Moving From Pseudoscience To Actual Science

[current]

So? Nor were plenty of other biological traits of species. So what?

Plants communicate

[A-wal]

I'm confused.

 

You're claiming that mutation and natural selection can't explain plants that react to the behaviour of other plants when clearly this is not the case and both times I pointed this out you then said that it wasn't predicted by the model as if that in some way invalidates the explanation.

 

There's lots of traits that have been found in various forms of life that weren't predicted, but that in no way invalidates the model and the trait of some plants reacting to the behaviour of other plants is no different to how random mutation and natural selection lead to any other trait.

[JMJones0424]

Plants communicate

This is an observable fact.  What you have failed to expound upon is your assertion that this observation isn't explained by evolutionary theory.  I previously thought that this is because you misunderstood what a theory is.  A scientific theory is not a crystal ball that predicts all future observations.  Instead, a scientific theory is something that seeks to explain why observations must be as they are.  A good scientific theory can be used to make predictions of observations prior to those observations being made.  However, the fact that an observation predates a prediction is not alone evidence that the theory should be suspect, instead it is evidence of the failure of imagination of the scientists working in the field.  I have already tried to explain how one would go about showing that a scientific theory is an inaccurate representation of reality.  Perhaps one more attempt would be worthwhile.  A theory describes why observations are as they are.  If a theory is somewhat accurate, then one could make predictions of future observations based on the theory's explanation.  If future observations contradict predictions that must be true if the theory is correct, then the theory is lacking in explanatory power.  There is no reason, and it is in fact remarkably stupid, to require a theory to predict all future observations.  Theories are explanations of past observations.  If they are good, then they can predict future observations.    However, if a future observation is made without having a previous prediction, this is not in any way evidence that the theory is not useful.  What would be evidence that the theory is not useful is if the future observation could not be explained by the theory.  We do not require those that seek to explain natural phenomena to be somehow aware of all new observations that could possibly be made in the future.  I am sure that you can easily imagine a situation where an observation previously unimagined provides evidence for an existing theory.  You have already done so when linking what you thought was new evidence of plant communication.  This "new" evidence, if it can be explained by the existing theory, is not evidence that the theory is incorrect.

 

However, let's assume that the observations that are new to you are actually new.  How do these observations fit in with the explanation of previous observations that is evolutionary theory?  I maintain that they fit in quite well.  It seems to me to be easily understandable that plants, even of different species, may be more evolutionary fit to reproduce if they can recognize and react to the attack of a specific insect upon another organism.  However, just as a mercury switch thermometer reacts to its environment, no evidence you have provided leads me to conclude that any plant "decides" to do one thing over another.

Edited March 24, 2017 by JMJones0424

[current]

This is an observable fact.  What you have failed to expound upon is your assertion that this observation isn't explained by evolutionary theory.  I previously thought that this is because you misunderstood what a theory is.  A scientific theory is not a crystal ball that predicts all future observations.  Instead, a scientific theory is something that seeks to explain why observations must be as they are.  A good scientific theory can be used to make predictions of observations prior to those observations being made.  However, the fact that an observation predates a prediction is not alone evidence that the theory should be suspect, instead it is evidence of the failure of imagination of the scientists working in the field.  I have already tried to explain how one would go about showing that a scientific theory is an inaccurate representation of reality.  Perhaps one more attempt would be worthwhile.  A theory describes why observations are as they are.  If a theory is somewhat accurate, then one could make predictions of future observations based on the theory's explanation.  If future observations contradict predictions that must be true if the theory is correct, then the theory is lacking in explanatory power.  There is no reason, and it is in fact remarkably stupid, to require a theory to predict all future observations.  Theories are explanations of past observations.  If they are good, then they can predict future observations.    However, if a future observation is made without having a previous prediction, this is not in any way evidence that the theory is not useful.  What would be evidence that the theory is not useful is if the future observation could not be explained by the theory.  We do not require those that seek to explain natural phenomena to be somehow aware of all new observations that could possibly be made in the future.  I am sure that you can easily imagine a situation where an observation previously unimagined provides evidence for an existing theory.  You have already done so when linking what you thought was new evidence of plant communication.  This "new" evidence, if it can be explained by the existing theory, is not evidence that the theory is incorrect.

 

However, let's assume that the observations that are new to you are actually new.  How do these observations fit in with the explanation of previous observations that is evolutionary theory?  I maintain that they fit in quite well.  It seems to me to be easily understandable that plants, even of different species, may be more evolutionary fit to reproduce if they can recognize and react to the attack of a specific insect upon another organism.  However, just as a mercury switch thermometer reacts to its environment, no evidence you have provided leads me to conclude that any plant "decides" to do one thing over another.

Hmmm....

 

May not lead " you " to the conclusion that plant " decides " one thing over another .

 

But no theory of evolution provides any concept that plants can and do communicate .

 

Evolution is about adaptation not communication .

[Maine farmer]

 

Evolution is about adaptation not communication .

The ability to communicate is an adaptation.

[current]

The ability to communicate is an adaptation.

How so ?

[Maine farmer]

This seems obvious to me, so I will have trouble explaining it.  I need a little bit of time to adapt to this situation.

[current]

This seems obvious to me, so I will have trouble explaining it.  I need a little bit of time to adapt to this situation.

Not surprised .

[A-wal]

I'm still confused.

 

You're still claiming that mutation and natural selection can't explain plants that react to the behaviour of other plants when clearly this is still not the case and all three times I pointed this out you then said that it wasn't predicted by the model as if that in some way invalidates the explanation.

 

There are still lots of traits that have been found in various forms of life that still weren't predicted, but that still in no way invalidates the model and the trait of some plants reacting to the behaviour of other plants is still no different to how random mutation and natural selection lead to any other trait.

[JMJones0424]

But no theory of evolution provides any concept that plants can and do communicate .

 

Evolution is about adaptation not communication .

This is a lie.  You clearly either do not understand or are willfully misinterpreting what evolution is.  How on Earth did you come to the conclusion that "evolution is about adaptation not communication"?  The theory of evolution specifically assumes that organisms that are able to receive communicate that others are under attack by an outsider are more able to reproduce than those that can't.  Communication between plants is advantageous, therefore plants that can interpret signals from other attacked plants will be more successful in producing future generations.  This is what evolution is.  Your claim that evolution is about adaptation not communication ignores the fact that communication is, in fact, an adaptation.  I have a hard time concluding anything other than that you are spouting ignorant nonsense in support of your verifiably false claims.

 

An observation that plants communicate is explained by evolutionary theory because the plants that are able to recognize and react to the fact that other plants are under attack by a predator are more able to produce offspring than those that do not.  This is what evolutionary theory is- the change in population groups over generations.  I am not sure that, even after repeated corrections, you comprehend what we mean when we talk about evolutionary theory.  When you claim that, "no theory of evolution provides any concept that plants can and do communicate", you are simply wrong.  If you maintain such a falsehood, then you are lying.  I can provide one example of evolutionary theory providing a concept that plants can and do communicate, and as such, your claim is demonstrably false. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19837476

 

Regardless of your exhibited ignorance and idiocy, evolution is the best framework available to understand the change of groups of organisms over time.  You have provided no more appropriate alternative, in fact, in your ignorance, you have yet to provide an actual argument against evolutionary theory.  The article that your previously linked to as support of your claim that communication between plants can't be described by evolution specifically describes how plant communication may have evolved.  Had you read your own cited evidence, you would know this.  

 

For both Karban and Heil, the outstanding question is evolutionary: Why should one plant waste energy clueing in its competitors about a danger? They argue that plant communication is a misnomer; it really might just be plant eavesdropping. Rather than using the vascular system to send messages across meters-long distances, maybe plants release volatile chemicals as a faster, smarter way to communicate with themselves — Heil calls it a soliloquy. Other plants can then monitor these puffs of airborne data. Bolstering this theory, most of these chemical signals seem to travel no more than 50 to 100 centimeters, at which range a plant would mostly be signaling itself.

Edited March 25, 2017 by JMJones0424

[Maine farmer]

Not surprised .

I see the attempt at humor was lost on you.  JMJones0424 explained it quite well without the humor anyway.

Edited March 25, 2017 by Farming guy

[current]

 

Or as a village so to speak , which is attacked , and is being wipedout , the communication is about the surivial as a species .

[billvon]

But no theory of evolution provides any concept that plants can and do communicate .

 

 

Of course it does.  Plants that communicate survive better than plants that don't.  Thus those mutations survive.  Simple.