What prompts a plant to evolve?

[atanu]

Yes. Pre natural. There is a condition prior to manifestation of objects: physical (and mental).
Physics knows that it does not know exactly what matter is prior to wave function collapse.

Sure.
Can you show this to be true? Definite statements of truth like that are pretty much worthless for the sake of this thread: Which is about evolution. And you're trying to advocate a supernatural element. Sorry. Pre natural.
(Seriously)
If you won't accept claims like "there is a natural explanation for phenomena" then why should we accept claims like yours? I don't think you can even explain your claims logically. They sound a lot like wishful thinking and faith.

I'm not sure this actually means anything.

What appears to be worthless to you may merely reflect your lack of awareness in a particular area of knowledge. I stand by the statements made above. Paired photon, double slit, and delayed choice eraser experiments do show that matter is not particle nor wave.

Because I find too many negative judgements in your posts, I will simply ignore you henceforth.

 

[Darkstorn]

What appears to be worthless to you may merely reflect your lack of awareness in a particular area of knowledge.

Stop missing the point on purpose. This is a debate: You cannot with any confidence assert something as true, AND expect people to accept it without you even having to bother to support your statement. Here's how you operate: You present a definite claim. You refuse to support it, but expect others to argue it with science. When you are asked to do the same, you simply refuse.

You said:

"There is a condition prior to manifestation of objects: physical (and mental). "

I'm merely asking: "Is there? Can you show this to be true?" And you are dodging it.

I stand by the statements made above. Paired photon, double slit, and delayed choice eraser experiments do show that matter is not particle nor wave.

I don't see how this relates to what you said before though.

Because I find too many negative judgements in your posts, I will simply ignore you henceforth.

How is it a judgement from me to ask you to show something to be true? Looks like you're the one too quick to judge. You could just tell me in plain speech that you have no interest in actually debating when the going gets difficult.

Because your current behavior leads me to believe that judging you as a dodger is valid. I'm quite certain you will use this to avoid answering my comments to you in other threads.

 

[Tiberius]

This is adaptation. It's a process driven function and as such has no motivation. Existing mutations may help an organism survive through the mindless process of adaptation.

And...?

Is any reputable scientist saying that evolution DOES have a motivation?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

In an earlier post, a particular topic of discussion sort of got lost in the various comments, so I wanted to start it fresh.

Someone described evolution thusly:
“Evolution happens in an environment and is directed towards survival in that environment (adaptation is the first step).”

I followed with this question:
“Does an ear of corn fall under this ‘survival’ statement?”

A response:
“Yes, of course. The evolution of corn happened in an environment where humans were selecting those ears that provided more kernels and made sure they were the ones that produced the next generation.”

My follow up:
“Let me clarify my ‘ear of corn’ statement... I was not talking about human beings developing a variety of corn. I’m talking about long before that. I’m referring to that point in time before corn even existed. Evolution tells us that a previous “simpler” plant must have given rise to corn, right? My question remains, ‘Did this simpler plant exhibit a survival instinct, so that another plant (corn) became the solution?’ “

Thoughts appreciated!

"Evolution happens in an environment and is directed towards survival in that environment"

There is always an element of forward looking anthropomorphism like this needed for evolution to work as a thought experiment.

 

[Valjean]

"Evolution happens in an environment and is directed towards survival in that environment"

There is always an element of forward looking anthropomorphism like this needed for evolution to work as a thought experiment.

Anthropomorphism?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Anthropomorphism?

the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities.

 

[Valjean]

the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities.

I know what it means, I just don't see how it applies to evolution.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

as opposed to the backward-looking "it's complex so it must be God" anthropomorphism...

 

[Valjean]

But that's not anthropomorphism....

 

[Polymath257]

This is adaptation. It's a process driven function and as such has no motivation. Existing mutations may help an organism survive through the mindless process of adaptation.

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/what-prompts-a-plant-to-evolve.204552/reply?quote=5462435
Yes, all of evolution is adaptation.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

With all these millions of years of evolution, I wonder why plants never evolved legs so they could get up and move to a place with better soil or more water or whatever.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

With all these millions of years of evolution, I wonder why plants never evolved legs so they could get up and move to a place with better soil or more water or whatever.

Because their strategy of survival and reproduction worked just fine--that is, those that were adapted to the environment grew, reproduced and their offspring spread through their seeds. Many or most of those failed to find a place to grow, but many did...and they grew and reproduced...and all the while, natural selection was occurring, and the continued to evolve as plants, which don't have muscles or legs, etc., and don't seem to need them, because their other growth and reproductive characteristics work just fine.

 

[Polymath257]

With all these millions of years of evolution, I wonder why plants never evolved legs so they could get up and move to a place with better soil or more water or whatever.

Some plants have runners for that.

Developing legs isn't such an easy thing when your roots have to be enmeshed in the soil. So there simply wasn't a good evolutionary pathway to legs. Sort of like why animals don't develop wheels.

 

[Valjean]

With all these millions of years of evolution, I wonder why plants never evolved legs so they could get up and move to a place with better soil or more water or whatever.

Evolution isn't a "progression," it's just survival -- with adaptation when conditions warrant.

Why are there still archaea, bacteria, protozoa or fungi? -- because they work.

Plants are doing fine without legs. What selective pressure would there be for plants to develop legs?

What structures do they have that could develop into legs? Evolution can only work on existing anatomy.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

What prompts evolution? One word, mutations. Some help most don't.

Limited resources also prompt evolution. There isn't an infinite amount of territory or food, so there are going to be winners and losers (unless all life goes extinct). Random events like meteor impacts or wildfires will effect all individuals the same. The only factor that separates one individual from another in a population is their genetics. Therefore, genetics has a multi-generational effect on who the winners and losers are.

With the combination of imperfect replicators (i.e. organisms that produce random mutations) AND limited resources the unavoidable outcome is evolution. Species have to evolve if those conditions are met. They can't stop themselves from evolving, just as a river can't stop itself from flowing downhill.