Well, given that (i) plants don’t have a nervous system, and (ii) plants and animals are two entirely different taxonomic kingdoms, I’d say that idea is nonsense.
What enables a sunflower to strive to face the sun?
Well, given that (i) plants don’t have a nervous system, and (ii) plants and animals are two entirely different taxonomic kingdoms, I’d say that idea is nonsense.
These are mysteriously entitites we know almost nothing about.
Stop being ridiculous.
They are alive but immobile. This says they possess a thinking ability.....
What enables a sunflower to strive to face the sun?
they move within the same immobile position,
Idle Mind said:
What about the other side of this? People rushing in and attributing all manners of consciousness, planning and memory on the part of plants, all based on the way the results of a particular study were explained.
Phlogistician said:
Sorry, now you are twisting words so much they have become meaningless.
Well, hang on now. A nervous system does have a very specific definition within biological systems.It would be very easy to overstate these outcomes. But when the proposition that someone might have identified a plant's nervous system° is met with responses that it can't be a nervous system because it doesn't look like an animal's nervous system, well, the response seems kind of ... um ... er ... yeah, stupid.
Look at the arguments against Karpinski's findings: insisting on narrowed definitions, calling him a bad scientist (and, presumably, everyone else in the Society for Experimental Biology who didn't object to his presentation), or arguing that it can't be called a nervous system because it doesn't look like an animal's nervous system. These aren't what we might call rational objections.
The nervous system is an organ system containing a network of specialized cells called neurons that coordinate the actions of an animal and transmit signals between different parts of its body.
But there is something very desperate about the objections so far.
Other than the fact that the last common ancestor of plants and animals didn't have a nervous system I see nothing wrong with your idea.How about the idea of a plant's nervous system being the evolutionary seed of own human nervous system?
Idle Mind said:
Note: "an organ system containing a network of specialized cells called neurons." Plants do not have neurons and therefore, by definition, do not have a nervous system.
No it doesn't. It just requires the ability to react biochemically to environmental inputs. You'll be claiming next that stones have to think in order to fall in gravity field.
“Almost nothing”, eh? We know more about the genetics, biochemistry and cell biology of E.coli than any other organism on the planet.
Do you not see the contradiction?
You've had the correct term, 'sessile'.
By move, I mean from one place to another. One must adopt the most plausable path of thought available.
Note in the line you quote from me, my inclusion "so poorly reported". I'm not made uncomfortable by Karpinski's results, I'm saying the the OP's link and the public description of the findings is so bad that no useful information can be taken from it. The experimental model may be outstanding, but this report if those procedures is lacking."[So the plant] has a specific memory for the light which builds its immunity against pathogens, and it can adjust to varying light conditions."
He said that plants used information encrypted in the light to immunise themselves against seasonal pathogens.
True, though, that one could follow River-wind's example and simply retreat into pseudoscientific rejection, presuming to know more than the scientists involved:
"The bit about shining light on the plant and then trying to then infect it with a virus is either so poorly designed or simply so poorly reported that no useful information can be gleaned from it, IMO. Was the control held in the dark (and therefor possibly short on immediate free glucose)?"
I mean, it's true that some people can be incredibly myopic in their research, but that's no basis for presuming that a world-class biologist is incapable of thinking of the most basic counterproposals that anyone attending an internet discussion board can come up with. Karpinski presented his findings at the annual meeting of the Society for Experimental Biology, and so far there hasn't been a massive outcry among his peers.
....
Really, what is it that makes people so uncomfortable about Karpinski's outcomes?
Turgor pressure requires thought? Auxins require thought?...they turn and point to the sun...This requires a thought transmission facility, which some call instinct.
1) This experiment doesn't seem to prove the existence of an electrical signaling system to me.How about the idea of a plant's nervous system being the evolutionary seed of own human nervous system? Would there have been much difference in concept and evolution?
But you're incorrect. Expansion is NOT proof that the universe is finite, hence my request for a link.I think you are being ridiculous. Go ban me. You are talking of a poster who asks for proof in almost every post - whreby the rules are abused. E.g. I stated the universe is finite 'because' it is expanding - the expansion is the proof, and this factor caused the premise of a finite universe.
But I didn't ask for proof I asked for a link to support your assertion.Here, one cannot again ask for proof - there is no means to prove the universe is expanding outside of this factor.
Yes, that detail did not go unnoticed. But, I'm not sure the point you're trying to make.As long as you're being very specific, I would point out that your definition specifically applies to animal nervous systems
But you're incorrect. Expansion is NOT proof that the universe is finite, hence my request for a link.
And bear in mind that you have previously made claims that you have failed to back up... (false ones at that).
But I didn't ask for proof I asked for a link to support your assertion.
Here's a plant that can talk as well and if it doesn't like what you say it will just eat you!!
Fail. You made the claim, show how it's true. Or are you under the impression that you can't add 1 to infinity?Prove it.
Untrue.I have produced responses and links but all you said was 'false' - that is not how a debate works.
Also untrue, hence science's quest to discren exactly what the geometry of the universe is: i.e. is it finite or infinie.It is wholly logical and commonly held with almost all science premises, if the universe is expanding it is thereby finite.
That's speculation on your part.It was not infinite 10 seconds ago.
Fail. Geneisis is not science, nor is it scientific.The link was provided by a line in Genesis, given not as a theological but scientific premise: the premise of 'CHANGE' is both the first recorded pointer of a finite and infinite proof.
I see you don't know how this works. If YOU made the intial claim then is up to you to support tht claim, rather than me show you support for a counter claim.That is acceptable counter evidence compared to a response saying 'false' or 'prove it'.