Moving From Pseudoscience To Actual Science

[JMJones0424]

FFS, evolutionary theory is the reason why we should be concerned about the rampant reliance of glyphosate as a broad-spectrum herbicide on Round-up Ready GMO crops.  Whenever a field is sprayed by a farmer with glyphosate, there is the possibility that a small percentage of individual weeds will not be entirely killed due to their genetic make-up.  Because all of the weeds that can be killed by glyphosate are killed, then they [edit- those that aren't killed] are now the only individuals able to reproduce.  [edit- Most of] Their offspring should be expected to be at least as resistant to glyphosate.  Some will be less, though some will be more.  Those that are more resistant should be expected to be even more successful at reproduction in following years.  Continue these iterations for many generations, and the farmer has unintentionally evolved a glyphosate resistant strain of weed.  This is what is specifically predicted by evolutionary theory.  And this is specifically what is happening with uneducated farmers that rely on a pest management strategy that only includes Round-up Ready crops and glyphosate.

 

Something similar can be observed with the problem of over-use of antibiotics and the emergence of antibiotic resistant strains of diseases.  All of this is a prediction of evolutionary theory, and all of this is evolution shown in action.  No one particular organism decided to adapt.  Instead, the population adapts over many generations.

 

editted for speeling errors and to provide clarity

Edited March 17, 2017 by JMJones0424

[JMJones0424]

But what I would like you to understand is that communication between plants is beyond simply evolution over generations . To communicate , on any level , with another plant is awareness of the other .

 

And THAT is what evolution could never predict , because it would never , until now ,think that it would be possible .

 

Take the time to think .

I am insulted that you, while demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of anything that you have said so far in our exchange, would recommend that I take the time to think.  I have, and I would ask you to do likewise.

 

I suppose we can retire your two previous false claims.  You now introduce another false claim.  "communication between plants is beyond simply evolution over generations . To communicate , on any level , with another plant is awareness of the other ."

 

Plants can be observed to communicate with each other all the time.  There are many different mechanisms through which this communication may take place.  The simplest, and must widely understood, is through light.  Observe two trees that have grown up right next to each other.  They both grow to harvest the light available, but they don't at all look like they would if they were lone individuals.  At no time does one of the trees decide that the other tree is blocking too much light in this area, so I'll just grow somewhere else.  But, something clearly dictates that they don't expend energy to produce leaves in areas that are blocked by the other tree.  This is where the idea of a plant as being a complicated mercury-switch thermostat comes in to play.  I would argue that close examination of each of these close trees would show that they both make attempts to grow into areas shaded by the other, but because there is no light available, they don't continue to waste energy there.  This is a function of the phototropic effect.  The fact that both of these trees exhibit this is a function of evolutionary theory.  Evolutionary theory predicts that if either of these individuals didn't possess the ability to react to their surroundings accordingly, then they would waste valuable resources and be less likely to produce offspring that carried their same traits.

 

The more complex instances of plant communication that include those pointed out in the two articles you previously linked to are more complicated, but they still fall into the same basic pattern.  At no time, that we are aware of, does a plant "decide" to do anything.  You seem to be imposing intent upon something that happens just as naturally as a mercury thermostat reacts to its environment.

 

Evolution as a theory doesn't predict these interactions because like any other theory, evolution isn't a roadmap.  However, once we know that these interactions exist between plants, evolution does predict how populations that have these responses will adapt to their environment and how populations that don't have these responses will suffer.

 

For an interesting side-note, consider how human predation on male elephants for the ivory in their tusks would effect the population of elephants around today.  A prediction made by evolutionary theory would be that elephants with smaller tusks are more likely to survive to reproductive age and reproduce than those with bigger tusks.  If elephants continue to be hunted for ivory, but are not driven to extinction, then one would expect elephants in 500 years to have generally smaller tusks than those that lived two hundred years ago.  Do you now see how evolutionary theory works?  No plant, no elephant, no individual "decides" to evolve.  Instead, it is the environmental preferences on individuals in a population group that decides how a population of individuals evolve over time.

[JMJones0424]

I would advise you to reconsider what it is we describe when we speak of a thing as a scientific theory.  Theories have predictive power, in that we can use them to predict how systems will behave over time.  They are not predictive in the sense of a crystal ball.  Theories explain why observations that we make must be as they are.  We can use them to predict future observations that should be if the theory is correct.  However, if no one ever imagined that plants could use hormones to communicate with other plants, this isn't a failing in the theory of evolution.  Once it was discovered that some plants can communicate with others, then these observations must be taken into account as new knowledge.  If the theory of evolution fails to account for this new observation, then it must either be discarded or amended.  You have suggested nothing that warrants the discarding of evolutionary theory.  You have not even provided new evidence, though the evidence you provided might be new to you.

 

Rather than asserting that evolutionary theory could not predict a newly discovered phenomenon, the way to discount evolutionary theory is to show that a newly discovered phenomenon can not be explained by evolutionary theory.  You have failed to do such a thing, as all of the instances you have so far provided fit neatly into evolutionary theory.

[Maine farmer]

Never listened to anything about the Soviets having no regard for the safety of their cosmonauts . And I watched the doc. twice.

 

American rocket engine scientists didn't believe that the Russian rockets were possible and the Russian politburo cancelled the program .

Perhaps we did not see the same documentary, or I am mixing up two that I watched about the Soviet space program.  The Soviets were intent on projecting an image of perfection that them to cover some true acts of bravery and heroism of their fallen cosmonauts.  One of the documentaries made mention of Vladimir Ilyushin as likely being the actual first person to be launched into space, but he didn't make it back alive.  Check out http://www.lostcosmonauts.net/ilyushin.html

[current]

I am insulted that you, while demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of anything that you have said so far in our exchange, would recommend that I take the time to think. I have, and I would ask you to do likewise.

 

I suppose we can retire your two previous false claims. You now introduce another false claim. "communication between plants is beyond simply evolution over generations . To communicate , on any level , with another plant is awareness of the other ."

 

Plants can be observed to communicate with each other all the time. There are many different mechanisms through which this communication may take place. The simplest, and must widely understood, is through light. Observe two trees that have grown up right next to each other. They both grow to harvest the light available, but they don't at all look like they would if they were lone individuals. At no time does one of the trees decide that the other tree is blocking too much light in this area, so I'll just grow somewhere else. But, something clearly dictates that they don't expend energy to produce leaves in areas that are blocked by the other tree. This is where the idea of a plant as being a complicated mercury-switch thermostat comes in to play. I would argue that close examination of each of these close trees would show that they both make attempts to grow into areas shaded by the other, but because there is no light available, they don't continue to waste energy there. This is a function of the phototropic effect. The fact that both of these trees exhibit this is a function of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory predicts that if either of these individuals didn't possess the ability to react to their surroundings accordingly, then they would waste valuable resources and be less likely to produce offspring that carried their same traits.

Edited March 21, 2017 by current

[current]

 

No I said that evolution theory could never imagine that plants can communicate between themselves .

[A-wal]

Yes it could.

 

If it's an advantage for a plant to alter it's behaviour depending on the behaviour of other plants then a plant with this random mutation will be at an advantage over plants that don't have this mutation and will therefore be more likely to reproduce and pass that mutation down to a new generation of plants that will of course also be at an advantage and therefore more likely to reproduce, and so on.

[current]

Yes it could.

 

If it's an advantage for a plant to alter it's behaviour depending on the behaviour of other plants then a plant with this random mutation will be at an advantage over plants that don't have this mutation and will therefore be more likely to reproduce and pass that mutation down to a new generation of plants that will of course also be at an advantage and therefore more likely to reproduce, and so on.

Now that it is known .

 

But never has any evolution theory thought that plants could and do communicate with each other .

 

If so name one , as a theory , long before the evidence .

[A-wal]

There's all sorts of things that evolution has produced that weren't predicted before hand. What's your point?

[current]

There's all sorts of things that evolution has produced that weren't predicted before hand. What's your point?

Evolution is limited in its understanding of life , and its mutations .

[A-wal]

I thought you were claiming that random mutation and natural selection couldn't explain plants that communicate with each other.

[current]

I thought you were claiming that random mutation and natural selection couldn't explain plants that communicate with each other.

You thought right .

[exchemist]

I would advise you to reconsider what it is we describe when we speak of a thing as a scientific theory.  Theories have predictive power, in that we can use them to predict how systems will behave over time.  They are not predictive in the sense of a crystal ball.  Theories explain why observations that we make must be as they are.  We can use them to predict future observations that should be if the theory is correct.  However, if no one ever imagined that plants could use hormones to communicate with other plants, this isn't a failing in the theory of evolution.  Once it was discovered that some plants can communicate with others, then these observations must be taken into account as new knowledge.  If the theory of evolution fails to account for this new observation, then it must either be discarded or amended.  You have suggested nothing that warrants the discarding of evolutionary theory.  You have not even provided new evidence, though the evidence you provided might be new to you.

 

Rather than asserting that evolutionary theory could not predict a newly discovered phenomenon, the way to discount evolutionary theory is to show that a newly discovered phenomenon can not be explained by evolutionary theory.  You have failed to do such a thing, as all of the instances you have so far provided fit neatly into evolutionary theory.

Well said. I find it amusing that people with an axe to grind place such burdens on the theory of evolution. It is, after all, just one of the numerous scientific theories that underpin modern biology.

 

It is manifestly idiotic to demand that evolution should be able to predict every biological discovery that we make. 

Edited March 22, 2017 by exchemist

[current]

Well said. I find it amusing that people with an axe to grind place such burdens on the theory of evolution. It is, after all, just one of the numerous scientific theories that underpin modern biology.

 

It is manifestly idiotic to demand that evolution should be able to predict every biological discovery that we make.

 

What other theories underpin modern biology ?

[A-wal]

I thought you were claiming that random mutation and natural selection couldn't explain plants that communicate with each other.

You thought right .

I already explained how evolution has no problem explaining it.

If it's an advantage for a plant to alter it's behaviour depending on the behaviour of other plants then a plant with this random mutation will be at an advantage over plants that don't have this mutation and will therefore be more likely to reproduce and pass that mutation down to a new generation of plants that will of course also be at an advantage and therefore more likely to reproduce, and so on.

How is the communication of plants any different from any other evolved trait?

[current]

I already explained how evolution has no problem explaining it.

 

How is the communication of plants any different from any other evolved trait?

Because communication between plants was not considered .

[A-wal]

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