FlytrapCare Carnivorous Plant Forums

From wikipedia:

The book chronicles Darwin's experiments with various carnivorous plants, in which he carefully studied their feeding mechanisms. Darwin tried several methods to stimulate the plants into activating their trap mechanisms, including feeding them meat and glass, blowing on them and prodding them with hair. He found that only the movement of an animal would cause the plants to react, and concluded that this was an evolutionary adaptation to conserve energy for prey and to ignore stimuli that were not likely to be nutritious.He also discovered that while some plants have distinct trap-like structures, others produce sticky fluids to ensnare their prey and concluded that this was an example of natural selection pressure resulting in various methods for food capture.

I haven't had time to read the entire book, but from my quick scan of it at the university library, I found it quite interesting. The book is scientific, but easiliy understandable to the layman, and goes through Darwin's experiments testing the mechanisms of several carnivorous plant genera. In the drosera section, he tests the effect of different substances and conditions which stimulate a leaf reflex, even testing various snake poisons.

This will certainly be an interesting read for those who are interested in the scientific side of the plants. Keep in mind that the book was written in the 19th century, so advancements in understanding may have been made since.

For those who don't have access to a hard copy, here's the online transcript of the book provided by Darwin Online

I have this book in my collection. One of the good cps book i have.

Charles Darwin was a true visionary, *the* OG CP nerd and... WARNING: THE FOLLOWING OPINION MAY OFFEND SENSITIVE TYPES ...a greater influence on human understanding of the world around us than Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha combined*.

His books are simply amazing reads, even if you're not scientifically-minded. They were written with mass consumption in mind and his theories are explained in simple terms which is why his ideas have stood the test of time. A truly great man.

I know there are lots of people out there who think thry could never digest a book by Darwin because they assume they're all targeted at scientists/biologists/botanists etc. This couldn't be further from the truth. If you can understand the modern English language you can easily understand On The Origin Of Species.

For further evidence of his general awesomeness, look at the calibre of people he evokes a negative reaction in (Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, Osama bin Laden* etc). Case closed!

*personal opinion of author. No liability assumed for hurt feelings.

and his theories

Remember this, they are only theories....

Yeah. Like the THEORY of gravity. And the germ THEORY of disease. And the water cycle THEORY. Lots of things we think of as fact are labelled theory by the scientific community.

Is gravity "only" a theory too?

bigbowlowrong wrote:Charles Darwin was a true visionary, *the* OG CP nerd and a greater influence on human understanding of the world around us than Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha combined.

His books are simply amazing reads, even if you're not scientifically-minded. They were written with mass consumption in mind and his theories are explained in simple terms which is why his ideas have stood the test of time. A truly great man.

I know there are lots of people out there who think thry could never digest a book by Darwin because they assume they're all targeted at scientists/biologists/botanists etc. This couldn't be further from the truth. If you can understand the modern English language you can easily understand On The Origin Of Species.

For further evidence of his general awesomeness, look at the calibre of people he evokes a negative reaction in (Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, Osama bin Laden etc). Case closed!

I look forward to reading the book, its an opinion not a fact that C. Darwin had greater influence than those religious leaders and the way you stated that was ignorantly disrespectful. I'm both religious and a believer in scientific theories and who is to lay down a "fact" like that but someone who didn't think before speaking. All of these Beings were incredibly influential and I respect them all. No offense given just pointing out that that wasn't fact but kind of a rude opinion.

Anyways I will be looking for that book to read.

It's an opinion dude (strongly stated but genuinely a reflection of my beliefs), if you disagree I can live with that. If you seriously thought I was stating as fact that by some objective measure Charles Darwin is greater than Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha combined you're simply mistaken. It was obviously an expression of my own, personal opinion, and short of prefacing/footnoting the comment to that effect I don't know how I could have made it clearer.

Actually, I may do that now. Just in case.

Sheesh people are sensitive round here. This is the internet, strong opinion abounds.

bigbowlowrong wrote:Sheesh people are sensitive round here.

Seems to me that there is more than one person taking offense to your posts, so maybe the problem isn't the "people round here"? Perhaps it would be best to consider whether or not something you're thinking about posting could be offensive to others before posting it? A good rule of thumb: avoid belittling important religious figures. Another one: Don't call people (or insinuate they are) "childish" or "unintelligent" because they choose to believe in something that hasn't been or can't be proved by science.

bigbowlowrong wrote:This is the internet, strong opinion abounds.

This board welcomes strong opinions, but it doesn't welcome offensive behavior. There is a big difference between the two and some of your most recent posts cross the line.

Why shouldn't I be able to compare Darwin's contribution to the understanding of the origins of species (ie, LIFE AS WE KNOW IT) to religious figures? To me it's a very, very fair comparison on a site dedicated to botany!

Further, putting anyone, a religious figure or not in the same league as Darwin does NOT "belittle" them in any way, shape or form.

Some people disagree. That is their prerogative. Let them debate it out like adults.

bigbowlowrong wrote:Why shouldn't I be able to compare Darwin's contribution to the understanding of the origins of species (ie, LIFE AS WE KNOW IT) to religious figures? To me it's a very, very fair comparison on a site dedicated to botany!

I too am not religious but people who have religious beliefs may disagree with the point about (life as we know it) as they may think life comes from something else so please don't be offensive as I've learned this forum is a happy place not to be tarnished by religious remarks or insults

Again, I wasn't being purposely offensive. If people insist on reading it that way, that's their business. As always I'm happy to debate and defend any aspect of any of my posts.

Seriously, in a topic about Charles Darwin there is always gonna be posts about evolution and religion. I would suggest if these topics are too hot for some that a) discussion of Charles Darwin be banned or b) people who might be offended by discussion of Darwin avert their eyes.

Go back and read my first post in this thread. About 80% of it is simply encouraging people to read Darwin's catalogue - something DIRECTLY related to the thread topic. Now because someone has decided the other 20% kinda sorta offended them this has gone wayyyyy off topic which is a damn shame.

So yeah. Read Darwin.:3

Darwin was a genius but people may not believe he is the reason why we understand life, Christians may believe God created the world then provided life and they evolved which is Fair but some May believe God made this earth how it is now. The discussion of Darwin shouldn't be banned, this is a plant forum, plants that have evolved these amazing features so Darwin will never leave these forums. Also if people avert their eyes when Darwin is mentioned then how did he get recognised, remember that Christians do agree with his efforts as seen when he released his books into a very religious minded world, people can believe in evolution and religion

bigbowlowrong wrote:Why shouldn't I be able to compare Darwin's contribution to the understanding of the origins of species (ie, LIFE AS WE KNOW IT) to religious figures? To me it's a very, very fair comparison on a site dedicated to botany!

Darwin's contribution to humanity was scientific. The other figures you listed spiritually contributed to humanity. The comparison is an odd choice regardless of the content of the site, and one that is sure to ruffle some feathers. Judging by your posts, you're obviously intelligent enough to understand this fact. Seems to me you're just trolling here. Consider this your last warning.

bigbowlowrong wrote:Further, putting anyone, a religious figure or not in the same league as Darwin does NOT "belittle" them in any way, shape or form.

You did not put them in the same league at all! Here's what you wrote:

bigbowlowrong wrote:Charles Darwin was a true visionary, *the* OG CP nerd and a greater influence on human understanding of the world around us than Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha combined.

If the statement had been "Charles Darwin was a true true visionary, *the* OG CP nerd and had as great an influence on human understanding of the world around us as Jesus, Mohammed or Buddha." that would be the "in the same league". But why go the religion route at all? Instead of Jesus, Mohammed or Buddha, why not Einstein, Newton, or Galileo (keeping it scientific)? I think I've already answered that question above.

bigbowlowrong wrote:Seriously, in a topic about Charles Darwin there is always gonna be posts about evolution and religion.

Darwin has come up many, many times before here in the forums. I don't recall anyone bringing three of the most prominent religious figures into the discussion (without good reason), much less doing so in a way that is obviously (to me, at least) intended to be offensive.

bigbowlowrong wrote:Why shouldn't I be able to compare Darwin's contribution to the understanding of the origins of species (ie, LIFE AS WE KNOW IT) to religious figures? To me it's a very, very fair comparison on a site dedicated to botany!

Further, putting anyone, a religious figure or not in the same league as Darwin does NOT "belittle" them in any way, shape or form.

Some people disagree. That is their prerogative. Let them debate it out like adults.

absolutely you're right let's act like adults in every way.
by the way there are several copies of his book on eBay for sale some pretty cheap but some in great condition for a few more bones.

Matt, as I clearly stated in my post I was comparing the figures mentioned vis a vis their impact on the understanding of the world around us. As I'm sure you would agree, both religion and science claim to impact that. Therefore comparing a scientist (Darwin) to a religious figure (Jesus etc) was 100% legitimate in that context.

So yeah, still don't see how I was being offensive unless that is people are actively looking to be offended. Then it makes perfect sense.

And don't call me a troll. Trolls post things they don't necessarily believe JUST to irritate people. The posts to which you refer are my genuinely held opinions. There is a big difference.

But whatever, warning taken.