female bees were never impregnated and hence, never pollinated the flowers of the Brazil nut tree. This was why the trees planted artificially never produced nuts. orchids frequently are involved in many associations with a number of different species, and this sophistication is why most scientists concider them the most evolved plants on earth.
Orchid seed is unique in the sence there is no food stored for the orchid embryo. Seeds like corn and beans have vast amounts of starch and oil available for the young plant to help it grow large enough to develop its own green leaves. Orchid seeds are just an embryo and a thin seed membrane. This simple design allows orchids to produce millions of seeds at a time. The seeds themselves are as fine as dust and carried away on the wind. If the seed lands within the vicinity of a beneficial species of fungus, the fungus penetrates the embryo and begins to provide it the minerals it needs. However, only a tiny number of seeds ever land where germination is possible. The orchid overcomes this by producing vast numbers of tiny seeds.
Reply:normally the seeds which are fine almost dust like would be dispersed by rain or wind. They need to land on the roots of where another orchid grows so that the bacteria that lives on the roots (or this may be found in wedges on trees in dead matter) will provide the means for the germination process otherwise the seeds won%26#039;t grow.
pollination is done by insects, birds, bats, moths. etc.
Reply:Scientists speculate the orchids took the trees to escape competition from other plants.
Reply:Orchid seeds are tiny and can disperse on the wind. Of course, not all will land where the conditions are right for them to grow, but each orchid seed pod contains thousands of seeds. Because of the large number produced, at least a few will get to the right places.
When an orchid seed germinates, it%26#039;s not growing on just tree bark. Leaves and debris collect in places where branched meet and cracks in the bark, and moss also grows on the trees. Birds, tree-dwelling mammals, and insects supply %26quot;fertilizer%26quot; by way of their droppings.
In rainforests where orchids live, the trees can grow so densely that little light reaches the ground. Orchids need to grow higher than ground level in order to get enough light for photosynthesis, so growing partway up a tree is an advantage. The first orchids may have been carried there by wind or birds. Of course, not all orchids are epiphytes (and you did spell that correctly!). In temperate forests, some species grow on the ground (lady%26#039;s slipper orchids for example), and Australia has two species of orchids which grow (and flower) completely underground.
Since your plant is something you%26#039;re creating, you could have small dust-like seeds like real orchids to be dispersed by wind, or have it be something eaten by tree-dwelling birds or insects that spread the seeds when they defecate.
NOTE: regarding Charles D%26#039;s answer, it%26#039;s a fungus, not a bacterium which associate with orchid roots. While the presence of other orchids indicate that the fungus would be present at that location, the presence of other orchids aren%26#039;t required - in fact, if too many orchids would grow in a single location, they would compete with each other for the few resources that exist. A large mass can break off a branch from their own weight, and without access to light, all would die.
And the need for the fungi is higher in the terrestrial species such as lady slipper orchids, but slight in epiphytes.
http://www.anos.org.au/groups/newzealand...
http://pubs.caes.uga.edu/caespubs/hortic...
How do I find out what type of orchid is growing in my garden when there are so many different types.?
My orchids live outdoors and survive winters down to 25 degrees. They have 12 - 16 in. leaves and 2 in. white flowers with purple in the center and yellow spots. I believe they are terrestrial orchids and like the rich organic soil benieth my oak trees. They multiply quickly and require little maintenance.
How do I find out what type of orchid is growing in my garden when there are so many different types.?
Bletillas are some of the most common hardy terrestrial orchids in cultivation, and could fit your description. Do these look like yours?
Reply:http://www.orchidweb.com/
http://www.orchidworks.com/
http://www.firstrays.com/
Enjoy!
Reply:Ask someone on eBay who is selling orchids. Ebay people are great!
Reply:http://orchid.org.uk/intro.htm
Reply:take a pic and go to your home and garden center....
How do I find out what type of orchid is growing in my garden when there are so many different types.?
Bletillas are some of the most common hardy terrestrial orchids in cultivation, and could fit your description. Do these look like yours?
Reply:http://www.orchidweb.com/
http://www.orchidworks.com/
http://www.firstrays.com/
Enjoy!
Reply:Ask someone on eBay who is selling orchids. Ebay people are great!
Reply:http://orchid.org.uk/intro.htm
Reply:take a pic and go to your home and garden center....
BIOLOGY HELP!!!! symbiotic relationship between trees and orchids??
okay so i have to write a paper about the relatinoship between orchids and trees...
like mutualism, parisitism, commensalism, ect....
and i have to
1) descrive the organisms in my pair. what are they? what do they look like? where do they live? (idk what an orchid is??)
2) how do these interact? (depend on eachother)
3) what type of symbiosis is it? (commensalism, mutualism, parasitism...) and why
4) where you got your info - cite my source
BIOLOGY HELP!!!! symbiotic relationship between trees and orchids??
The relationship between host (tree) and orchid can be called commensalism because the orchid is nourished by the tree without harming it, but this is only if there are not too many orchids growing on the tree. This changes when the epiphytes increase beyond a certain number. For instance, if the orange trees in Central American plantations are not regularly stripped of the epiphytes growing on them, they stop bearing fruit. Later the trees become crippled. If this happened the relationship would be considered parasitiam because the orchid is benifitting while the tree is being harmed.
like mutualism, parisitism, commensalism, ect....
and i have to
1) descrive the organisms in my pair. what are they? what do they look like? where do they live? (idk what an orchid is??)
2) how do these interact? (depend on eachother)
3) what type of symbiosis is it? (commensalism, mutualism, parasitism...) and why
4) where you got your info - cite my source
BIOLOGY HELP!!!! symbiotic relationship between trees and orchids??
The relationship between host (tree) and orchid can be called commensalism because the orchid is nourished by the tree without harming it, but this is only if there are not too many orchids growing on the tree. This changes when the epiphytes increase beyond a certain number. For instance, if the orange trees in Central American plantations are not regularly stripped of the epiphytes growing on them, they stop bearing fruit. Later the trees become crippled. If this happened the relationship would be considered parasitiam because the orchid is benifitting while the tree is being harmed.
Does anyone know what sort of plant this is? I thought it might be a very sick orchid??
I have three of them and i found them growing under a tree in the back yard. Origninally I thought they may have been orchids but now I am not so sure as they have long spindly type leaves growing our of bulbs at the base. The root system is complex and compact, similar to orchids, without much soil etc. Any clues would be appreciated.
http://img81.imageshack.us/my.php?image=...
Does anyone know what sort of plant this is? I thought it might be a very sick orchid??
Totally looks like an unhappy Cymbidium Orchid. Needs to be repotted with orchid mix, put in part shade until daylight savings time ends then moved to full sun. Water, and fertilize.
Good luck :-)
Reply:HI..yes.I am sure they are Jap Irils
Reply:I don%26#039;t think it%26#039;s an orchid. Leaves are wrong for orchid. Could be an iris, ginger, ox blood lily, gladiolas?
Reply:Have they bloomed? I guess not yet, it would help to know how long you have had them and also what type climate you live in. How ever I can tell you that this looks like some type of Iris or Lily.
I think more likely a Iris and needs to be in the ground and not in a pot. Also, I have seen old fashion iris%26#039;s which have the same bulb and blades coming out and it blooms purple with yellow throat, not big flower just about 3 inches across. Check out your local home and garden shop and they can look at it and tell you.
I would like to know once you find out what it is. This is a very interesting question.
Thanks for asking it and showing your plant.
Reply:Ask the Garden Dok. He has an impressive background in horticulture. He%26#039;s a consultant for TV networks, too, I believe. [Tell him %26quot;CosmosClara%26quot; sent you. LOL.]
http://answers.yahoo.com/my/profile?show...
There are a lot of plants that grow from bulbs. If %26quot;Dok%26quot; can%26#039;t help you, take a sample to your County%26#039;s Co-operative Extention Service (they have Master Gardeners who can probably help you) OR take it to garden centers %26amp; see if they can identify it.
Reply:Yes they are Orchids, poor things! That nursery pot is so bad for them, and so is that much sun! Give them a pot with holes in the sides, even if you create the holes, and some orchid potting soil.
I cannot keep orchids in my area, so I am not an expert on the type. That is easy to find on a local Horticultural web site or at a local garden center.
The reason I cannot keep Orchids in my area is my *%%26amp;)*^#%^
Dogs eat Orchids,even the rare native Orchids in the marsh.
Idiot animals~!
Reply:looks sortof like a cymbideum orchid, take it to a garden shop and see what they say
art
http://img81.imageshack.us/my.php?image=...
Does anyone know what sort of plant this is? I thought it might be a very sick orchid??
Totally looks like an unhappy Cymbidium Orchid. Needs to be repotted with orchid mix, put in part shade until daylight savings time ends then moved to full sun. Water, and fertilize.
Good luck :-)
Reply:HI..yes.I am sure they are Jap Irils
Reply:I don%26#039;t think it%26#039;s an orchid. Leaves are wrong for orchid. Could be an iris, ginger, ox blood lily, gladiolas?
Reply:Have they bloomed? I guess not yet, it would help to know how long you have had them and also what type climate you live in. How ever I can tell you that this looks like some type of Iris or Lily.
I think more likely a Iris and needs to be in the ground and not in a pot. Also, I have seen old fashion iris%26#039;s which have the same bulb and blades coming out and it blooms purple with yellow throat, not big flower just about 3 inches across. Check out your local home and garden shop and they can look at it and tell you.
I would like to know once you find out what it is. This is a very interesting question.
Thanks for asking it and showing your plant.
Reply:Ask the Garden Dok. He has an impressive background in horticulture. He%26#039;s a consultant for TV networks, too, I believe. [Tell him %26quot;CosmosClara%26quot; sent you. LOL.]
http://answers.yahoo.com/my/profile?show...
There are a lot of plants that grow from bulbs. If %26quot;Dok%26quot; can%26#039;t help you, take a sample to your County%26#039;s Co-operative Extention Service (they have Master Gardeners who can probably help you) OR take it to garden centers %26amp; see if they can identify it.
Reply:Yes they are Orchids, poor things! That nursery pot is so bad for them, and so is that much sun! Give them a pot with holes in the sides, even if you create the holes, and some orchid potting soil.
I cannot keep orchids in my area, so I am not an expert on the type. That is easy to find on a local Horticultural web site or at a local garden center.
The reason I cannot keep Orchids in my area is my *%%26amp;)*^#%^
Dogs eat Orchids,even the rare native Orchids in the marsh.
Idiot animals~!
Reply:looks sortof like a cymbideum orchid, take it to a garden shop and see what they say
art
Can you be allergic to orchid pollen?
I was at a friends house yesterday, and whenever i went into the kitchen or bathroom (where she has an orchid) i started sneezing like crazy cos of my hayfever. Only problem is, i looked it up on the internet and it said orchids don%26#039;t release pollen into the air like trees or grass, but attract insects to pollinate them, but i don%26#039;t know what else it could have been....
Can you be allergic to orchid pollen?
You can allergic to anything that you allergic to. Some people allergic to bees and fire ants. One of my friends have a severe allergic to fire ants, she have to hospitalize when she got bit by them. I was covered with them sometimes when I worked in my garden, I was fine. I get bit by many things that poison to someone else, I also doing fine. Good thing for you is, now you know one of the things you allergic to without a test. Your friend save you money there for that test. Now you know to not go near the orchid.
Reply:It looks like orchids and you don%26#039;t get along. A person can be allergic to anything, even water.
Reply:You can be allergic to any pollen.
Reply:You can be allergic to anything that your body does not like.
Reply:you sure can
Can you be allergic to orchid pollen?
You can allergic to anything that you allergic to. Some people allergic to bees and fire ants. One of my friends have a severe allergic to fire ants, she have to hospitalize when she got bit by them. I was covered with them sometimes when I worked in my garden, I was fine. I get bit by many things that poison to someone else, I also doing fine. Good thing for you is, now you know one of the things you allergic to without a test. Your friend save you money there for that test. Now you know to not go near the orchid.
Reply:It looks like orchids and you don%26#039;t get along. A person can be allergic to anything, even water.
Reply:You can be allergic to any pollen.
Reply:You can be allergic to anything that your body does not like.
Reply:you sure can
Is it possible to "root" a small tree branch that has been cut off?
I am good with trimming and re-rooting plants in water to establish a second plant but I did not seem to have any luck with my favorite tree branches and blooms which I pick every February here in California. (They are pink thick orchid looking flower petals-I don%26#039;t know what they are??) I want to know if it is possible to start the clipped branch in water to get a root and new tree eventually? If so, how, what method works and does anyone know the name of the tree and flower I mentioned? Thanks alot!
Is it possible to %26quot;root%26quot; a small tree branch that has been cut off?
Yes there is! wow it%26#039;s ur lucky day! the best way is to get a really good soil for that particular type of plant. if it is a rose or fruit plant get a rose and fruit plant potting mix. If your not sure just ask your local nursery and they should be able to help you. the best way is to find a suitable pot (don%26#039;t start in the ground because you may give the cutting a disese.) then fill it with the appropriate potting mix. (your nursery will help you there...or hardware store) and then buy some UNPROSESSED honey. so natural honey that hasn%26#039;t been processed (scientist have found that this helps establish plant regrowth) and rub it into the end of the cutting then place it in your pot, cover it over with soil and water it every day (2nd or 3rd will be ok) and if you really want to after the 1 and a half week mark go and buy NATURAL fetilizer and stuff like that and soon it will be big enough to plant. when you plant you have to clear out the old soil and put new soil for that type of plant...
and sorry i don%26#039;t know how to do it in water or know wat the plant might be but asking ur local nursary will be helpful...and i just gave you a way to grow it in a pot...ready to plant after it%26#039;s big enough...
Reply:To start this cutting to root..do not use a potting mix..soils can give the cutting a disease...I use 1/3 peat moss, 1/3 perlite, and 1/3 vermiculite, all usually available at major garden center..cut the stem right below a node at a sharp angle, dip the cutting in %26quot;root harmone%26quot; available at wal mart or any store that has a small garden center..put the soiless mixture in a pot that has good drainage and stick the cutting in it..some cuttings take as long as 6 months to root such as my bay laurel trees I have ..I will give you a link to look at the root harmone it costs about 5.00 a small jar..but i make my own harmone from willow trees.. If you have willow trees around make %26quot;willow Water%26quot; and dip the cutting in it and water with it.. below is a link how to make it too...
http://www.amazon.com/Schultz-1022-1-Roo...
http://www.bluestem.ca/willow-article1.h...
Is it possible to %26quot;root%26quot; a small tree branch that has been cut off?
Yes there is! wow it%26#039;s ur lucky day! the best way is to get a really good soil for that particular type of plant. if it is a rose or fruit plant get a rose and fruit plant potting mix. If your not sure just ask your local nursery and they should be able to help you. the best way is to find a suitable pot (don%26#039;t start in the ground because you may give the cutting a disese.) then fill it with the appropriate potting mix. (your nursery will help you there...or hardware store) and then buy some UNPROSESSED honey. so natural honey that hasn%26#039;t been processed (scientist have found that this helps establish plant regrowth) and rub it into the end of the cutting then place it in your pot, cover it over with soil and water it every day (2nd or 3rd will be ok) and if you really want to after the 1 and a half week mark go and buy NATURAL fetilizer and stuff like that and soon it will be big enough to plant. when you plant you have to clear out the old soil and put new soil for that type of plant...
and sorry i don%26#039;t know how to do it in water or know wat the plant might be but asking ur local nursary will be helpful...and i just gave you a way to grow it in a pot...ready to plant after it%26#039;s big enough...
Reply:To start this cutting to root..do not use a potting mix..soils can give the cutting a disease...I use 1/3 peat moss, 1/3 perlite, and 1/3 vermiculite, all usually available at major garden center..cut the stem right below a node at a sharp angle, dip the cutting in %26quot;root harmone%26quot; available at wal mart or any store that has a small garden center..put the soiless mixture in a pot that has good drainage and stick the cutting in it..some cuttings take as long as 6 months to root such as my bay laurel trees I have ..I will give you a link to look at the root harmone it costs about 5.00 a small jar..but i make my own harmone from willow trees.. If you have willow trees around make %26quot;willow Water%26quot; and dip the cutting in it and water with it.. below is a link how to make it too...
http://www.amazon.com/Schultz-1022-1-Roo...
http://www.bluestem.ca/willow-article1.h...
What is this tree on Lincoln Rd in South Beach, Florida? Finally took pictures!!?
Right in the middle of Lincoln Rd mall is this wild looking tree. This is only one of two trees I have ever seen like this since moving to South Florida. It is big and has orchid-looking flowers hanging down and also has large fruit resembling an eggplant (but green). No body has ever been able to tell me what this is. Here are pictures of the tree. http://www.deancoleman.com/tree.htm Any ideas?
What is this tree on Lincoln Rd in South Beach, Florida? Finally took pictures!!?
EDIT: I didn%26#039;t notice your other pictures until a few minutes after my answer below. I just saw the first one--managed to get it from your description, mostly. Obviously it%26#039;s with 100% certainty a sausage tree. These are really amazing trees.
EDIT 2: Here%26#039;s a picture of the green immature fruit:
http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/FACULTY/CAR...
I think it might be a sausage tree--Kigelia africana. I understand it%26#039;s pretty widespread throughout Africa. We have a handful of them in Los Angeles. There is one at the L.A. arboretum, one at UCLA, and one at the Huntington. The flowers are pollinated by bats. They, and the fruits, hang down on long cords. I%26#039;ve never seen immature fruits, so I don%26#039;t know if they are green. The mature fruits are tan. By the way, if you want to crack the fruit open (this may be difficult...) the seeds will germinate readily. If you want to check what the leaves look like, look at the third picture full scale (there are other trees adjacent, so look up above the fruits).
A couple photos (the flowers are from the Huntington):
http://www.huntingtonbotanical.org/Whats...
http://www.tradewindsfruit.com/sausage_t...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...
I understand that the fruit is an ingredient in many African beers.
p.s. In case anyone is wondering, these are zone 10 and higher trees.
Reply:Is it a mango tree?
Reply:Ding Ding Ding...Mark got it.
What is this tree on Lincoln Rd in South Beach, Florida? Finally took pictures!!?
EDIT: I didn%26#039;t notice your other pictures until a few minutes after my answer below. I just saw the first one--managed to get it from your description, mostly. Obviously it%26#039;s with 100% certainty a sausage tree. These are really amazing trees.
EDIT 2: Here%26#039;s a picture of the green immature fruit:
http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/FACULTY/CAR...
I think it might be a sausage tree--Kigelia africana. I understand it%26#039;s pretty widespread throughout Africa. We have a handful of them in Los Angeles. There is one at the L.A. arboretum, one at UCLA, and one at the Huntington. The flowers are pollinated by bats. They, and the fruits, hang down on long cords. I%26#039;ve never seen immature fruits, so I don%26#039;t know if they are green. The mature fruits are tan. By the way, if you want to crack the fruit open (this may be difficult...) the seeds will germinate readily. If you want to check what the leaves look like, look at the third picture full scale (there are other trees adjacent, so look up above the fruits).
A couple photos (the flowers are from the Huntington):
http://www.huntingtonbotanical.org/Whats...
http://www.tradewindsfruit.com/sausage_t...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...
I understand that the fruit is an ingredient in many African beers.
p.s. In case anyone is wondering, these are zone 10 and higher trees.
Reply:Is it a mango tree?
Reply:Ding Ding Ding...Mark got it.
My phaleonopsis orchid, is it healthy?
My phal (moth orchid) seems to be a very healthy plant. The roots all look to be healthy. The leaves are wide, lush, and green. And the new leaf which has grown is nice and lush as well. I%26#039;m curious though, because on the back of the leaf, there%26#039;s a redish tint to it. But this is only on the new leaf that has grown. Any one knows what that signifies?
Also, the flower stem, which has been cut after all flower fell off, is as dry as a tree branch. Seriously, the stem is completely dry, but the plant look live and vibrant. I cut the stem about 2inch or so from the base....at least that%26#039;s what I was told to do. Any ideas why my spike is dry and dead, but the plant is well alive?
My phaleonopsis orchid, is it healthy?
Most are epiphytic shade plants; a few are lithophytes. In the wild they are typically found below the canopies of moist and humid lowland forests, protected against direct sunlight, but equally in seasonally dry or cool environments. The species have adapted individually to these three habitats.
Phalaenopsis shows a monopodial growth habit. An erect growing rhizome produces from the top one or two alternate, thick and fleshy, elleptical leaves a year. The older, basal leaves drop off at the same rate. The plant retains in this way four to five leaves. If very healthy, they can have up to ten or more leaves. They have no pseudobulbs. The raceme appears from the stem between the leaves. They bloom in their full glory for several weeks. If kept in the home, they usually last two to three months, which is considered quite a long time
myspace layouts
Also, the flower stem, which has been cut after all flower fell off, is as dry as a tree branch. Seriously, the stem is completely dry, but the plant look live and vibrant. I cut the stem about 2inch or so from the base....at least that%26#039;s what I was told to do. Any ideas why my spike is dry and dead, but the plant is well alive?
My phaleonopsis orchid, is it healthy?
Most are epiphytic shade plants; a few are lithophytes. In the wild they are typically found below the canopies of moist and humid lowland forests, protected against direct sunlight, but equally in seasonally dry or cool environments. The species have adapted individually to these three habitats.
Phalaenopsis shows a monopodial growth habit. An erect growing rhizome produces from the top one or two alternate, thick and fleshy, elleptical leaves a year. The older, basal leaves drop off at the same rate. The plant retains in this way four to five leaves. If very healthy, they can have up to ten or more leaves. They have no pseudobulbs. The raceme appears from the stem between the leaves. They bloom in their full glory for several weeks. If kept in the home, they usually last two to three months, which is considered quite a long time
myspace layouts
What is this tree on Lincoln Rd in South Beach?
Right in the middle of Lincoln Rd mall is this wild looking tree. It is right where the main outdoor dining area is and where the palm tree and parrots are. This is the only tree I have ever seen like this. It is big and has orchid-looking flowers handing down and also has large fruit resembling an eggplant (but green). It is about half way down the outdoor mall. No body has ever been able to tell me what this is. Any ideas?
What is this tree on Lincoln Rd in South Beach?
South Beach, where???? What city, country??
Could you send us a picture?? The folks on this site are really GREAT about identifying plants with a picture!!!
Good Luck!!
Reply:Hello, I know which tree you are talking about. I took a flower of it and made a picture. I would also love to know, what kind of tree that is!!! Report It
What is this tree on Lincoln Rd in South Beach?
South Beach, where???? What city, country??
Could you send us a picture?? The folks on this site are really GREAT about identifying plants with a picture!!!
Good Luck!!
Reply:Hello, I know which tree you are talking about. I took a flower of it and made a picture. I would also love to know, what kind of tree that is!!! Report It
What´s the tree in Lincoln road Miami?
I saw a lovely big tree in the middle of lincoln road in Miami. It has flowers they look like an orchid and the flowers are hanging down from the tree. Does anybody knows what kind of tree that is. I am in love with that tree and whant to bring it to Germany!!! Pls help!!!! Thank you!!!!
What´s the tree in Lincoln road Miami?
It%26#039;s an orchid tree aka Bauhinia varigata, hardy down to 22degF. RScott
What´s the tree in Lincoln road Miami?
It%26#039;s an orchid tree aka Bauhinia varigata, hardy down to 22degF. RScott
Does anybody know what the name of the tree that has thorns on the trunk and branches?
the flowers that bloom are pink and white orchid like flowers and the whole tree is green.
Does anybody know what the name of the tree that has thorns on the trunk and branches?
Floss silk tree?
Reply:Locust tree.
Reply:If the thorns are 1-2 inches long and the tree is relatively straight growing but not very big in girth, it is most likely a locust tree.
Reply:Locust tree.
Reply:Could Be a bouganvilla if it has purple flowers, those things are nasty!
Reply:The flowers sound like a catalpa or catawba tree but they don%26#039;t have thorns. Black locust has thorns, but the flowers hang in clusters like a wisteria. Whereare you, it might be helpful to know your area to identify the tree.
Reply:if the blooms are pink and white and come from little round green balls just slightly smaller than marbles it is called a fluff trees from older trees they use this for life jackets etc.
Reply:This one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey_locus...
Does anybody know what the name of the tree that has thorns on the trunk and branches?
Floss silk tree?
Reply:Locust tree.
Reply:If the thorns are 1-2 inches long and the tree is relatively straight growing but not very big in girth, it is most likely a locust tree.
Reply:Locust tree.
Reply:Could Be a bouganvilla if it has purple flowers, those things are nasty!
Reply:The flowers sound like a catalpa or catawba tree but they don%26#039;t have thorns. Black locust has thorns, but the flowers hang in clusters like a wisteria. Whereare you, it might be helpful to know your area to identify the tree.
Reply:if the blooms are pink and white and come from little round green balls just slightly smaller than marbles it is called a fluff trees from older trees they use this for life jackets etc.
Reply:This one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey_locus...
Phalaenopsis orchid care?
HOW DO I GROW ORCHIDS IN SHADE TREE
Phalaenopsis orchid care?
Phals are tough to grow outdoors. They need the night temps above 50%26#039;F and days below 90%26#039;F.
If that is so where you are located, you can attached them to the tree with glue, string or staples until the roots have time to grasp the tree.
Also because they rot if water is sitting in the crown you will need to hang them upside down, which is how they grow in the wild, not upright as you see potted in homes.
If it is not very humid and rainy where you are, put some sphagnum moss around the roots to keep them moist.
opera music
Phalaenopsis orchid care?
Phals are tough to grow outdoors. They need the night temps above 50%26#039;F and days below 90%26#039;F.
If that is so where you are located, you can attached them to the tree with glue, string or staples until the roots have time to grasp the tree.
Also because they rot if water is sitting in the crown you will need to hang them upside down, which is how they grow in the wild, not upright as you see potted in homes.
If it is not very humid and rainy where you are, put some sphagnum moss around the roots to keep them moist.
opera music
What starsign (sun sign) Are you? and what is your favourite plant/flower or tree?
For example... my sunsign is Libra and my favourite are Orchid, Roses, Trees, bonsai trees, myrtle.
What starsign (sun sign) Are you? and what is your favourite plant/flower or tree?
Pisces and my favourite flower is the old fashioned perfumed carnation,just glorious smell last so long in the garden and in a vase.
Trees would be the banksia with its candle flowers and the New Zealand christmas tree the pohutakawa,awesome red flowers.
Reply:libra- rose, jasmine,cut flowers...
Reply:Aquarius
Roses, Rhodendron , Prunus Shirotae(Mt Fuji Flowering Cherry)
Reply:My sun sign is Libra I cannot express to you what is my favorite flower or plant be cause i am a plant lover therefore in my world there is no plant i do not love or think is ugly i adore plants and flowers they are my joy and passion being i am a Libra they say Libras are \very creative my creativity is growing plants indoors or out
Reply:Taurus
Orcidddd
a maple?
Reply:gemini =D
um..an orchid i guess
What starsign (sun sign) Are you? and what is your favourite plant/flower or tree?
Pisces and my favourite flower is the old fashioned perfumed carnation,just glorious smell last so long in the garden and in a vase.
Trees would be the banksia with its candle flowers and the New Zealand christmas tree the pohutakawa,awesome red flowers.
Reply:libra- rose, jasmine,cut flowers...
Reply:Aquarius
Roses, Rhodendron , Prunus Shirotae(Mt Fuji Flowering Cherry)
Reply:My sun sign is Libra I cannot express to you what is my favorite flower or plant be cause i am a plant lover therefore in my world there is no plant i do not love or think is ugly i adore plants and flowers they are my joy and passion being i am a Libra they say Libras are \very creative my creativity is growing plants indoors or out
Reply:Taurus
Orcidddd
a maple?
Reply:gemini =D
um..an orchid i guess
Spider webs on my tree with small ant like insects beneath the web. how do I get rid of it?, orchids on tree?
I have orchids attached to the tree and don%26#039;t want to hurt them
Spider webs on my tree with small ant like insects beneath the web. how do I get rid of it?, orchids on tree?
This is most likely Bag worms they often get in Nut %26amp; fruit trees you need some Bag worm killer.
Spider webs on my tree with small ant like insects beneath the web. how do I get rid of it?, orchids on tree?
This is most likely Bag worms they often get in Nut %26amp; fruit trees you need some Bag worm killer.
Name of purple tree?
I saw these trees growing on the sides of the road on Interstate 70 as I was driving through Kansas and Missouri. They were about 20 to 30 feet tall, and they were bright purple-lilac-Wisteria colored. I searched the net for all the trees I thought it could be and ruled out the following: Wisteria, Jacaranda, Purple smoke tree, Purple orchid tree, and lilacs. The trees I just mentioned had the color of the mystery tree, but were not the tree. Can anybody please tell me what these really cool looking trees are?
Name of purple tree?
Sounds like flowering plum to me. They%26#039;ll have little pink flowers that in the colder climes you are at will likely not start blooming for a few months.
They tend to get about that high after 10 years or so. At most nurseries you buy them at 4ft.
The older ones actually have small cherry sized plums, which you can eat, although they tend to be either very sweet, or very sour.
They do tend to suffer from bark beetles though. It%26#039;s important to paint their trunks, and shade them.
Aside from that, care is pretty simple, and mostly involves trimming off the many side shoots that they produce.
Reply:umm, with flowering plum, the tree is purple, and the flowers are pink. Sorry if I didn%26#039;t make that clear in the answer. Thanks for the ten points though. Report It
Reply:Trees were probably purple leaf plum. Hardy variety and kind of cheap. Grow quickly. You need to look out for insects as they have tender leaves and thin bark. A little maintenance and proper irrigation they do great. Make sure you get the upright version of the tree.
Reply:Maybe flowering plum?
Reply:It%26#039;s probably some kind of redbud tree.
Name of purple tree?
Sounds like flowering plum to me. They%26#039;ll have little pink flowers that in the colder climes you are at will likely not start blooming for a few months.
They tend to get about that high after 10 years or so. At most nurseries you buy them at 4ft.
The older ones actually have small cherry sized plums, which you can eat, although they tend to be either very sweet, or very sour.
They do tend to suffer from bark beetles though. It%26#039;s important to paint their trunks, and shade them.
Aside from that, care is pretty simple, and mostly involves trimming off the many side shoots that they produce.
Reply:umm, with flowering plum, the tree is purple, and the flowers are pink. Sorry if I didn%26#039;t make that clear in the answer. Thanks for the ten points though. Report It
Reply:Trees were probably purple leaf plum. Hardy variety and kind of cheap. Grow quickly. You need to look out for insects as they have tender leaves and thin bark. A little maintenance and proper irrigation they do great. Make sure you get the upright version of the tree.
Reply:Maybe flowering plum?
Reply:It%26#039;s probably some kind of redbud tree.
Can i get my orchid to grow on a lump of tree log?
had it a year it has lots of ariel roots any tips what is best food will tap water cause props help please as im new to orchids it has large white flowers and large broad fleshy leaves
Can i get my orchid to grow on a lump of tree log?
there should be a book on orchids somewhere, or look on-line for orchid care.
Reply:thanks for your answer Report It
flowers birthday
Can i get my orchid to grow on a lump of tree log?
there should be a book on orchids somewhere, or look on-line for orchid care.
Reply:thanks for your answer Report It
flowers birthday
The Orchid Trees?
Bittersweet laughter filled the sky
as we danced among the orchid trees.
We twirled in sorrow, something we deny
in our dance among the orchid trees.
Softly our footsteps echo and sound
in the hollows of the orchid trees.
Too swiftly to even grace the ground
in the hollows of the orchid trees.
Scarlet ribbons flowed from our skin
wrapping around the orchid trees.
The translucent flesh stained with crimson
lapping around the orchid trees.
Our last shaky breaths taken in strife
heard only by the orchid trees.
Our last call, last declaration of life
heard only by the orchid trees.
--------------
Strange. I don%26#039;t know what brought on this attitude of angst/death/whatever you want to call it.
Thoughts?
The Orchid Trees?
I loved it! Loved the way you echoed the words %26quot;orchid trees!%26quot; Love the depression in its simplicity.
Reply:Well, I%26#039;m glad you%26#039;ve started posting here. You%26#039;ve got a really interesting way of writing. I appreciated the sense of rhythm in this piece. It%26#039;s very well crafted.
Reply:Wow, that was really good. Amazing piece of work.
Reply:You are an excellent poet. This was extremely creative and well thought of. Your poem takes on a unique style of its own. I would suggest publishing on Poetry.com, because a poem this creative could very well win a major prize. This is brilliance. Pure brilliance. You%26#039;ve got a bright future in writing. Keep it up, Superstar!! You%26#039;re going far!!!
Reply:This is brilliant!
I love the backbeat, the repetition of the rhythm. This is a fine piece of poetry.
as we danced among the orchid trees.
We twirled in sorrow, something we deny
in our dance among the orchid trees.
Softly our footsteps echo and sound
in the hollows of the orchid trees.
Too swiftly to even grace the ground
in the hollows of the orchid trees.
Scarlet ribbons flowed from our skin
wrapping around the orchid trees.
The translucent flesh stained with crimson
lapping around the orchid trees.
Our last shaky breaths taken in strife
heard only by the orchid trees.
Our last call, last declaration of life
heard only by the orchid trees.
--------------
Strange. I don%26#039;t know what brought on this attitude of angst/death/whatever you want to call it.
Thoughts?
The Orchid Trees?
I loved it! Loved the way you echoed the words %26quot;orchid trees!%26quot; Love the depression in its simplicity.
Reply:Well, I%26#039;m glad you%26#039;ve started posting here. You%26#039;ve got a really interesting way of writing. I appreciated the sense of rhythm in this piece. It%26#039;s very well crafted.
Reply:Wow, that was really good. Amazing piece of work.
Reply:You are an excellent poet. This was extremely creative and well thought of. Your poem takes on a unique style of its own. I would suggest publishing on Poetry.com, because a poem this creative could very well win a major prize. This is brilliance. Pure brilliance. You%26#039;ve got a bright future in writing. Keep it up, Superstar!! You%26#039;re going far!!!
Reply:This is brilliant!
I love the backbeat, the repetition of the rhythm. This is a fine piece of poetry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)