Plants, evolution and back to the topic

[Kenneth Bruno <kbruno at bilbo_bio.purdue.edu>]

Here's my two cents and an attempt to swing back to the topic:

	There is no reason to argue creationism vs. evolution (certainly
in here).  Anyone that has training in modern molecular biology can
clearly see how organisms are related.  I think what people don't grasp is
the rate at which genetic changes cause evolution.  Mosquitos didn't
appear with a probiscus and flowering plants did not pop up one day out of
the blue.  Evolution is a slow continuous process.  Just because I see
that evolution has and is occuring does not mean I don't beleive in God.
They are not mutually exclusive ideas.
	As far as plant evolution goes, some interesting things are being
learned through genome sequencing.  For example, grasses such as maize and
sorghum have the same genome organization.  The genes that code for
compnents of photosystem 1 are in relatively the same place in the genome
in each organism.  However, maize has a great deal more intergenic DNA.
	I sometimes wonder if aquatic plants are more closely related to
land plants than to all other aquatics.  Does anyone know of a
group/university that is studying an aquatic plant on the molecular
level?

KSB

Kenneth S. Bruno
Purdue University 
Department of Biological Sciences
West Lafayette, Indiana
kbruno at purdue_edu

---

• Prev by Date: Plantlets on Java fern
• Next by Date: Native plant indentification
• Prev by thread: Re: Tamarisk as driftwood?
• Next by thread: Re:Plants, evolution and back to the topic
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread