|
|
Post by ChairmanWalker on Nov 12, 2011 8:32:24 GMT -5
Discuss.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wingette on Nov 12, 2011 8:43:24 GMT -5
I thought the "sea" part sort of made trees irrelevant. However I guess they are both types of vegetation, HENCE ;
Vegetation = Vegetation,
Tree = Seaweed!
|
|
|
|
Post by ChairmanWalker on Nov 12, 2011 8:56:54 GMT -5
Great job, we've cracked this one!
|
|
|
|
Post by Wingette on Nov 12, 2011 9:03:42 GMT -5
But then the question arises when you observe the differences in taste and visual perception. I went outside to take a taste test of a tree, vigorously licking the bark, and comparing that to my memory of seaweed from sushi. A clear taste difference, with the seaweed falling behind in the abrasion factor.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChairmanWalker on Nov 12, 2011 9:16:59 GMT -5
Indeed there are quite subtle variations, perhaps then they are simply two different species from the same family?
|
|
|
|
Post by Wingette on Nov 12, 2011 9:21:32 GMT -5
Potentially, I mean they both utilize photosynthesis, what further similarities can be drawn?
|
|
|
|
Post by ChairmanWalker on Nov 12, 2011 9:23:06 GMT -5
That is true, but seaweed does usually photosynthesise in a more liquid environment, commonly referred to ask the sea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wingette on Nov 12, 2011 20:40:01 GMT -5
This is true, and seaweed does not have a trunk like trees do either!
|
|
|
|
Post by ChairmanWalker on Nov 17, 2011 7:43:50 GMT -5
Well you could arrange a piece of sushi with lettuce so it looks like the trunk of a tree with some leaves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wingette on Nov 17, 2011 9:45:56 GMT -5
This has gone too far. I'm settling it.
Trees = Seaweed
|
|
|
|
Post by ChairmanWalker on Nov 23, 2011 7:06:39 GMT -5
Agreed!
|
|
