Jbuza wrote:
I agree that they got the 40% increase through experimentation, but the environment they created for the plants was based upon their model of how things iwll be like in 100 years.
Correct.
Jbuza wrote:
You are correct that different climates may effect the experiment, the results are inconclusive, however the data does not seem promising in reagrds to DAD's notion of a plant growing to full size in a matter of days/weeks.
Yes I agree with this, I doubt that we can attribute the growth to a different balance of the atmosphere even in conjunction with daily watering from underneath.
Agreed, not sure what to make of the mist you speak of but that's ok.
=)
Jbuza wrote:These two factors do indicate increased growth, and it can't be denied that earlier in earths history their were animals growing much larger as well.
There are theories regarding this. Mostly dealing with evolutionary cycles caused by a balance between advantages in size(selective survival advantage) and disadvantage of longer gestation periods(decreased adaptability).
Jbuza wrote:Perhaps a bit off topic, but take the North AMerican Bull Moose. Look at him in say Maine or Quebec and he will average 1000 perhaps 1200 pounds, but if you look at him in Alaska he can tip the scale at nearly twice that size.
Is it entirely genetic? I have read and I will see if I can find something about climate change effecting the higher and lower latitudes the most. Not sure if that means that CO2 conctrations are higher in these palces or not, though.
Not off-topic at all. The difference in size is most likely a combination of genetic and environmental factors. Note these factors are interelated, as the environment has an effect on genetics and genetics in turn affects reproductive success.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
