esbo

Granted you were sensible and saw a doctor he should do the same.

Yea, see a doctor you can't rely on the advice of some random person on a forum who probably has no medical training or knowledge.

Hi!! Interesting post!! I have this last year grown some tobacco of my own so I am interested in this. It's is easy enough to grow but I think the curing process or whatever is a but harder. I have wondered about this myself because I believe the nicotine is in the plant so I am not sure what the curing is about if it is already there. Anyhow I green some and tried smoking it green which seems to be a bit like smoking tobacco however when I used leaves which had turned brown ie packet tobacco colour they tasted of nothing, ie seemed to have lost the nicotine. As I said they were not cured properly really I think ti was too cold at the time. This is straying from the main thrust of your post though, perhaps. One thing I will say is when the plants are green ie growing I think you can extract tobacco though your skin very easily ie too easily and it could be a bit dangerous!! Anyway one thing you could try is growing you own tobacco, it is a weed and so grow pretty easy, I mean I grew some so even an idiot can do it!! Also so interes there are some tobacco growing forums which may interest you ie. How to Grow Tobacco • View forum - How to Grow Tobacco

Well I believe chlorophyll extracts energy from the sun and uses it to help it absorb co2 which helps it grow in some way. I don't know what ADP or ATP are, they appear to be a meaning less sequence of letters, if you know what they are perhaps you could let me in on the secret. Could you explain to me why I need to know what ADP And ATP are? And why do I need to know all this other stuff you are on about, you seem to be basing your post on some massive assumption which is irrelevant. I mean I think you need to explain why I need to know all this stuff before requiring me to solve problems in all this stuff you are on about, problems which may be irrelevent to any answer I have.

I think you have got evolution a bit wrapped around you neck there. Some early organisms developed into bird and some into horses. Thus you need to explain why some early organisms did not develop into blue, red, black or orange plants. Thus your comment about me not understanding biology is somewhat ironic under the circumstances. Black people's skin. Need I go on? I don't think so!!! Well what I am looking for is why it is the best fit. It is easy to understand scientific mumbo jumbo if it make sense, the trouble is it seems to be just mumbo jumbo without making any sense. I am pretty sure if you showed me a similar science mumbo of another biological process which as as respiration or digestion or whatever I think I would be able to follow it. The trouble is, when things are wrong they do not usually make sense and I think in that particular case the science 'mumjo' jumbo' is being used as a cover for the lack of a credible explanation.

My tobacco plants are yellow, lack of nitrogen I think.

Leaves are green it's beyond doubt. Yes they look back in the dark, so does my light bulb when I switch it off. Also negatives show the opposite of reality. If you can't accept the obvious that plants are green what do you accept?????

Can that lot be translated into English? Without being rude it sounds like a load of bull to me, an attempt to use as many big words as possible do disguise the fact that it says nothing useful. Where did these autotrophs spring from? Your response is similar to the one I described in my last post, just a bunch of words making little sense and lacking coherence to the OP. There are lots of black surfaces in nature, your argument that they are too difficult to construct is ludicrous.

Quite an interesting topic for me. Consider I have a cherry tree in my garden, however if I eat the fruit I will probably be extremely ill as they are not edible cherries. Thus I would suggest the fruit is there as a source of food for the seed and not intended to be eaten. It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation or double edged sword. For example few people would eat apple seeds as they contain cyanide!!!

Quite simple, if you absorb less them 100% of the available energy you are not 100% efficient. Retinol is of little relevance to the issue.

I don't think I ever said "The physics of molecules with conjugated, double-bonded regions/structures, just doest favor developing a single way (molecule) for absorbing adjacent frequencies over a wide range of colors" Whether that is true or not is irrevelant. Secondly even if it were relevant you would have to show how it relates to my original post (you haven't). So a fair bit of work needed there. Furthermore it is not remarkable to get two absorption peaks. THe level of difficulty between adding 1+1+1 to get 3 is not signification greater than adding 1+1 to get 2.

Clearly it is flawed that is just undeniable, if it was not flawed plants would be black, not green and plants are by and large green. Or do you deny that plants are green? - lets do this a step at a time.

I am not actually a biologist, I dropped the subject at school I went on to do maths physics and chemistry at A level and the a degree in electronics at uni (didn't get very good grade in that, but hen I didn't put any effort in). I don't need to know too much about biology because in the end it all boils down to chemistry. As for the picking holes bit, one of the arguments seems to be that plants didn't use green because something else was using it. That is a pretty poor argument even if you know no science, because you would have to explain clearly why something else was using green. So that argument is basically just kicking the can (problem) further down the road. To give a proper answer you have to get rid of the can. You see your type of answer seems to involve delving into the detail and explaining some fairly complicated point in that detail, however the thing you explain does not seem to be an answer. What I want to know is why plants don't use green to the same extent as they use wavelengths either side of it. It would be like living in a world where we have big things and small things but nothing in between, ie animals, fish, people. We do not tend to see that in nature. Well the way I see it is that there is this big source of energy available (the sun) and you would think plants would make best use of it. I don't need to go into biology of chlorophyll or whatever, I can just say that nature is clever enough to get energy from any wavelength (pretty much). I mean plants can produce flowers of any colour so they have no problem absorbing or reflecting any part of the spectrum. So I think there must be some reason why it leaves green out. You say absorbing two different ranges of light is quite a feat, well yes it is in a way, but then you are underestimating evolution to some extent. How do you think creating DNA compares to absorbing two bands of light? Infinitely harder I would say. So I then say that not absorbing green was done for a reason, ie plants could easily have done it, but choose not to. Furthermore evolution is not a completed process, it is an ongoing one, which is why arguments which hark back to the past seems fundamentally flawed to me. As for God's favourite colour, that's a good one!! Maybe it is God's favourite colour, however I did not come here with a theological solution, but as you mention it, in a way you could turn my answer into a God's favourite colour if you said he had a favourite colour and he designed a world in which green would be dominant. However I don't see much scripture saying God favoured green, although that doesn't mean he doesn't! Unfortunately that is a pretty lame answer in my opinion. It gets you nowhere because I can simply ask, why does red algae only absorb red (or rather not red). Also from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant "The earliest fossils clearly assignable to Kingdom Plantae are fossil green algae from the Cambrian." That statement seems to blow a rather large hole below the water-line in the hull of the good ship Red Algae!!! Wiki says the earliest fossilised algae were green. Hence I don't think there is much mileage in the red algae theory. I can think of so many problem with the red algae think I don't even now where to begin, it would seem like a waste of time, a wild goose chase.

I am sure you would, however I am reluctant to give it for a number of reason, one of which is it is not 100% 'cast iron', there may be a few problems at the fringes shall we say. I would say it is better than the explanations listed above thought, which I could easily pick holes in. I asked because I wanted to know if other people had the same theory as me which they don't seem to however I did see one which seemed to have part of my solution. But as I said there are one or two issues I would like to iron out with my theory before posting.

The big flaw with our answer is that I know why plants are green. Maybe you would like to try again? I mean you know why polar bears are white don't you??

You have not provide an answer you have basically said plants are green because that is how they evolved, unfortunately I was looking for a little more that stating the blindly obvious. Surely you can do better?

The point is plant are green and denying that is futile.

Your absorption graph is a bit misleading here is a clearer one. You are ducking the question when you just say it's the best compromise, you have to explain why. Clearly plants are green, we can see that with our own eyes. Thus the only thing which remains to be explained is why they are green and not red or blue or purple or orange.

I already said in my response to essay that his answer was flawed, so referring to his answer is not very helpful. Almost all green light is not absorbed, it is *reflected* so it does not go further down, it can't as it is wanging it's way into outer space!!!!! Your answer makes no sense, you say one lot of light has low energy so it is not of much use, if that was the case why did the plant eveolve to absorb it. Secondly you say the other bit of light is too damaging, however if that is the case why has the plant evolved to absorbed it? In short you answer has at least 3 humongous errors in it!! lol You could not be more wrong!!!!!!

Err... a possum does have grasping hands. A bat does not have a big inexplicable hole in it's hearing spectrum as a plant does in it's energy absorbtion spectrum.

But the point is it is not the colour best adapted to the sun, the best adapted colour would be black so it could the full spectrum of the suns energy, the question is why does only absorb a bit from each end, ie a bit blue and red but reflect the green in between those two colours.. WE know fish have eyes so they can find food and avoid predators, we know we have grasping hands because they are good for climbing. Basic stuff. Your premise that we will never understand why thing are is basically flawed, we understand pretty much everything apart from why plants are green. And that's weird.

Plants absorb blue because we can see they don't reflect blue by the fact they look green. Plants do no absorb any green light except then the leave are dead and decomposing. This breakdown of the leaves structure cause them to absorb all colours as they breakdown into carbon.

If we were not sensitive to green lick plants would appear black. You answer is not really an answer, merely an observation, it does not explain why plants are green as opposed to any other shade of the rainbow. Saying they absorb red light is not an answer because they also absorb blue, which is at the other end of the spectrum. Hence you argument about energy levels shatters into a thousand pieces because it absorbs light at both ends of the spectrum, thus any argument which focuses on it favouring light above or below a particularly wavelength has a hole in it.. A big green hole just like the big green hole in the absorption spectrum of plants!! Humus is part of the soil and hence no a plant so I don't know where you are going with that one.