Intelligent Plants Falsify Evolution

[Agonaces of Susa]

I was reading a book earlier this year called The Secret Life of Plants.

Chapter 1 is called Plants and ESP.

Chapter 2 is called Plants Can Read Your Mind.

I was very bothered by this book because it seems so unreal.

And yet it is real.

Mainstream science has now become fringe science: BBC News - Plants 'can think and remember'

Plants are able to "remember" and "react" to information contained in light, according to researchers.

Plants, scientists say, transmit information about light intensity and quality from leaf to leaf in a very similar way to our own nervous systems.

These "electro-chemical signals" are carried by cells that act as "nerves" of the plants.

In their experiment, the scientists showed that light shone on to one leaf caused the whole plant to respond.

And the response, which took the form of light-induced chemical reactions in the leaves, continued in the dark.

This showed, they said, that the plant "remembered" the information encoded in light.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

How does that falsify the ToE?

 

[Vatis]

I was reading a book earlier this year called The Secret Life of Plants.

Chapter 1 is called Plants and ESP.

Chapter 2 is called Plants Can Read Your Mind.

I was very bothered by this book because it seems so unreal.

And yet it is real.

Mainstream science has now become fringe science

This falsifies evolution because.....?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

It falsifies evolution because evolution says intelligence didn't magically evolve until 50,000 B.C.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It falsifies evolution because evolution says intelligence didn't magically evolve until 50,000 B.C.

First, I'd like to see a source for this figure, not least because intelligence exists in some form in pretty much all animals, long before 50,000BCE.

Second, evolution is a scientific theory, and is subject to change as much as any other theory. If new data is unearthed that shows the first mammals lived a thousand years earlier than previously thought, then so be it. That hardly disproves evolution, it just changes it.

Third, the findings don't demonstrate that plants have a concious mind, let alone ESP. Rather, they have a rudimentary memory system, not entirely understood, that lets them remember when light was shone the day before. Does this disprove evolution? Not in the slightest. Perhaps this cellular memory has existed since the time when all life was unicellular. Perhaps it evolved independently in both plants and animals (convergent evolution is a well-known and well-document phenomenon entirely consistent with evolution).

So try to hold back your hysterical cries. Once again, the evidence does not demonstrate what you claim it does.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

First, I'd like to see a source for this figure, not least because intelligence exists in some form in pretty much all animals, long before 50,000BCE.

So you think a 3 million year old retarded and illiterate cave ape who can't even walk upright is as intelligent as modern Homo sapiens sapiens?

Second, evolution is a scientific theory

No it isn't.

and is subject to change as much as any other theory.

You mean like how geocentrism changed to heliocentrism?

That's called falsification.

If new data is unearthed that shows the first mammals lived a thousand years earlier than previously thought, then so be it.

LOL. So how come evolutionists break down in tears everytime evidence is unearthed that proves Homo sapiens existed prior to 195,000 B.C.?

That hardly disproves evolution, it just changes it.

You mean like how geocentrism wasn't disproved but just changed into heliocentrism?

Third, the findings don't demonstrate that plants have a concious mind, let alone ESP. Rather, they have a rudimentary memory system, not entirely understood, that lets them remember when light was shone the day before.

A rudimentary memory system contradicts mainstream science.

Does this disprove evolution?

Yes?

Not in the slightest. Perhaps this cellular memory has existed since the time when all life was unicellular. Perhaps it evolved independently in both plants and animals (convergent evolution is a well-known and well-document phenomenon entirely consistent with evolution).

So try to hold back your hysterical cries. Once again, the evidence does not demonstrate what you claim it does.

Mainstream science claims otherwise.

 

[Ar Cosc]

So you think a 3 million year old retarded and illiterate cave ape who can't even walk upright is as intelligent as modern Homo sapiens sapiens?

No, but you seem to believe a modern unsentient plant that can "remember" where light has been is.

I think you're a very persistent Poe. You distill all the different types of fundamentalist, conservative wrongness, into one raging, concentrated, 95% proof tempest of wrong, and I simply can't believe that someone like that actually exists.

That is why I never even attempt to debate with you.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So you think a 3 million year old retarded and illiterate cave ape who can't even walk upright is as intelligent as modern Homo sapiens sapiens?

No. He has intelligence, but not as much. As you so delicately put it, a retard is less intelligent than a 'normal' human - but he is still intelligent, to a degree.

You mean like how geocentrism changed to heliocentrism?

That's called falsification.

No. One theory being superseded by a different one is different to adapting a pre-existing theory to new data. Geocentrism to heliocentrism represents a paradigm shift, while discovering a new element is not. It expands on pre-existing knowledge, it doesn't completely overturn it.

LOL. So how come evolutionists break down in tears everytime evidence is unearthed that proves Homo sapiens existed prior to 195,000 B.C.?

Quaint.

You mean like how geocentrism wasn't disproved but just changed into heliocentrism?

As I explained above, this is replacing one theory with another, entirely different one, rather than updating the pre-existing one. But this is a semantic quibble. Evolution is not incompatible with the idea that plants have a rudimentary memory, so I disagree that such a system overturns or disproves evolution.

A rudimentary memory system contradicts mainstream science.

There is nothing in mainstream science that explicitly denies that plants can have a rudimentary memory system. indeed, as the article in the OP shows, such a system is mainstream science - or, at least, the beginnings of it.

Yes?

Do explain how.

Mainstream science claims otherwise.

Where? What scientific establishments have explicitly denied that a rudimentary memory system in plants is categorically antithetical to science, or to modern scientific knowledge? What modern biologists have come forward and denounced the idea that non-animal organisms can behave in a way reminiscent of animal memory?

 

[lucaspa]

It falsifies evolution because evolution says intelligence didn't magically evolve until 50,000 B.C.

Evolution never said that. I recommend a book called The Origin and Evolution of Intelligence by Arnold B. Scheibel and J. Willian Schopf.

Look, if you make strawmen like this, you can certainly falsify the strawman, but that doesn't touch the real thing.

 

[lucaspa]

I was reading a book earlier this year called The Secret Life of Plants.

Chapter 1 is called Plants and ESP.

Chapter 2 is called Plants Can Read Your Mind.

I was very bothered by this book because it seems so unreal.

And yet it is real.

Mainstream science has now become fringe science: BBC News - Plants 'can think and remember'

The article does not reinforce the book. The article says nothing abou ESP or reading your mind. Did you even really read the article, even the parts you quoted?

"Plants, scientists say, transmit information about light intensity and quality from leaf to leaf in a very similar way to our own nervous systems. "

That is the only information about their external environment they are transmitting. Intensity and quality of light. Not "thoughts".

"In their experiment, the scientists showed that light shone on to one leaf caused the whole plant to respond. And the response, which took the form of light-induced chemical reactions in the leaves, continued in the dark."

This isn't the neuron to neuron events that are happening in our brains. It is more analogous to the neuron to muscle reaction, where the neurons trigger chemical reactions in our muscles. No one considers a muscle twitch to be "intelligence".

 

[shinbits]

So you think a 3 million year old retarded and illiterate cave ape who can't even walk upright is as intelligent as modern Homo sapiens sapiens?

No, but you seem to believe a modern unsentient plant that can "remember" where light has been is.

This made me laugh.

 

[lucaspa]

No. One theory being superseded by a different one is different to adapting a pre-existing theory to new data. Geocentrism to heliocentrism represents a paradigm shift, while discovering a new element is not. It expands on pre-existing knowledge, it doesn't completely overturn it.

If you read the philosophy of science literature, Wiccan_Child, you will see that "paradigm shift" has been discarded. Even Kuhn dropped its usage as you are using it here.

Geocentrism to heliocentrism is not the adaptation of a pre-existing theory to new data. The epicyles added to geocentrism represent the modification. Those were added as ad hoc hypotheses to save geocentrism from falsification. Heliocentrism first represents an alternative theory to geocentrism, using the existing data. The two theories existed side by side for over 30 years until 1) Kepler found that the orbits of planets were ellipses instead of circles and 2) new data was found. At that point geocentrism was falsified. The new data also supported heliocentrism.

 

[lucaspa]

So you think a 3 million year old retarded and illiterate cave ape who can't even walk upright is as intelligent as modern Homo sapiens sapiens?

First, Lucy was not "retarded". Second, literacy is not a mark of intelligence; it's a lack of education. Lots of humans cannot read; would you deny them intelligence? Third, bipedalism is also not a criteria for intelligence. Octopi don't walk upright, neither do orangutans. Both display considerable intelligence.

Which brings us to the fourth point: no one claims A. afarensis, A. africanus, or any member of Australopithecus were as intelligent as H. sapiens. However, that does not mean they did not have some intelligence.

LOL. So how come evolutionists break down in tears everytime evidence is unearthed that proves Homo sapiens existed prior to 195,000 B.C.?

I am not aware of any valid evidence that H. sapiens existed prior to 195,000 years ago. Peer-reviewed articles, please?

A rudimentary memory system contradicts mainstream science.

In this case you are misreading the article. This is not like human memory, which is contained in neural connections in our brain.

From the article: "And the response, which took the form of light-induced chemical reactions in the leaves, continued in the dark.
This showed, they said, that the plant "remembered" the information encoded in light. "

That the chemical reactions continued in the dark is not memory as we usually talk about it. Which is why the word "remembered" is in quotes in the original. The quotes show that the chemical reactions persist after the original stimulus is gone, but that this is not memory as it exists in animals.

Again, the closer analogy would be what happens between nerves and muscles. The nerve impulse that triggers a muscle motor unit instigates a number of chemical reactions. One of those is to produce more receptors for the neurotransmitter. This makes the motor unit more sensitive to future nerve impulses. Thus, the muscle "remembers" that it has been stimulated. But that is not what you mean by memory.

Agonaces, it's important to report what articles and authors actually say and not to put words into their mouths or try to make them say what they did not.

Mainstream science claims otherwise.

Where? Please find the peer-reviewed article or review article that says this type of response to light is not possible.

BTW, if you want more on the evolution of intelligence and the exhibition of intelligence in other species besides humans, here are a few articles for you to read:

1. N Williams, Evolutionary psychologists look for roots of cognition. Science 275 (3 Jan): 29-30, 1997.
2. R Plomin and JC DeFries, The genetics of cognitive abilities and disabilities. Scientific American, 278: 62-69, May 1998.
3. G Vogel, DNA suggests cultural traits affect whale's evolution.Science 282: 1616, Nov. 27, 1998. Primary article is H Whitehead,Cultural selection and genetic diversity in matrilineal whales. Science282: 1708-1710, Nov. 27, 1998. Mothers teach survival traits to youngsters. Culture affecting genetic evolution. Only species besides human where this is demonstrated.
4. Octoplay. Discover 19: 28, Nov. 1998. Indications that octopi engage in "play" behavior.
5. M Cartmill, The gift of gab. Discover 19: 56- 64, Nov. 1998. Summary of research into the evolution of language. "the ability to create symbols ... is potentially present in any animal that can learn to interpret natural signs, such as a trail of footprints. Syntax, meanwhile, everges from the abstract thought required for a social life." So, language is an offshoot of intelligence.
8. MD Hauser, Games primates play. Discover 19: 48-57, Sept. 1998. Discusses behavior among primates. Humans not so unique.
9. E Linden, Can animals think? Time 154: 57-60, Sept 6, 1999.
10. MD Hauser, Morals, apes, and us. Discover 21: 50-55, Feb. 2000.Summarizes some studies in monkeys to determine if they have "moral" behavior.
11. CD Frith and U Frith, Interacting minds -- a biological basis, Science 286:1692-1695, Nov. 26, 1999. Describes studies locating ability to "mentalize" -- understand and manipulate other people's mental states. "These studies indicate that the ability to mentalize has evolved from a system for representing actions."
12. DS Woodruff and NG Jablonski and G Chaplin, Chimp cultural diversity. Science 285: 836-837, Aug. 6, 1999. Social tolerance evolved among hominids.
12a. A Whiten C Boesch, The cultures of chimpanzees. Scientific American 284: 60-67, Jan. 2001. Another "unique" feature of humans turns out not to be unique.
16. B Heinrich and T Bugnyar. Just how smart are ravens? Scientific American 296: 64-71, April 2007 "Recent experiments show that these birds use logic to solve problems and that some of their abilities approach or surpass those of the great apes."

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If you read the philosophy of science literature, Wiccan_Child, you will see that "paradigm shift" has been discarded. Even Kuhn dropped its usage as you are using it here.

I disagree. Even Wikipedia includes the transition from geocentrism to heliocentrism in its list of examples of paradigm shifts in the natural sciences.

Geocentrism to heliocentrism is not the adaptation of a pre-existing theory to new data.

I never said it was. I even explicitly stated that it was a paradigm shift, and not an adaptation to new data.

The epicyles added to geocentrism represent the modification. Those were added as ad hoc hypotheses to save geocentrism from falsification. Heliocentrism first represents an alternative theory to geocentrism, using the existing data. The two theories existed side by side for over 30 years until 1) Kepler found that the orbits of planets were ellipses instead of circles and 2) new data was found. At that point geocentrism was falsified. The new data also supported heliocentrism.

Well, heliocentrism used circular orbits and epicycles too, long after geocentrism was refuted. Kepler, as you said, later introduced elliptical orbits. Nonetheless, the transition from geocentrism to heliocentrism is seen as the quintessential paradigm shift.

 

[lucaspa]

I disagree. Even Wikipedia includes the transition from geocentrism to heliocentrism in its list of examples of paradigm shifts in the natural sciences.

Wiccan_Child, you cannot cite Wikipedia as an authority. What's more, Wiki and I are saying two different things. Wiki is talking about Kuhn's idea of paradigm shift and gives examples of what Kuhn said were "paradigm shifts" in science.

I am talking about whether science really works the way Kuhn stated and, therefore, whether "paradigm shifts" or "disciplinary matrix" (the term Kuhn used to replace "paradigm shift") really exist the way Kuhn stated. Later work in the philosophy of science showed that geocentrism to heliocentrism did not take place as Kuhn stated and, therefore, was not a paradigm shift at all.

Well, heliocentrism used circular orbits and epicycles too, long after geocentrism was refuted. Kepler, as you said, later introduced elliptical orbits. Nonetheless, the transition from geocentrism to heliocentrism is seen as the quintessential paradigm shift.

Kuhn looked on it as his archetypical paradigm shift, but Kuhn was wrong about paradigm shifts in general and this one in particular. Science does not work the way Kuhn stated. I would refer you to the discussion of Kuhn in The Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues edited by Cover and Curd, pgs 119-239.

When first proposed by Copernicus, heliocentrism did use circular orbits. That was why it was not immediately accepted by the scientific community: heliocentrism with circular orbits did not fit the data any better than geocentrism did. Galileo insisted on using circular orbits after Kepler introduced elliptical orbits. Galileo also insisted comets were of terrestrial origin. So where other scientists had falsifications of geocentrism, at the time Galileo went to trial he refused to use them as valid.

But this is not the same as what you stated. Once elliptical orbits, the extraterrestrial nature of comets, and some other things were discovered, then geocentrism was falsified. The shift from geocentrism to heliocentrism was not based on "irrational" factors as Kuhn claimed, but was instead a result of the falsification of geocentrism by data and the support of heliocentrism by the data.

 

[Willtor]

Haha! Agonaces of Susa, you have got to stop trolling. What did any of this have to do with support of or refutation of evolution?! One can't just pick up some random finding and say, "Look! This contradicts evolution!" (I mean, obviously, one _can_, but one comes off looking very silly)

 

[Cabal]

Intelligent Plants Falsify Evolution

Intelligent Plants Make Creationists Feel Inadequate

 

[Wiccan_Child]

[snip]

With all due respect to both you and the OP, I'm not going to derail this thread onto the philosophical undergrowth of science.

 

[variant]

I think you're a very persistent Poe. You distill all the different types of fundamentalist, conservative wrongness, into one raging, concentrated, 95% proof tempest of wrong, and I simply can't believe that someone like that actually exists.

That is why I never even attempt to debate with you.

The arguments are far too poor to come from a rational person who is not trolling.

 

[Cabal]

one raging, concentrated, 95% proof tempest of wrong

The technical term for this is:

Spread the word