Freethought & Rationalism Archive

butswana · 06-07-2002, 08:50 AM

<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020607072227.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020607072227.htm</a>

Grumpy · 06-07-2002, 02:05 PM

That's not to say that ancient plants were more "developed" than today's plants, and there's been some kind of regression since then. Rather, newly discovered fossil plants show they achieved a more complex form relatively quickly.

Quote:

The earliest vascular plants -- ones with water-conducting tissues -- so far are known to date back about 425 million years. Sparsely branched, they were about an eighth of an inch tall and grew a few reproductive bodies known as sporangia on their branches.

By contrast, the new plants, which lived only a few million years later, would have stood four or more inches tall, bore many branches with dense rows of sporangia and probably grew in clusters...

Darn. And I wanted someone to explain plant regression. I mean, why else would dandelions have flowers? They don't use them for anything, do they? I guess they're vestigial.

06-07-2002, 08:50 AM	#1
butswana Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 1,804	Study Of Fossils Found In Arctic Shows Plants More Developed At Earlier Time <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020607072227.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020607072227.htm</a>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.