Jurassic Plants Make A Comeback

Makarand writes "BBC News is reporting that saplings of the Wollemi Pine will go on sale by the end of 2005. This is the only plant survivor from the Jurassic age. After it was discovered in 1994 in a single Australian grove, the tree's home has been kept a top secret. Research to find the best way to grow the plants on a commercial scale has now paid off and the pines are set for a return. As they grow slowly and like low-light conditions they will be marketed as indoor plants." This looks like an interesting addition to any home, even if the article's title is a bit of a misnomer.

Comments

eh?

[wiggys]

This is the only plant survivor from the Jurassic age.

Eh? Surely ALL plants we see around us today are survivors from the Jurassic age. Sure, they are descendants, but so is the Wollemi Pine.

Re:eh?

[1u3hr]

This is the only plant survivor from the Jurassic age.

That line wasn't in the BBC article. It seems very unlikely. A cursory Google search turns up Jurassic Plants which says

Conifers (like Araucarioxylon) were the dominant land plant during the Jurassic period. Other land plants included Ginkgophytes (like Ginkgos), club mosses, horsetails, ferns, seed ferns, Sphenopsids (like Neocalamites), Filincophyta (like Matonidium), Cycadeodia (like Otozamites, Ptilophyllum, and Cycadeoidea), and cycadophytes.

Mesozoic Era conifers included redwoods, yews, pines, the monkey puzzle tree (Araucaria), cypress, Pseudofrenelopsis (a Cheirolepidiacean).

Several of the trees listed are still around. No need to be over-dramatic. It's a plant that was thought extinct for millions of years; that's a distinction enough.

Re:eh?

[JJ]

New Zealand is perfectly awash in the flora of Jurassic age plant life. Ever hear of Gondwanaland? It was the southern continent that broke from Pangea. NZ is a remnant. NZ never got flowering plants (until man brought them in.) Also, the ginko was very common in the Jurassic age. My hometown has the Morton Arboretum, which cultivates ginkos.

Re:eh?

[SpinyNorman]

I think the intented assertion was unchanged survivor... it's identical to the fossilized examples, same as the Coelacanth can be considered a Jurassic survivor. One thing interesting about species like these is why they havn't evolved ... are they a genetic "dead-end of perfection", or is there something about their genetics and/or behavior that precludes viable adaptation?

Re:eh?

[RatBastard]

One thing interesting about species like these is why they havn't evolved[?]

The answer is simple and obvious: it hasn't needed to. Whatever survival strategy it found has worked well enough that it hasn't needed to evolve. That does not mean that other isolated populations of said plant have not evolved into something else. Evolution does not mean that a species can not splinter and have one group adapt into a new species and another group stay the same.

Jurassic? Australia?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's from the Jurassic age? And there have been other fossils of this tree found elsewhere in the world? Doesn't this debunk the theory that Australia is a moon that fell from the sky and became a continent? Or did I misunderstand something?

Re:Jurassic? Australia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't this debunk the theory that Australia is a moon that fell from the sky and became a continent? Or did I misunderstand something?

You didn't so much misunderstand something as hallucinate a complete theory of the formation of Australia. Where on Earth (or in space) did you get this crazy foolish moon theory?

Re:Jurassic? Australia?

[Jugalator]

Doesn't this debunk the theory that Australia is a moon that fell from the sky and became a continent?

According to the most common theories...

Australia was part of Pangea just like all other continents. Unless you mean something happened even before that, but then basically all continents were as one supercontinent anyway and I don't see how a moon (!) impact would form Australia in specific.

Pangea later split to form Laurasia and Gondwanaland. Australia should be from the latter.

The theory you mention sounds like the work of someone who has no insight into continental drifts at all, thinking that "hmm, Australia is a fuckin' big island, perhaps it's from a moon??" :-)

Re:Jurassic? Australia?

[1u3hr]

Doesn't this debunk the theory that Australia is a moon that fell from the sky and became a continent? Or did I misunderstand something?

I think you misunderstood that you were supposed to use the glue on your shoes, not smoke it.

Australia has some of the most ancient exposed rocks known, 4.3 billion years.

Re:Jurassic? Australia?

[Flingles]

/me thinks that some smart people aren't smart enough to know when someones having a joke.

Re:Jurassic? Australia?

[tsa]

anyway and I don't see how a moon (!) impact would form Australia in specific.

Simple. Everyone knows the moon is made of cheese. Cheese floats because of all the holes in it. So a moon splashed in the ocean, floated around a bit and eventually got stuck on some undersea mountain. Voila! Australia.

It is not the only one (for now)

[arivanov]

There is another relict grove in Pitcunda on the Russian Black Sea coast. Due to something noone so far understands which happened over the last 600 or so years it no longer reproduces. The peninsula itself is slowly sinking into the sea after several earthquakes in the region in the 60-es.

So for now there is another grove and it is also listed as world heritage site by Unesco. Note the "for now" as you will not see any saplings from it. You are least likely to see the grove itself in a few hundred years either (it is awesome).

Re:It is not the only one (for now)

[MrOrn]

I don't know where you got your info from, but it doesn't appear accurate. The only examples of the species are in Australia.

The UNESCO World Heritage site doesn't mention your grove, only the Australian one.

For more info on the Wollemi pine, visit here.

Re:It is not the only one (for now)

[rarkm]

An arcane factoid: I think that one of the relatives of this pine listed in the Australian information link, "Agathis (Kauri Pines)", furnishes wood for makers of traditional Go boards. If you want to take a look, look here: http://www.yutopian.com/go/table/tk135.html

Go is one of the oldest board games in human history still being played. There is probably some sort of mystic connection between the qualities of the wood from this family and the game. Early legends on Go boards suggest that the construction and design had roots in divination and religious ceremonies, but I'm no expert, I merely note the connection here.

Go players and the game itself is as much about the physical beauty of the game as it is about the beauty of the logical relationships between opposing forces.

Another good site to look at is www.samarkand.net

To continue in this arcane vein, the premium wood for Go boards is katsura, valued primarily for its somewhat more interesting grain. For information about Go, try www.usgo.org, or www.britgo.org.

The only plant survivor?

[Max Romantschuk]

How do we know this is the only plant species to survive? What are the criteria? DNA mutates all the time, so how is this plant different?

Re:The only plant survivor?

[VPN3000]

Yeah, Max, I was thinking the same thing. It's not like they pulled this plant out of a block of permafrost with a specific date on it. Species of plants come and go all the time, especially on volcanic islands. Of course, they are going to find undocumented plants every few years as these cycles occur.

The excitement in the writer's words don't seem so authentic either. I suspect that the company doing the cultivation is also the one who first reported this as news. Nothing beats the media for mis-guided information and free advertising.

Want to see a creature who's roots date back to the beginning of life on Earth? Look in the mirror. Wow. There, the same gimmik and you didn't have to spend thousands of dollars on a silly little tree.

Re:The only plant survivor?

[deek]

Take a look at this site:

http://www.rbgsyd.gov.au/information_about_plants/ wollemi_pine

It briefly explains how they came to the conclusion that this was a living fossil. Myself, I'm willing to take their word for it, because they've been in the field _much_ longer than I have :).

Re:The only plant survivor?

[axolotl_farmer]

What is remarkable about this tree is not its age, but that it is a recently discovered species only known from a few specimens. This species could not be placed within any of the described groups within Auracariacacae, so it has been placed in a new genus, Wollemia.

The Auracariacae are a group of conifers, just like pine trees and spruces. The best known is the monkey puzzle tree grown in temperate regions all over the world.Conifers are hard to clone, i.e. it's difficult to make the cuttings grow a root system.

There is an untapped geek factor in plants. Here's a chance to own a clone of a very rare species of a strange tree. As a biologist, it sound pretty cool to me!

Re:The only plant survivor?

[jdreed1024]

Want to see a creature who's roots date back to the beginning of life on Earth?

Want to see a creature whose roots date back to the beginning of life on earth, but whose physical appearane has changed very little in that time? Go to a beach and find a horseshoe crab. They've been around for millions of years, and looked pretty much the way they do now. They've also got blue blood, which any true geek would find interesting.

Re:The only plant survivor?

[SpinyNorman]

One interesting thing about the Wollemi (apart from the fact that close-up it looks cool and wierd - more fern-like than tree-like), is that the group that were discovered are all genetically identical - they spread by shooting rather than sexually, so their DNA may in fact be very close to that of the Jurassic era fossilized examples.

welcome!

[andy666]

i for one welcome our rare jurassic plant overlords!

qualities? features?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there anything else special about this plant other than its been around since the jurassic period? I can see these saplings going for a huge sum so for that I'll like to know why I or anyone would want to fork out big $$ for it.

"Jurrasic Pot Plant"

[echucker]

Sorry kids, it's not what you thought. Take a look.

Re:Sounds cool, but..

[thefirelane]

Bonsai is a technique not a species. Literally in Japanese, it means "tree in pot". You can take any number of species of tree, and "bonsai" them. This involves restricting the roots, reducing the leaf size, and pruning it in such a manor that the small tree appears like a miniature version of the larger tree (as opposed to just a young tree).

So you could actually get one of these trees, and turn it into a "bonsai tree" (which is what I considered doing when I read the article)


---Lane

As seen in the Jurassic age ?!?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

so, did they have plant pots in the Jurrassic age ?

Re:Sounds cool, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

pruning it in such a manor that the small tree appears like a miniature version of the larger tree

Where would you find a manor that big though?

Sneaky...

[Walkiry]

Neat way to get nerdy types to buy plants for the house.

Being a Biologist/Biochemist/Bioinformatician myself this looks like an interesting addition to my house, I'm sold! Now, I wonder of there will be a sequencing project for it or I'll have to wait until the technology is cheap enough to do it myself...

I mean, it's the best way to make sure it really is a Jurassic plant and not something that merely looks like it. Sequence the sucker and throw a massive multiple alignment into ClustalW. I wonder what I'll have to wait for, sequencing being cheap enough or terabytes of memory being commonplace.

recipe

[lanswitch]

Does anybody know how they taste, and how i should cook 'em?

Well adapted...

[hughk]

First, this has been around for a while and a sapling is on display at the Sydney Botanical Gardens. Yes, the announcement is pure PR for the company developing the technqiues, but the plant did cause a stir when it was first discovered. It was literally a living fossil, as that was how it was first seen.

Everything mutates, but the fittest survives. If the fittest is already well adapted then any mutation must be radical to offer an improvment - or conditions need to change so that the plant/creature is no longer competitive in its ecological niche.

However it isn't necessarily unique. We have also seen the same over shorter periods of time for animals. Think of the coelacanth, for example.

Re:Well adapted...

[mlush]

However it isn't necessarily unique. We have also seen the same over shorter periods of time for animals. Think of the coelacanth, for example.

The Jurassic Period was 206 to 144 Million Years Ago the coelacanth is 400 million years old!

what about the dangers?

[Lumpy]

Other plants have thrived without these Ravenous trees roaming the planet... now bringing them back will cause devastation on an enourmous scale. Dutch Elm's having to run for their lives, California redwoods huddled in fear...

and not to mention all the bably trees getting eaten up by these Pre-historic creatures from a violent and vicious past..

We need to stop the re-introduction of these trees!

Where's greenpeace when you need them!!!!

(This piece of sillyness brought to you by the letter Q.)

They Are...

[Cyno01]

Uh-oh.

I like the first picture

[The-Bus]

The first picture in the article has it "as seen in the Jurassic age" (http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39379000/jp g/_39379242_203.jpg) --- of course the plant is IN A POT. I didn't know that before humans had the bronze age and the iron age the dinosaurs had the terracotta age.

Only survivors ... not quite

[Siener]

Nowhere does the acticle say that they are the only plant suvivors from the Jurassic age. What makes them unique is the fact that they where thought to be extinct. Before they were found, only 175 million year old fossils of them were known.

There are other plant species that are older e.g. Cycads.

Re:Sounds cool, but..

[kinnell]

Bonsai is a technique not a species

Right. It works with some animals too.

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

Re:I think this is a bit hyped.

[MrOrn]

...but this Australian plant doesn't seem to be all that big either.

Well, I'd call almost 40 m big. Certainly bigger than moss. :-)

From the Royal Botanical Gardens site: Tallest tree is 38.5 m

Other living fossil plants

[mattr]

This was really interesting so I googled. Cavet: IANA Paleobotanist.

Apparently ginkos are also extremely old and resemeble a Jurassic variety. And Cycads, which are woody plants that create seeds. They also seem to be quite poisonous although they are eaten as "beach tucker" after processing in the jungle. (link) Anyway here are some links.

Finally I there are also the extremely visually (and biochemically?) wierd Gymnopsperms like Welwitschia And Ephedra, which seem ancient, maybe same era..

All this because I was trying to figure out if the inch-long stem/leaf in my pocket which I snapped off a huge pencil plant was one of those. Not sure yet.. I remember my mother also has some kind of ancient plant which looks like a gray rock and does nothing, but then one day suddenly splits in half, and then each half will continue to split in the same way recursively. A very cool plant if anyone can figure out what it is!

Re:Other living fossil plants

[The Fun Guy]

How about my favorite living fossil plant, the genus Equisetum, the horsetail ferns? Also known as scouring rushes, they incorporate silica in their stems and make them feel like sandpaper. This is the only surviving genus of the only surviving family (Equisetaceae) of the only surviving order (Equisetales) of a class (Sphenopsida) that emerged during the Devonian Period, around 375 million years ago, some 200 million years before the Jurassic Period (~175 mya).

So, surrounded by the first land vertebrates, early wingless insects and some animals which would eventually evolve into the arachnids, the Equisetum grew and thrived for 30 million years, and watched the gymnosperms arrive. Another 130 million or so, and Equisetum watched the rise of the dinosaurs. Another 50 million and Equisetum watched the angiosperms (flowering plants) arrive and take over dominance of the plant world, and watched as the ecological shift started to kill off the dinosaurs. 30 million years later, Equisetum watched as the asteroid finished off the dinos and the twitchy little mammals found greatness thrust upon them. Over the next 140 million years, Equisetum watched as the mammals grew tall and short, big and small, flew and crawled and ran and swam.

Recently, Equisetum watched as one bunch of upstart, big-headed mammals learned to control fire, plants, other mammals, and go on to create ceramics, double entry accounting, antibiotics, TiVo and Mr. Coffee. If we think of Equisetum's long residency on Earth as a single year, starting on January 1, then humans showed up around 11:00pm on December 31.

Turn off the computer and go take a walk in the woods, folks. It's an amazing world we live in.

P.S. Found the rock plant!

[mattr]

Well thanks to slashdot I got my brain back in gear on this question after several years. I am pretty sure that the thing which looks like a rock is in fact a lithop, which is a type of succulent from South Africa often called a living stone, of the the plant family Mesembryanthemaceae (now called Aizoaceae) or "Mesembs" for short (google that and go nuts!).

Specifically it must have beenL. olivacea which I guess means olive colored, since as in the photo it had no markings, it just looked like a beautiful hunk of chalky, greenish colored velvety living stone. Can't believe I found it. Some really bizarre, ugly, and beautiful pics on this page. Also more interesting photos here>/a> and here.

I also am thinking of throwing out the pencil plant (Euphorbia tirucalli) stem which will certainly take root by itself, but apparently causes cancer! I wouldn't want a cat to eat it.

Eh. no.

[ebuck]

Nearly all the plants we see around us today are species which were not around during the Jurassic age.

Remember Biologists (by virue or vice of studying this stuff) have very different ideas about what a descendant is.

This is the same species which implies that it could (if we ever figure out that pesky time travel machine) cross breed with the plants growing in the Jurassic age. Modern plants (also descendants, but certainly not of the same species) would not be expected to have this ability.

Or you could look at it like this:
These are the real McCoy, but the modern plants are just cheap knock-offs (and probably Japanese imports to boot too!) ;-)

I can see the marketing campaign now...

[Infamous Coward]

This holiday season, give the gift that keeps on giving... for 175 million years.

BONZAI!!!!

[A55M0NKEY]

Hmm, a naturally wierd looking, naturally slow growing exotic tree... People who will make a BONZAI!!!!! out of them are people with tattoos of their butt with butt shaped tattoos on them tattooed on their butt...

I've seen one of those pine trees up close.

[bertok]

I saw a few saplings over a year ago. They were being grown next to the ranger's office at a nearby national park, but all of them were surrounded by wire fences for protection. They look a lot like pine trees, but the needles are shorter and fatter, and the trunk and branches are covered in what looks more like densely packed and dried out needles than 'real' bark.

It is obvious even to a lay person like myself that it is a simpler, more primitive plant than modern trees.

How about SCO officers?

[Roadkills-R-Us]

``involved scientists dangling from a helicopter''

Admittedly, this is an exciting prospect, but to really reach its potential, I think we should test this concept with SCO execs...

Re:Sounds cool, but..

[thefirelane]

Considering the plants are much healthier, and live much longer than they would naturally... I'm not loosing any sleep.

Remember, this is a plant not an animal, don't give it animal emotions and senses when making morality judgments. In the strictest sense, all the plant cares about is living longer to put out more seeds.

Just because you like it when a tree grows tall, doesn't mean the tree likes it. It just does that because it is programmed to (it is assuming it will have to be competing for light).


Thanks for the troll,
---Lane

Re:Ceruloplasm! and what about Spock!

[AJWM]

Yep, hemocyanin is blue.

If Spock's blood is really green, it's either a different copper-based molecule or perhaps chlorocruorin (iron-based, found in some worms), or possibly something vanadium-based. (Among others, sea squirts have vanadium-based blood. Colors are green, blue or orange, depending on the specific molecule.)

Speaking of Star Trek, since Klingons have violet blood (based on one of the movies), it's probably based on hemerythrin (also iron-based and found in some invertebrates here).

Market-driven species preservation

[rev063]

An interesting idea to preserve an endandgered species: make it into a commercial product! Having just the one grove makes this jurassic pine's survival tenuous at best, but when you can pick them up $10 apiece in IKEA their survival is assured.

What's next? Siberian tigers at the pet store? Blue whales for the home aquarium? Rainforest makeovers for your backyard? Y'know, it just might work!

No such thing as genetic perfection

[Mars Ultor]

a genetic "dead-end of perfection"

This is really a misleading term. There exists no such thing as genetic perfection, just as evolution on this planet will never lead to the creation of an "uber-species". An organism simply adapts to its particular environment, or fails to and dies out. Thus a shark, which is a supreme predator in the ocean, will not fare too long when placed in the Sahara. The same holds true for just about every other species - perfection is only achieved relative to a particular environment. That grove in Australia simply exerted no new selection pressure on the Wollemi tree. An exception to this rule might be made for H. sapien sapien, but one could argue we're operating outside of natural selection now (a whole new thread in itself).

Humans do evolve!

[Doug Merritt]

There exists no such thing as genetic perfection ...An organism simply adapts to its particular environment, or fails to and dies out.

Very true, and widely unappreciated.

An exception to this rule might be made for H. sapien sapien, but one could argue we're operating outside of natural selection now

Alas, a popular thought, but quite uncontroversially false, even though it has been suggested (largely for the sake of Dramatic Pronouncement) by a few scientists who really should know better. (The below comments are aimed at this wrong notion; don't take it personally.)

ALL that is required for natural selection is heritable characteristics (DNA) that have at least a little random mutation, and reproduction rates modulated by external forces (variable death and offspring rates).

That's why it is so easy to simulate genetic algorithms. Given only a few obvious, easy criteria, anything can and will evolve to better fit an ecological niche (or to maintain homeostasis in that niche if it is already at a local optimum).

Thus, to turn off evolution for humans, you'd have to eliminate one or more of those easy characteristics...yet humans still die for environmental reasons, our DNA still mutates, we reproduce at different rates for external reasons (we geeks should be keenly aware of the female choosing or avoiding mates ;-)

Therefore obviously Homo Sapiens still evolves. It is an extremely lame, incoherent, not well thought out argument to say that modern medicine saves many who would otherwise die without reproducing and therefore there is no longer evolution. Ha! It would take a lot more than that.

To paint it even more clearly, things like medicine and nutrition and technology merely change the definition of the local optimum and/or of the ecological niche...but there still exists an ecological niche for humans.

Come on, if someone is so ugly that they couldn't get laid carrying a bunch of bananas into a monkey whorehouse, then their differential reproduction rate is going to be lower than other members of the species, all other things being equal. This is just common sense.

This notion that humans are above even evolution is just another conceit, right up there with Earth being the center of the universe and man being created in the image of God. You wish. ;-)

Re:Humans do evolve!

[Doug Merritt]

I think you didn't understand the point. Humans to some extent operate under un natural selection now, in the sense that our selection is consciously directed and technologically modified.

I disagree with both...I did understand, and no, it hasn't changed to "unnatural selection".

First off, humans are not directing their own selection/evolution/etc. If we did, this would be a form of eugenics, which historically has been unsuccessfully attempted with atrocious measures like genocide.

If humans ever did stick with a selective breeding program (selective mating works better than genocide, btw), note that it would take about 50 generations for easy results and 1000 generations for moderately difficult results. Selection is a slow process.

And even so, selective breeding is merely a variation on natural selection; breeding new flower varieties is certainly not "unnatural selection".

In the future we are undoubtedly going to make strong use of direct intervention in the human genome, and one could then attempt to introduce new terminology like "unnatural selection".

But this still wouldn't eliminate natural selection in humans, because there would still be a differential death rate due to environmental factors, and there would still be sexual selection at work (short of a police state enforcing partners).

But that's beside the point...the discussion was about the notion that humans currently do not undergo natural selection, which is absurd. We most certainly do.

Re:Humans do evolve!

[Mars Ultor]

I'm not trying to suggest anyone is directing evolution - my point is that environmental selection pressures (mostly in the developed world) really don't exhibit much strength anymore. Furthermore, sexual selection in humans does not follow stereotypical examples found in most other mammals - yes woman/men select partners based on criteria - but each person's criteria is infinitely different than anothers (not just the colour of the throat or size of the shoulders).

This, I contend, is because we choose partners for more than just transfer of genes to the next generation. Think how many countless couples choose not to have any offspring - this trait is not weeded out of the population for a variety of socio-economic reasons. But that just underscores my point - socio-economic selection pressures don't exist in "nature"!

Going back to my original post, my point was that to some extent, we no longer evolve based on selection pressure a causing trait b to be inherited more often.

because there would still be a differential death rate due to environmental factors

In the developed world (where I contend that natural selection pressures are altered), I think you'd be hard pressed to say that the majority of the population experiences selection from the natural environment (most people don't worry about dying for lack of food or shelter).

Re:Humans do evolve!

[fucksl4shd0t]

Going back to my original post, my point was that to some extent, we no longer evolve based on selection pressure a causing trait b to be inherited more often.

Natural selection is a process where a given individual either adapts or fails to adapt to their environment. Humans have traditionally adapted by developing intelligence: getting smarter. Because we've gotten smarter, instead of growing a whole bunch of limbs that make us able to survive in any environment, we are able to build tools, machines, and various other devices to adapt to various environments. The reason humans that live in the polar regions don't have to grow big bushy coats of fur is because they can make jackets and skin the animals that already live there. We can also make fire. Environmental pressures are much less, due to the development of science and invention. Now, in the years since then, has that allowed us to break evolution?

Of course not. Why? Because we have to keep being smart, because our environment is always changing. Now, when we say environment, people usually think of trees and dirt paths and streams and so forth. THat's also what they think when we say "nature". But your environment is everything around you, and nature is the whole world that conforms to natural laws. The absence/presence of technology has absolutely no bearing on our evolutionary status. Nor does it have any bearing on whether or not we are in "nature" following "nature's rules". We are always in nature, if we're on Manhattan Island or camping out in the Cascades. And we must always adapt to our environment, or die.

It just so happens that thousands/millions of years ago, our ancestors decided either consciously or not that instead of growing a bunch of different limbs, it would be much more efficient to work on being smarter.

This, I contend, is because we choose partners for more than just transfer of genes to the next generation. Think how many countless couples choose not to have any offspring - this trait is not weeded out of the population for a variety of socio-economic reasons. But that just underscores my point - socio-economic selection pressures don't exist in "nature"!

How do you know that the reasons we chose partners are not motivated by the transfer of genes to the next generation? How are you so certain that some people are driven genetically to not choose partners or otherwise reproduce? I further maintain that socio-economic pressures do exist in "nature", because we live in "nature". Even surrounded by technology. Can't break natural laws. Sorry. Socio-economic systems appear in the wild. In fact, many different types of insects have experimented with Communism, Socialism, and even the Republic. Monarchy, of course. If you look real hard you'll see the default economic system of Capitalism at work in the wild. As humans, we haven't invented any of this. We've just adapted to it, and adapted it with us. The only thing we can claim we've achieved is intelligence, and we can only claim enough intelligence to have adapted to every single environmental condition on this planet. And that only stands for the species as a whole, individuals frequently die in harsher environmental conditions.

Re:Humans do evolve!

[Minna Kirai]

which historically has been unsuccessfully attempted with atrocious measures like genocide.

Unsuccessful? Seen any Roma lately? No, because they're all dead. A successful genocide. (There may be a few left, but the traits of the average human genome have been altered by effectively wiping out a distinct ethnic group)

This isn't universally apparent now, but the "judenhas" genocide was also quite successful. By eliminating 60% of the Jewish population, and driving the rest into a clustered enclave where reproductive pressures will see them overwhelmed and dissipated within 50 years.

But that's beside the point...the discussion was about the notion that humans currently do not undergo natural selection, which is absurd. We most certainly do.

Here's another way of looking at the claim that "humans aren't evolving". On the North American continent, visit Montana or somewhere north of there, and look at a glacier. Is it moving? By any concievable practical definition, it is immobile and stationary. Yet it's velocity is the same as when it traveled 200 km down from the mountains a millenia ago.

In the same way, we can say that natural selection in humans (and all other major lifeforms) is stopped, since it's progress is far to slow for us to ever observe a change again.

pot plants

[gnunick]

...This look like an interesting addition to any home, even if the article's title is a bit of a misnomer.

It's not a misnomer, it's just a little culture shock for our humble editors :) But when I saw the headline on the BBC front page the other day, I'll admit I also "fell for it" at first. But seriously, since these "Jurassic Pines" are being marketed as house plants, rather than something to put in your yard, they'll be spending their lives in big pots--hence, "pot plants".

I'm sure the British have been calling plants in pots "pot plants" long before the slang usage of "pot" as a word for dope came into common use.

A few years ago, while walking in London, I saw a sidewalk sandwich-board advertising "Sale! Pot plants L2.50" and you can bet I wish I'd had my camera with me so I could have titillated my Yankee friends back home.

Anyway, I'm sure the Brits in our audience see such things every day and make nothing of it. Do you guys over there even call marijuana "pot"? The BBC normally refers to it as "cannabis".

-gnunick

They use different words for things in America. For instance they say elevator and we say lift. They say drapes and we say curtains. They say president and we say brain damaged git. -- Alexei Sayle