't understand
> (or at least can't articulate) the basic mechanisms of evolution" their
> fault or the fault of the scientific establishment?
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -
> From: "David L. McNeely"
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2011 6:21
Wayne Tyson wrote:
> Is the fact that a "huge percentage of our population don't understand (or at
> least can't articulate) the basic mechanisms of evolution" their fault or the
> fault of the scientific establishment?
>
If the "science establishment" is responsible for (1) the conflic
L] Plant roots matter Re: [ECOLOG-L] Communication Science
to Public Plant Roots
> Martin Meiss wrote:
>> While we're on the topic of the public being exposed to junk science,
>> consider these other common areas of misconception: Most of us were taught
>> a misle
our
critical evaluation of the current exhibit on human evolution turns up
anything interesting.
WT
- Original Message -
From: "Martin Meiss"
To:
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plant roots matter Re: [ECOLOG-L] Communication
Science to Public
Martin Meiss wrote:
> While we're on the topic of the public being exposed to junk science,
> consider these other common areas of misconception: Most of us were taught
> a misleading version of how the greenhouse affect is purported to work, and
> most people cannot explain the concept of
While we're on the topic of the public being exposed to junk science,
consider these other common areas of misconception: Most of us were taught
a misleading version of how the greenhouse affect is purported to work, and
most people cannot explain the concept of relative humidity without straying
Wayne Tyson wrote:
> (stuff cut) Most people don't have any idea what a moisture gradient is, but
> are they well- or ill-informed by science writing that implies or states
> outright that roots can detect water and seek it out; that is, that roots can
> grow through almost anything, no m
d, and an understand of plant-soil water relations is
essential. Yes, this is an anecdote. I have others, and they all answer to the
same fundamental principles.
- Original Message -
From:
To: ; "Wayne Tyson"
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 6:10 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plant
ner?
If that is what your explanation says these folks believe, then they are
simply wrong. there must be a water gradient. If they understand that there
must be a water gradient, and that only if the container is leaking would the
roots "find" the water, then ok, and no more explanati
ight be said, but I am
looking for the best possible statement that can be readily understood by
anyone (or at least not mislead by it).
WT
- Original Message -
From:
To: ; "Wayne Tyson"
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 6:22 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plant roots matter Re: [EC
Wayne, I think the notions that have been expressed on the list represent
semantic differences rather than differences in understanding how roots
function. I think that those who have written accept the following:
Roots are hydrotropic, but the hydrotropism acts along a gradient, and acts
over
Honorable Ecolog Forum:
What does it matter, for the advancement of science and ecology in
particular, whether or not the root of the matter is resolved such that the
state of knowledge in this matter is articulated with clarity to the public
and those who inform the public (such as science wr
not about plant
consciousness, if this is what you are asking about.
Asaf
From: "mcnee...@cox.net"
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU; Asaf Sadeh
Sent: Sun, May 22, 2011 8:07:46 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Communication Science to Public Plant Roots
Asaf
would work. For that matter, true tropisms work by differential growth due
> to unequal auxin distribution, so far as I know.
>
> mcneely
>
>> Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®
>>
>> -----Original Message-
>> From: "Pekin, Burak K"
>&
e.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0010824
> and quite a few papers by Ariel Novoplansky.
>
> Asaf
>
>
>
>
> From: "Pekin, Burak K"
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Sent: Sat, May 21, 2011 6:30:09 PM
>
riginal Message-
> From: "Pekin, Burak K"
> Sender: "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news"
>
> Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 11:30:09
> To:
> Reply-To: "Pekin, Burak K"
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Communication Science to Public
info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0010824
and quite a few papers by Ariel Novoplansky.
Asaf
From: "Pekin, Burak K"
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Sent: Sat, May 21, 2011 6:30:09 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Communication Science to Public Plant Roots
T
n, Burak K"
Sender: "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news"
Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 11:30:09
To:
Reply-To: "Pekin, Burak K"
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Communication Science to Public Plant Roots
This seems to me more like a philosphical issue, rathe
ade by animals, such as humans, are conscious versus
subconious and whether a subconcious desicion satisfies the definition of
"seeking".
-Burak
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Communication Science to Public Plant Roots
Well, I can't say what the narrator was basing his/her stat
Wayne Tyson wrote:
> Ecolog:
>
> I just surfed across a "science" program on the "History" channel. The
> narrator said "Plant roots are genetically programmed to seek water . . ."
>
> Will someone please inform me of the basis for this statement?
Wayne, misunderstanding is the sole basi
Well, I can't say what the narrator was basing his/her statement upon, but
it can be justified. Roots are, for the most part, programmed to grow
downward (positive geotropism), and in many if not most soil environments,
water is more abundant at lower levels. Thus, growing downward means
growing
Ecolog:
I just surfed across a "science" program on the "History" channel. The
narrator said "Plant roots are genetically programmed to seek water . . ."
Will someone please inform me of the basis for this statement?
WT
22 matches
Mail list logo
