Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
I understand you are stating that the reason he's working from conclusion to facts is because he wants to support a religious argument. You are not him, however, so unless you can link a quote with him saying this, I don't consider you to have the right to speak for him.
Originally Posted by Hespera
Now, please answer whether your idea that plants are not alive is in any way related to the story of the garden of eden and how there was no death there.
JUV...
Not in motivation, otherwise, I could not argue for it on science. But, if my view is good, it will certainly support whatever says in the Bible.QUOTE
Make what you will of it i guess. Or ask him. To me it looks like the motivation. If what i said amounts to speaking for him, then thats not good. he should clarify, if I misinterpreted.
It's amazing, isn't it? When human blood is left out in the sun, it doesn't turn to water! It just dries up and turns brown. When sap is left in out in the sun, it doesn't turn to water! It dries up and turns hard. I guess neither has water in it.
Phloem sap consists primarily of water, with sugars, hormones, and mineral elements dissolved in it. Phloem sap transport occurs from sources (locations where carbohydrates are produced or stored) toward sinks (locations where carbohydrates are utilized). The pressure flow hypothesis proposes a mechanism for phloem sap transport.
I generally try not to quote wiki, but this question was elementary enough that wikipedia is sufficiently accurate- I was taught in gradeschool what sap was made of. Now, the rest of your argument boils down to 'I have a personal opinion, it trumps your citation of facts' so please, if you have a source stating that sap isn't composed of water, and isn't used by trees for their water content, then by all means provide it. I'll give you a hint though: Cellullar respiration, a critical part of metabolism, relies upon water to donate oxygen and hydrogen. During draught periods or during the night, cellular respiration does not stop functioning just because a tree doesn't have access to water in the soil, otherwise the plant would die (death is a product of life, you see? How can inanimate objects die?). Ergo the sap becomes the donor for the water needed to carry out cellular respiration. This is much like your blood being a donor for water so that your cells can perform cellular respiration.
Now how about you be kind and answer my questions,
"Your attempt to define life as 'possessing an internal circulation system' is about as arbitrary as it gets. Why is it you want to define life this way, what is your logic behind this definition?"
When did I make a geologic argument?
Anyway, so you define life as being a particular subset of life. What predictions does ID make as to where we might find life as defined by you?
So now we have it, the water goes up the tree in the xylem, down the tree in the phloem, then is recycled back to the xylem and goes up it again over and over till it evaporates through the leaves. So yes, the water forms a full cycle within the tree.
Thanks. This time, you do provide a preliminary answer to my question (mainly on 780). Now I need to think about it so I can come up with a new question. As I said before, I am exploring this idea. I don't have a solid scientific understanding of it. I know what my next question would look like. But I need to figure out the detail. It is amazing to me that the proposed mechanism of fluid transportation in plant is still said as "theory" and "hypothesis" (in Wikipedia). I don't know what is the reason. But, thanks again for finding the reference for me.
In the absence of proof, there's only the absence.
Join Date: 27th November 2008
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 1,217
Blessings: 29,500
Reps: 2,160,465,330,633 (power: 0)
Originally Posted by juvenissun
Thanks. This time, you do provide a preliminary answer to my question (mainly on 780). Now I need to think about it so I can come up with a new question. As I said before, I am exploring this idea. I don't have a solid scientific understanding of it. I know what my next question would look like. But I need to figure out the detail. It is amazing to me that the proposed mechanism of fluid transportation in plant is still said as "theory" and "hypothesis" (in Wikipedia). I don't know what is the reason. But, thanks again for finding the reference for me.
You did not ask any geologic question.
Righto, that was confusing me.
A theory is a well-substantiated explanation or theorem.
A hypothesis is an explanation or a theorem that is still in contention for one reason or another.
Ergo we can state that the xylem transport mechanism is well-established. We may discover more about it but our existing theory is unlikely to change significantly in the forseable future. The phloem transport mechanism is still in contention. It explains what we observe (omnidirectional flow from source to sink) but has not gone through a sufficient amount of testing to earn the title theory, so it's reasonable to say that at any moment it could be tossed in preference to a better hypothesis.
1 down, two to go! I also had someone else earlier request an answer to one of these as well:
"Your attempt to define life as 'possessing an internal circulation system' is about as arbitrary as it gets. Why is it you want to define life this way, what is your logic behind this definition?"
Anyway, so you define life as being a particular subset of life. What predictions does ID make as to where we might find life as defined by you?
To add a question and appease my curiosity, since you're stepping back to reassess, does this mean you might consider plants to be living, or are you going to revise your definition of life?
A theory is a well-substantiated explanation or theorem.
A hypothesis is an explanation or a theorem that is still in contention for one reason or another.
Ergo we can state that the xylem transport mechanism is well-established. We may discover more about it but our existing theory is unlikely to change significantly in the forseable future. The phloem transport mechanism is still in contention. It explains what we observe (omnidirectional flow from source to sink) but has not gone through a sufficient amount of testing to earn the title theory, so it's reasonable to say that at any moment it could be tossed in preference to a better hypothesis.
1 down, two to go! I also had someone else earlier request an answer to one of these as well:
"Your attempt to define life as 'possessing an internal circulation system' is about as arbitrary as it gets. Why is it you want to define life this way, what is your logic behind this definition?"
Anyway, so you define life as being a particular subset of life. What predictions does ID make as to where we might find life as defined by you?
To add a question and appease my curiosity, since you're stepping back to reassess, does this mean you might consider plants to be living, or are you going to revise your definition of life?
Neither. I am trying to pick problems in the "hypothesis".
For the two questions, I said I will not give further comment to the latter one (except argument on the definition of life). And since I am not clear on the fluid circulation in plant yet, the answer to the first one is not appropriate at this time. The inspiration can jump forward, but the analysis can not. In particular, when I have a question at hand.
In the absence of proof, there's only the absence.
Join Date: 27th November 2008
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 1,217
Blessings: 29,500
Reps: 2,160,465,330,633 (power: 0)
Originally Posted by juvenissun
Neither. I am trying to pick problems in the "hypothesis".
For the two questions, I said I will not give further comment to the latter one (except argument on the definition of life). And since I am not clear on the fluid circulation in plant yet, the answer to the first one is not appropriate at this time. The inspiration can jump forward, but the analysis can not. In particular, when I have a question at hand.
If you won't answer the latter, then we can get back to my original question.
If you can't provide an answer to the first, then it's clear that your choice is truly arbitrary in any rational sense, ergo I can only conclude you chose it for a non-rational reason.
Problems have been shown all throughout your conclusion, it's very clearly and unilaterally unsupported by the facts. Logically it shows that your conclusion is unsound. The usual procedure after this amount of disproving is to toss the conclusion, and produce a new one based upon the newly learned facts.
If plants are not alive because we eat them, then anything we eat is not alive -- We eat cows, but cows are alive, therefore plants are alive
We do not feel emotion about destroying plants, therefore plants are not alive -- If life is subject to emotional response by a viewer, and if emotional response varies amongst people, then life is subjective to the individual, a plant can be both alive and not alive depending on the person viewing it. ie You are not alive to a psychopathic serial killer if they have no emotional qualms about killing you. A black, muslim, or asian individual is not alive to a racist. This is logical but senseless and irrational (in strict definiton of those terms, mind you).
If plants are not alive because they have no metabolism, then the definition of metabolism does not apply to plants -- the definition of metabolism applies to plants, therefore plants are alive
If plants are not alive because they do not possess an 'internal circulation system' then they cannot possess any system of equivalent function to a circulatory system -- plants possess a system equivalent to a circulatory system in function, therefore plants are alive.
Any new conclusion proposed will have to include these new facts. Really, it's easier to go with the standard definition of life (anything possessing the attributes I stated previously) rather than attempting to redefine it (to some arbitrary criteria such as 'possessing of an internal circulation system') because the standard definition covers all things usually considered life here on earth. Indeed, there is a movement right now to wider said definition to include MORE things, rather than less.
Linear Mode
