Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Im pretty sure scientists are f*cking with us

imabench
Posts: 21,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 7:06:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://news.yahoo.com...

Theyre claiming that plants can do complex math....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 7:29:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
They're anthropomorphizing the plant in a pretty ridiculous manner. Various tropic responses in plants may seem to be guided by conscious decisions, for example, but they're really just blind chemical interactions. These 'calculations' are the same thing. A piston assembly in Minecraft can carry out complex tasks; that doesn't mean that it's conscious. Programs set to perform calculations don't do math. In short, they are f*cking with you, probably for publicity.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 7:31:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 7:06:54 PM, imabench wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com...

Theyre claiming that plants can do complex math....

Lol, if you call what a calculator does complex math then yes. But that's like saying a soap film does complex math because it can work out the minimal surface required for a given outline.

The plant doesn't sit down with a piece of paper and work it out, it just has simple biological mechanisms that happen to lead it to useful behaviour that uses a number or property that we study in mathematics.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 7:35:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
IDK how they came to the conclusion that they do math. It is not a cognitive response.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 7:50:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The whole "doing maths" in the normal sense isn't the claim the scientists are making - that's the journalists.

What the scientists found is that the plants adjust their rate of starch consumption so as to make the most efficient use of their food. This is done via chemical arithmetic. Certain chemicals in the plants leaves stimulate the consumption of starch while others inhibit it - the ones that stimulate starch consumption are released according to the amount of starch the leaf has available (so more starch, more starch-stimulating chemicals) and the ones that inhibit starch consumption are released according to the time until daylight (based on a rough internal clock; so more time left until the next day, more starch inhibiting chemicals) and the rate of starch consumption is determined by the ratio of these two chemicals. This is a rough summary of the findings - the scientists aren't saying that plants get out a pen and a paper and do some maths to determine how quickly they should consume their starches, that's the journalists oversensationalising their claims.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 7:53:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 7:50:15 PM, Enji wrote:
The whole "doing maths" in the normal sense isn't the claim the scientists are making - that's the journalists.

What the scientists found is that the plants adjust their rate of starch consumption so as to make the most efficient use of their food. This is done via chemical arithmetic. Certain chemicals in the plants leaves stimulate the consumption of starch while others inhibit it - the ones that stimulate starch consumption are released according to the amount of starch the leaf has available (so more starch, more starch-stimulating chemicals) and the ones that inhibit starch consumption are released according to the time until daylight (based on a rough internal clock; so more time left until the next day, more starch inhibiting chemicals) and the rate of starch consumption is determined by the ratio of these two chemicals. This is a rough summary of the findings - the scientists aren't saying that plants get out a pen and a paper and do some maths to determine how quickly they should consume their starches, that's the journalists oversensationalising their claims.

It's almost as bad as the 'sheep eating plant'. Scientists say: 'Sheep may get stuck on this plant, and may die, which may help the plant by enriching the soil.'

Journalist translation: 'THIS PLANT LURES IN SHEEP AND KILLS THEM IN COLD BLOOD, SO THAT THEY MAY SUBSIST ON THEIR FLESH!'
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 8:08:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Chemicals doing division, isn't it?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 3:14:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 7:06:54 PM, imabench wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com...

Theyre claiming that plants can do complex math....

Lol they'll be kicking our arses at chess next.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 3:35:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 7:50:15 PM, Enji wrote:
The whole "doing maths" in the normal sense isn't the claim the scientists are making - that's the journalists.

What the scientists found is that the plants adjust their rate of starch consumption so as to make the most efficient use of their food. This is done via chemical arithmetic. Certain chemicals in the plants leaves stimulate the consumption of starch while others inhibit it - the ones that stimulate starch consumption are released according to the amount of starch the leaf has available (so more starch, more starch-stimulating chemicals) and the ones that inhibit starch consumption are released according to the time until daylight (based on a rough internal clock; so more time left until the next day, more starch inhibiting chemicals) and the rate of starch consumption is determined by the ratio of these two chemicals. This is a rough summary of the findings - the scientists aren't saying that plants get out a pen and a paper and do some maths to determine how quickly they should consume their starches, that's the journalists oversensationalising their claims.

Yeah, so plants aren't cognitively doing math, but somebody did, somebody programmed the algorithm into the plants. It seems another obvious example of ID to me, but I'm sure I'm an uniformed idiot for thinking so. I never hear much about alleged plant evolution, come to think of it.
This space for rent.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 3:39:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 3:35:25 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/23/2013 7:50:15 PM, Enji wrote:
The whole "doing maths" in the normal sense isn't the claim the scientists are making - that's the journalists.

What the scientists found is that the plants adjust their rate of starch consumption so as to make the most efficient use of their food. This is done via chemical arithmetic. Certain chemicals in the plants leaves stimulate the consumption of starch while others inhibit it - the ones that stimulate starch consumption are released according to the amount of starch the leaf has available (so more starch, more starch-stimulating chemicals) and the ones that inhibit starch consumption are released according to the time until daylight (based on a rough internal clock; so more time left until the next day, more starch inhibiting chemicals) and the rate of starch consumption is determined by the ratio of these two chemicals. This is a rough summary of the findings - the scientists aren't saying that plants get out a pen and a paper and do some maths to determine how quickly they should consume their starches, that's the journalists oversensationalising their claims.

Yeah, so plants aren't cognitively doing math, but somebody did, somebody programmed the algorithm into the plants. It seems another obvious example of ID to me, but I'm sure I'm an uniformed idiot for thinking so. I never hear much about alleged plant evolution, come to think of it.

Are you saying that there aren't selective pressures for being able to use stored energy more efficiently in order to avoid starvation and therefore this cannot be a result of evolution? Because that would make you an uninformed idiot.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 3:55:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 3:39:26 PM, Enji wrote:
At 6/26/2013 3:35:25 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/23/2013 7:50:15 PM, Enji wrote:
The whole "doing maths" in the normal sense isn't the claim the scientists are making - that's the journalists.

What the scientists found is that the plants adjust their rate of starch consumption so as to make the most efficient use of their food. This is done via chemical arithmetic. Certain chemicals in the plants leaves stimulate the consumption of starch while others inhibit it - the ones that stimulate starch consumption are released according to the amount of starch the leaf has available (so more starch, more starch-stimulating chemicals) and the ones that inhibit starch consumption are released according to the time until daylight (based on a rough internal clock; so more time left until the next day, more starch inhibiting chemicals) and the rate of starch consumption is determined by the ratio of these two chemicals. This is a rough summary of the findings - the scientists aren't saying that plants get out a pen and a paper and do some maths to determine how quickly they should consume their starches, that's the journalists oversensationalising their claims.

Yeah, so plants aren't cognitively doing math, but somebody did, somebody programmed the algorithm into the plants. It seems another obvious example of ID to me, but I'm sure I'm an uniformed idiot for thinking so. I never hear much about alleged plant evolution, come to think of it.

Are you saying that there aren't selective pressures for being able to use stored energy more efficiently in order to avoid starvation and therefore this cannot be a result of evolution? Because that would make you an uninformed idiot.

Oh, no, I'm all for selective pressures, man. I'm sure that sophisticated feedback loops will be selected once the plants magically create them for themselves.
This space for rent.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2013 2:11:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 3:55:52 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/26/2013 3:39:26 PM, Enji wrote:
At 6/26/2013 3:35:25 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/23/2013 7:50:15 PM, Enji wrote:
The whole "doing maths" in the normal sense isn't the claim the scientists are making - that's the journalists.

What the scientists found is that the plants adjust their rate of starch consumption so as to make the most efficient use of their food. This is done via chemical arithmetic. Certain chemicals in the plants leaves stimulate the consumption of starch while others inhibit it - the ones that stimulate starch consumption are released according to the amount of starch the leaf has available (so more starch, more starch-stimulating chemicals) and the ones that inhibit starch consumption are released according to the time until daylight (based on a rough internal clock; so more time left until the next day, more starch inhibiting chemicals) and the rate of starch consumption is determined by the ratio of these two chemicals. This is a rough summary of the findings - the scientists aren't saying that plants get out a pen and a paper and do some maths to determine how quickly they should consume their starches, that's the journalists oversensationalising their claims.

Yeah, so plants aren't cognitively doing math, but somebody did, somebody programmed the algorithm into the plants. It seems another obvious example of ID to me, but I'm sure I'm an uniformed idiot for thinking so. I never hear much about alleged plant evolution, come to think of it.

Are you saying that there aren't selective pressures for being able to use stored energy more efficiently in order to avoid starvation and therefore this cannot be a result of evolution? Because that would make you an uninformed idiot.

Oh, no, I'm all for selective pressures, man. I'm sure that sophisticated feedback loops will be selected once the plants magically create them for themselves.

Well, since you don't think new traits can arise through mutation, I suppose it would need to be magic. But you've already been shown a few examples of an increase in specified information with new traits arising. Studies into biochemical networks reveal their modularity. Evolutionary explanations are at least plausible, and critiques that such networks are irreducibly complex are false.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2013 2:14:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is journalists f*cking with you.

It's identical to claiming you know calculus because if someone throws a ball at you, you can mentally predict where that ball is going to go.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2013 2:19:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 3:55:52 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/26/2013 3:39:26 PM, Enji wrote:
At 6/26/2013 3:35:25 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/23/2013 7:50:15 PM, Enji wrote:
The whole "doing maths" in the normal sense isn't the claim the scientists are making - that's the journalists.

What the scientists found is that the plants adjust their rate of starch consumption so as to make the most efficient use of their food. This is done via chemical arithmetic. Certain chemicals in the plants leaves stimulate the consumption of starch while others inhibit it - the ones that stimulate starch consumption are released according to the amount of starch the leaf has available (so more starch, more starch-stimulating chemicals) and the ones that inhibit starch consumption are released according to the time until daylight (based on a rough internal clock; so more time left until the next day, more starch inhibiting chemicals) and the rate of starch consumption is determined by the ratio of these two chemicals. This is a rough summary of the findings - the scientists aren't saying that plants get out a pen and a paper and do some maths to determine how quickly they should consume their starches, that's the journalists oversensationalising their claims.

Yeah, so plants aren't cognitively doing math, but somebody did, somebody programmed the algorithm into the plants. It seems another obvious example of ID to me, but I'm sure I'm an uniformed idiot for thinking so. I never hear much about alleged plant evolution, come to think of it.

Are you saying that there aren't selective pressures for being able to use stored energy more efficiently in order to avoid starvation and therefore this cannot be a result of evolution? Because that would make you an uninformed idiot.

Oh, no, I'm all for selective pressures, man. I'm sure that sophisticated feedback loops will be selected once the plants magically create them for themselves.

You never hear anything about plant evolution because you've never looked.

Again, feel free to start with a high school textbook. That's where I learned how, chemically, plants "know" how to turn towards the sun.

Same way a circadian clock can "know" the time of day once exposed to sunlight.

It's called BASIC CHEMISTRY.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2013 2:42:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Im pretty sure scientists are f*cking with us" There is nothing a group of govt funded scientists won't say to keep funding flowing.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2013 2:59:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/28/2013 2:19:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/26/2013 3:55:52 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/26/2013 3:39:26 PM, Enji wrote:
At 6/26/2013 3:35:25 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/23/2013 7:50:15 PM, Enji wrote:
The whole "doing maths" in the normal sense isn't the claim the scientists are making - that's the journalists.

What the scientists found is that the plants adjust their rate of starch consumption so as to make the most efficient use of their food. This is done via chemical arithmetic. Certain chemicals in the plants leaves stimulate the consumption of starch while others inhibit it - the ones that stimulate starch consumption are released according to the amount of starch the leaf has available (so more starch, more starch-stimulating chemicals) and the ones that inhibit starch consumption are released according to the time until daylight (based on a rough internal clock; so more time left until the next day, more starch inhibiting chemicals) and the rate of starch consumption is determined by the ratio of these two chemicals. This is a rough summary of the findings - the scientists aren't saying that plants get out a pen and a paper and do some maths to determine how quickly they should consume their starches, that's the journalists oversensationalising their claims.

Yeah, so plants aren't cognitively doing math, but somebody did, somebody programmed the algorithm into the plants. It seems another obvious example of ID to me, but I'm sure I'm an uniformed idiot for thinking so. I never hear much about alleged plant evolution, come to think of it.

Are you saying that there aren't selective pressures for being able to use stored energy more efficiently in order to avoid starvation and therefore this cannot be a result of evolution? Because that would make you an uninformed idiot.

Oh, no, I'm all for selective pressures, man. I'm sure that sophisticated feedback loops will be selected once the plants magically create them for themselves.

You never hear anything about plant evolution because you've never looked.

Again, feel free to start with a high school textbook. That's where I learned how, chemically, plants "know" how to turn towards the sun.

Same way a circadian clock can "know" the time of day once exposed to sunlight.

It's called BASIC CHEMISTRY.

Yeah, but BASIC CHEMISTRY is not plant evolution, you see. So I'm guessing you've never thought about it, but you just know plants must have evolved too, right? Evolution is kind of like the blessed virgin, you just gotta show proper respect if you want to be a decent human being!
This space for rent.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2013 3:10:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/28/2013 2:59:35 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/28/2013 2:19:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/26/2013 3:55:52 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/26/2013 3:39:26 PM, Enji wrote:
At 6/26/2013 3:35:25 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/23/2013 7:50:15 PM, Enji wrote:
The whole "doing maths" in the normal sense isn't the claim the scientists are making - that's the journalists.

What the scientists found is that the plants adjust their rate of starch consumption so as to make the most efficient use of their food. This is done via chemical arithmetic. Certain chemicals in the plants leaves stimulate the consumption of starch while others inhibit it - the ones that stimulate starch consumption are released according to the amount of starch the leaf has available (so more starch, more starch-stimulating chemicals) and the ones that inhibit starch consumption are released according to the time until daylight (based on a rough internal clock; so more time left until the next day, more starch inhibiting chemicals) and the rate of starch consumption is determined by the ratio of these two chemicals. This is a rough summary of the findings - the scientists aren't saying that plants get out a pen and a paper and do some maths to determine how quickly they should consume their starches, that's the journalists oversensationalising their claims.

Yeah, so plants aren't cognitively doing math, but somebody did, somebody programmed the algorithm into the plants. It seems another obvious example of ID to me, but I'm sure I'm an uniformed idiot for thinking so. I never hear much about alleged plant evolution, come to think of it.

Are you saying that there aren't selective pressures for being able to use stored energy more efficiently in order to avoid starvation and therefore this cannot be a result of evolution? Because that would make you an uninformed idiot.

Oh, no, I'm all for selective pressures, man. I'm sure that sophisticated feedback loops will be selected once the plants magically create them for themselves.

You never hear anything about plant evolution because you've never looked.

Again, feel free to start with a high school textbook. That's where I learned how, chemically, plants "know" how to turn towards the sun.

Same way a circadian clock can "know" the time of day once exposed to sunlight.

It's called BASIC CHEMISTRY.

Yeah, but BASIC CHEMISTRY is not plant evolution, you see. So I'm guessing you've never thought about it, but you just know plants must have evolved too, right? Evolution is kind of like the blessed virgin, you just gotta show proper respect if you want to be a decent human being!

Your constant demonstrations of your willful ignorance on the subject of evolution is astounding. The most trivial of web searches would give you evidence of plant evolution, including plant speciation. Of course, you don't want to do that, because then you might have to admit you're wrong! No, much better to accuse others of "never thinking about it", right?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2013 5:49:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/28/2013 2:59:35 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/28/2013 2:19:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/26/2013 3:55:52 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/26/2013 3:39:26 PM, Enji wrote:
At 6/26/2013 3:35:25 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/23/2013 7:50:15 PM, Enji wrote:
The whole "doing maths" in the normal sense isn't the claim the scientists are making - that's the journalists.

What the scientists found is that the plants adjust their rate of starch consumption so as to make the most efficient use of their food. This is done via chemical arithmetic. Certain chemicals in the plants leaves stimulate the consumption of starch while others inhibit it - the ones that stimulate starch consumption are released according to the amount of starch the leaf has available (so more starch, more starch-stimulating chemicals) and the ones that inhibit starch consumption are released according to the time until daylight (based on a rough internal clock; so more time left until the next day, more starch inhibiting chemicals) and the rate of starch consumption is determined by the ratio of these two chemicals. This is a rough summary of the findings - the scientists aren't saying that plants get out a pen and a paper and do some maths to determine how quickly they should consume their starches, that's the journalists oversensationalising their claims.

Yeah, so plants aren't cognitively doing math, but somebody did, somebody programmed the algorithm into the plants. It seems another obvious example of ID to me, but I'm sure I'm an uniformed idiot for thinking so. I never hear much about alleged plant evolution, come to think of it.

Are you saying that there aren't selective pressures for being able to use stored energy more efficiently in order to avoid starvation and therefore this cannot be a result of evolution? Because that would make you an uninformed idiot.

Oh, no, I'm all for selective pressures, man. I'm sure that sophisticated feedback loops will be selected once the plants magically create them for themselves.

You never hear anything about plant evolution because you've never looked.

Again, feel free to start with a high school textbook. That's where I learned how, chemically, plants "know" how to turn towards the sun.

Same way a circadian clock can "know" the time of day once exposed to sunlight.

It's called BASIC CHEMISTRY.

Yeah, but BASIC CHEMISTRY is not plant evolution, you see. So I'm guessing you've never thought about it, but you just know plants must have evolved too, right? Evolution is kind of like the blessed virgin, you just gotta show proper respect if you want to be a decent human being!

The basic chemistry bit explains what you called plant intelligence.

Again, the most basic high school textbook the evolution of seed plants from progymnosperms, heterospory (spore production), to gymnosperms, then angiosperms.

http://www.seedbiology.de...

Seeing as how we've both (I hope) taken high school biology, why would you think I've never even considered plant evolution? Did you ignore that part of the class? Were you asleep?

Will you ask me next if I've ever considered how single-celled organisms gained a nucleus or became eukaryotic?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2013 8:32:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/28/2013 2:19:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/26/2013 3:55:52 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/26/2013 3:39:26 PM, Enji wrote:
At 6/26/2013 3:35:25 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/23/2013 7:50:15 PM, Enji wrote:
The whole "doing maths" in the normal sense isn't the claim the scientists are making - that's the journalists.

What the scientists found is that the plants adjust their rate of starch consumption so as to make the most efficient use of their food. This is done via chemical arithmetic. Certain chemicals in the plants leaves stimulate the consumption of starch while others inhibit it - the ones that stimulate starch consumption are released according to the amount of starch the leaf has available (so more starch, more starch-stimulating chemicals) and the ones that inhibit starch consumption are released according to the time until daylight (based on a rough internal clock; so more time left until the next day, more starch inhibiting chemicals) and the rate of starch consumption is determined by the ratio of these two chemicals. This is a rough summary of the findings - the scientists aren't saying that plants get out a pen and a paper and do some maths to determine how quickly they should consume their starches, that's the journalists oversensationalising their claims.

Yeah, so plants aren't cognitively doing math, but somebody did, somebody programmed the algorithm into the plants. It seems another obvious example of ID to me, but I'm sure I'm an uniformed idiot for thinking so. I never hear much about alleged plant evolution, come to think of it.

Are you saying that there aren't selective pressures for being able to use stored energy more efficiently in order to avoid starvation and therefore this cannot be a result of evolution? Because that would make you an uninformed idiot.

Oh, no, I'm all for selective pressures, man. I'm sure that sophisticated feedback loops will be selected once the plants magically create them for themselves.

You never hear anything about plant evolution because you've never looked.

I've always though that most people don't hear about plant evolution because they're focused on the creationism/evolution debate, which is more about people and their place in nature than it is about nature. The people on the creationist side stay away from plants because it's a minefield for them, and doesn't play into the emotional side of of the argument. The common man is more likely to be incredulous about a sparrow being related to a T-Rex than he is about a hyacinth being related to an orchid. We also have an incredibly more detailed understanding nature of plant evolution, since they're sedentary and spread more slowly than mammals, leaving behind more traces wherever they go. And scientist tend to share what is sensational with the general public, and, well, we botanists never get much love on that side of things ='( But at least we're not mycologists!

Again, feel free to start with a high school textbook. That's where I learned how, chemically, plants "know" how to turn towards the sun.

Same way a circadian clock can "know" the time of day once exposed to sunlight.

It's called BASIC CHEMISTRY.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 8:25:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/28/2013 5:49:24 PM, Wnope wrote:
...

The basic chemistry bit explains what you called plant intelligence.

I never said anything about plant intelligence.


Again, the most basic high school textbook the evolution of seed plants from progymnosperms, heterospory (spore production), to gymnosperms, then angiosperms.


Well, look, I'm sure they have elaborate hypotheses, I didn't mean nobody ever thought about it. My mistake, making an unconsidered bit of personal commentary.

But it's the same same with other evolution - elaborate stories, but no proof, no testing or demonstration of said hypotheses.


Seeing as how we've both (I hope) taken high school biology, why would you think I've never even considered plant evolution? Did you ignore that part of the class? Were you asleep?


I'm sorry for doubting you. It won't happen again. I'm sure you keep all your high school textbooks in your basement and stay fresh on them.
This space for rent.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 1:55:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 8:25:17 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/28/2013 5:49:24 PM, Wnope wrote:
...

The basic chemistry bit explains what you called plant intelligence.

I never said anything about plant intelligence.


Again, the most basic high school textbook the evolution of seed plants from progymnosperms, heterospory (spore production), to gymnosperms, then angiosperms.


Well, look, I'm sure they have elaborate hypotheses, I didn't mean nobody ever thought about it. My mistake, making an unconsidered bit of personal commentary.

But it's the same same with other evolution - elaborate stories, but no proof, no testing or demonstration of said hypotheses.


Seeing as how we've both (I hope) taken high school biology, why would you think I've never even considered plant evolution? Did you ignore that part of the class? Were you asleep?


I'm sorry for doubting you. It won't happen again. I'm sure you keep all your high school textbooks in your basement and stay fresh on them.

No, in fact, I haven't had to refer to high school textbooks so much while conversing about biology in quite a long time.

However, discussions with you can't seem to get past that level of discourse.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 4:46:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 7:06:54 PM, imabench wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com...

Theyre claiming that plants can do complex math....

That's nothing, I dropped a rock and apparently it calculated f=ma and fell accordingly.

Rocks can do complex math too!
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 5:20:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 4:46:32 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/23/2013 7:06:54 PM, imabench wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com...

Theyre claiming that plants can do complex math....

That's nothing, I dropped a rock and apparently it calculated f=ma and fell accordingly.

Rocks can do complex math too!

You think THAT is interesting? Stars are calculating the energy release from fusion and releasing a proportional amount of energy in the form of heat and light!

And I thought that those stars were just full of hot air...

Anyways, I'm pretty sure there is an XKCD comic for this.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 8:10:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
A "publish or perish" culture in which scientific careers rely on the volume of citations is distorting the results of research, a new study suggests.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 8:19:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 8:10:27 AM, sadolite wrote:
A "publish or perish" culture in which scientific careers rely on the volume of citations is distorting the results of research, a new study suggests.

Cute :-)
This space for rent.
Drayson
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2013 7:41:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 7:32:24 PM, Enji wrote:
^ The journalists are, not so much the scientists.

Well said. It's something that I've noticed most people have difficulty grasping, the fact that people who write articles in newspapers are in virtually every instance, NOT scientists. And on top of that, when they report on scientific research, they have a very short space to write about something really complicated (that may take up 100 pages of a journal in some instances)

So combine their layman's understanding of science with limited time and space, and you end up with news articles that can often give a very dumbed down (and in some cases, totally mistaken) explanation.

And then people like the OP of this thread will assume what's in the article is an accurate representation of the work being done, and say "Oh those silly scientists, look at what they're claiming"

A good example I remember was a news story showing up everywhere online and in various newspapers excitedly stating that scientists had finally answered the question "What came first, the chicken or the egg?"

As it turned out, what had actually happened was that some researchers had managed to isolate the enzyme that caused the shells of eggs to harden. That was all. Somewhere along the way a scientist had made a tongue-in-cheek remark to the effect of "Well I guess that means the chicken must have come first", likely accompanied by laughter from other scientists, and some journalist overhearing that got completely the wrong idea and loudly proclaimed to the world that a great riddle had been solved
"I'm not saying I don't trust you...and I'm not saying I do. But I don't"

-Topper Harley