My mind is currently being blown by the following realizations:

- When we breathe out, plants breathe in, and when plants breathe out, we breathe in.
- When we poo and pee, plants eat and drink our nitrogen.
- Flowers are an illusion. They are just landing platforms for bees to make the plants have long-distance sex.
- Fruits and berries are an illusion. They are all showy and delicious just so that the children from the above mentioned plant sex could spread to other areas.

When I try to visualize those cycles, all I'm seeing is just functions not much different from programming functions. Are we just a very sophisticated piece of code in a cycle of interaction slowly programmed by evolution through trial and error?

Why did evolution decide there has to be cycles and dependencies? Couldn't it have coded just organisms that use the energy from the orbited star directly? Breathing and eating seem like redundancies that could be updated already.

And speaking of redundancies, what the heck is up with sleeping anyway? That one doesn't even seem to have any function, yet it's still needed for survival.

What's up with your code, evolution?

A lot of points to discuss in one post...

We're looking at a marvelously complex interaction process, but we're looking at it from within and as it happens. Our current understanding of the darwinian evolution theory doesn't require a purpose. About three billions of years ago, cyanobacteria in the sea start to consume CO2 and fart O2, but it apparently took another billion of years for an oxygen breathing cell to develop. So now we have the full orchestra playing, but evidence suggests the first violin needed a long time to start playing and following a single drum beat.



This presumes either evolution has a purpose and a plan involving efficiency, or that we are able to fully understand the plan, if there's such a thing. For what we now, things happen and their outcome and the environment either validates them (so they go on and replicate) or it does not, and they become deleterious. I'm pretty sure there are other key mechanisms for evolution besides random mutation (epigenetics has probably a long way to go and many fascinating findings ahead) but there is no need for "decisions" so far.

In any case, organisms DO use the energy from the orbited star, it's called photosynthesis

And what do you mean with flowers and fruits being an illusion?

Haha fun topic Nature very readily displays the true interconnected nature of the world.

As for human photosynthesis I believe we wouldn't be able to harness the energy as well as plants do. Mainly due to how often we move around if I remember correctly, but also because plants have about a billion year head start with chloroplasts. Some animals do use photosynthesis but not through the direct means plants do.
http://evolution.berkele...le/_0_0/endosymbiosis_04
http://www.bbc.com/futur...ans-ever-photosynthesise

As mentioned in the article, we humans do make use of photosynthesis with our agricultural practices, which makes it a part of our life system. Perhaps it is the nature of being interconnected at all levels that has allowed such cycles and redundancies to come about. Patterns must originate somewhere, I suppose my argument is time and interaction slowly developed more complex relationships between energy sources. When following the chain we do end up surviving off of our star, however complex that relationship may have become. Even photosynthesis requires more than simply a star to provide a plant with energy.

I would also like some answers on sleeping. Such an odd habit that appears to have a strange significance beyond conservation of physical energy.

I feel evolutions code is actually quite simple, but the level of complexity that it has created in the world makes that difficult to observe from our fairly uneducated perspective. Or perhaps this is only from my uneducated perspective.

Life feeds on... life feeds on.... life feeds on... life.

Flowers and berries, IMO, are great examples of sharing energy though I disagree that they are wholly illusions. Their beauty and color may appear as a trick, but it is those colors that attract specific lifeforms that will spread the plant about and allow it to reproduce. Berries are also tricks designed to share energy with a lifeform in exchange for spreading the plants seed. The appearance, taste, effects, of the plant or berry will very much affect the success rate of this energy sharing relationship

Thanks for the clarifications and the links (especially the second one as I actually understood some of the words in it ). There was a quote in there that kind of answered why we can't be solar powered:

“If you imagine a person who had to get all of their energy from the sun, they’d have to be very still. Then, they’d need a high surface area, with leafy protrusions. At that point, the person’s a tree.”

So I guess moving uses a bit too much energy than the sun provides. But I wouldn't mind being a self-aware tree either. Altho I guess then space travel would start to intrigue me too much so I'd evolve into a mobile human. Hmm, I see..



Those statements were slightly tongue in cheek, but what I meant was more like that the concepts of those words have been quite inaccurate in my head all my life. Whenever I hear the word flower I get a thought-reflex about beautiful pieces of art whose only function is to please my eyes and nose, and when I hear the word fruit I get a thought-reflex about funky and tasty things whose only function is to please my tongue. Sure they teach their real function in school but it never really sinks in until you really think about it on psychedelics 15 years later. It's weird how the brain assigns some things to be so obvious that they merit no thought.

I'm with you on this! My brain gets used to such vague concepts that the true beauty and complexity of reality is completely lost. Maybe "yum" or "eww" or "ouch" or "beautiful" are just what the plants want us to think so they can control us... wait yeah I think that's what it is.

Love the space travel bit!

I guess that, if you were an aware tree being, both your awareness and life scale would run in a quite different, slow experience of time. And if you wanted to move around, since using external technology to speed up the process would be out of the question, you would do your best to spread your seed to distant places so you could visit them



Because we don't question them much... one amazing thing about psychedelics is how the show you the whole picture. Two fig trees grow and one has sweeter, tastier fruits than the other. Of course, monkeys prefer this one and keep eating figs, running around and pooping the seeds. It is symbiosis through time. What's cool about this is, as you say, it's a realization. It makes eminent sense, and cannot be unseen.

Perhaps if when we looked at plants we somehow directly saw that we literally breath their exhalations we'd treat the forests of the world with a bit more respect and reverence.

When you think of it, living off of another being's breath is a pretty deep connection.

plants haveas organs jst like we do. also they can use O2 to start the carbon reactions it just isn't as good a substrate for RuBisCO nor is it as efficient a process.

Plant's aren't dependent on animals, though they do use fungus quite happily.

Yes, we are pieces of code in a dataverse. Self correcting code at that.

I would not call it "trial and error" however. I do not believe in a God who makes mistakes. Everything is as it should be. I'd say, BRUTE FORCE. No rainbow tables exist for pure novel creation. So it is not surprising that things are the way they are. How else does a being create something when nothing previously existed of such a sort?



I hear astronauts get quite the sense of exhilaration when they look down upon the Earth for the first time, and realise that man is nothing without all he is connected to and subsists off.

"Flowers are an illusion. They are just landing platforms for bees to make the plants have long-distance sex."

Did you know that bees are attracted to flowers due to beta carbolines that flouresce at wavelengths the bees can see? The flowers bees are attracted to all have some beta-carbolines, and it is that flourescence that allows them to stand out for the bees.

Does that count as a messenger chemical?

On that note bufotenine in orange leaves(mandarine I think) is very important for the mating(or reproduction I forgot) of a certain species of butterfly.

Things are far more interconnected than we can imagine.

Edit..here is a source for that..

"bufotenine is one of several compounds produced in the leaves of the mandarin orange that contribute to egg-laying behavior in swallowtail butterflies, who feed on this plant's leaves. This situation seems to fly in the face of the idea that plants might create bufotenine as an antifeedant, which is one theory as to why plants produce alkaloids in the first place"

http://www.erowid.org/li.../review/review.php?p=273

That is interesting thanks .. and come to think of it, I have actually heard about it in a bbc documentary but I totally forgot about that. In the video they talk about landing pads too so I guess that's where I got the seed planted into my head.. (no pun intended)



I recommend watching the rest of the doc too, if I remember right it's quite interesting.

I have a problem with Darwinian Evolution theory...
In particular the mimics..
Take the eye spots of some butterflies (Owl Butterfly shown). Notice in the 'Pupil' there is a 'Specular Highlight'...
Specular highlights are a product of light refracting on a shiny surface. Something that has to be 'seen' using 'eyes' to be understood by a 'brain'.
How, then, could an evolutionary path, taking 100,000's of generations, actually 'see' this anomaly (evolution has no eyes) and then remember and carry forth this information over those generations (making tiny genetic corrections on each generation)??

It almost seems that this mimicry is 'Designed' in one hit...!
Or coded to look like that.
What then, is doing the 'designing' or 'coding'??

Apologise if this is a derail on the plant thing...but since evolution came up...I thought I would throw a spanner in the works..

Yeah cyb there are some things about Darwins theory that don't quite add up for me either. Like a single cell. A single cell is the most basic of lifeforms yet within the cell it is totally complex and capable of self sustainablility. It feeds and chucks out the bad bits etc. It's like a small town or factory. There is no evidence that i have seen that show how a single cell has evolved from a simpler organism. To me it has been designed by something

Evolution makes sense to me.

Darwinian evolution without cosmic intelligence makes no sense to me.

^ yes, please, let's not go to the thousandth evolution-creationism bipolar debate.

Evolution is to be amended and complemented, I am pretty sure the real deal will be somewhere between the blind, random frozen-accident-type of explanation and the premises of "intelligent design". But whatever that intelligence is, I bet you it's going to be deeply ingrained within biology and matter/energy itself, not a transcendent intelligence.

The fact we haven't researched much about the evolution of the eye (or structures that happen to look for us like an eye with its light twinkle) or about the evolution of the cell should not make us dismiss a theory. So please, folks, do not mix your personal beliefs with the actual research. The evolution theory may be a work in progress, but it's pretty solid.

my .02c

evolution and intelligent design in some ways are compatible, because the basic "tools" and organisms, I.E the blank canvas of life, are still subject to the mixture of random chance of environmental factor, mixed with random chance of "personal" (I.E individual consciousness) decision, mixed with the randonimity of the "personal" decisions of all other individual consciousnesses.

In that context, both random evolution based off of environment is mixed with the decisions that the evolving organisms undergo to determine how the environment affects them, and they their environment...etc

Agreeing with Vosdel here, if people do not stop feeding an evolution vs creationism/intelligent design or other spin offs and mixtures, I will start deleting posts.

If you want said debates start another thread.

..hey, you know the Malaria organism is a symbiotic cross between a plant and 'animal' (bacteria-like thing) ..?
they're now using herbicide based experimental treatments to target the plant half of the 'thing'..
just what came to mind after a quick skim..

Well, all eukaryotic cells come from the intracellular symbiosis of bacteria (which, btw are not at all animal-like!). This is what gave rise to mitochondria and chloroplasts.

...plus you have mitochondrial nucleic acids, and the cytoplasm as interaction medium same as you have nuclear DNA and an atmosphere, or a liquid medium in the sea... Intracellular symbiosis and symbiosis between multicellular organisms, like plants and animals, might difer in scale and complexity but the underlying mechanisms in evolution are basically the same.