OrgoneConclusion said:

R U serious? Is Dawkins an ecologist or a plant biologist?

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

Why is it nearly impossible for you to answer yes or no? It was as simple a question as possible.

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

OK, so we have established your appeal to authority fallacy as Dawkins was neither a plant biologist nor an ecologist.

We are almost making progress.

---

Qubit said:

You are coming at it with the preconceived notion that plants were purposefully designed and now trying to throw together some ad hoc argument to justify why they were designed to be inefficient.

---

Yes, but it is difficult to hold it against so many individuals for coming into it with such a preconceived notion that plants were purposefully designed when the original topic explicitly framed the discussion within the context of plants being intentionally designed. The original poster committed a grievous error in his proposal for the "two 'logical' arguments" to explain the difference between the two efficiency levels, in suggesting that either God didn't design plants because plants are less efficient in this category, or that humans are smarter than God because of this difference.

As it is abundantly clear, plants are not solely dedicated to photosynthesis, nor could they be, considering that they are organic life-forms which need to support their life. This automatically implies a stark limitation, because if a solar panel were required to be a self-propagating, growing, living organism, it would naturally be required to be orientated differently and to subsequently have a different form as a result which would necessarily imply that it could not solely be dedicated simply to photosynthesis, thereby lessening its possible efficiency in photosynthesis.

Since this is the case, it is therefore completely baseless to utilize the efficiency ratio of our inorganic, lifeless solar panels as commentary on how efficient plants could be.

It is, of course, to be recognized that plants can be more efficient, and that this can benefit their survival more.
As has been pointed out, some plants, like grasses, can be more capable of photosynthesis. At the same time, since photosynthesis is not the only requirement a plant naturally has in order for it to survive, some plants evolve to stress other characteristics which arbitrarily serve them more than if they were more concentrated upon efficiency of photosynthesis. For example, focusing more on developing complex, large systems of roots which expand much deeper into the earth in order to provide for the plants water and mineral requirements, especially when the plant is large enough that a shallow and unextensive root system will not be enough to support its existence in that form, due to the lack of continuous surface precipitation.

Also, factors like humidity play a large role in the form and function of plants. I'm pretty sure most all plants obtain their water through their roots through a passive system, much akin to a wick, in which the transpiration rate determines the uptake rate of water through the roots. Of course, a lot of plants have mechanisms by which they can regulate how much transpiration is taking place, dependent upon the humidity at the moment (because, of course, if there's too little humidity and no regulatory control, due to its passive system, the plant will lose water too quickly if there's not enough moisture in the soil, thereby drying out the plant and bringing its demise). This, of course, would inevitably effect the rate at which plants produce energy for itself, considering the crucial role that this passive flow of water through the plant has in the energy production process. Less water moving through the plant, less energy production.

So, as we can no doubt all see, it is ridiculous to attempt to disprove the idea that "g*d" designed plants through such a flawed manner. Most people recognize that plants, as living organisms, have needs to satisfy whose compensation implies limitations on their abilities to focus solely upon photosynthesis, thereby demonstrating that it is not comparing the same thing.

Qubit said:

Icelander said:

On the whole everything works in a messy chaotic way.

---

Only because 99% of 'gods creations' havent worked and have gone extinct.  If only they were more efficient 'designs' then maybe they would have worked too...

---

Only because?...

Nothing can be different than it is.

Quote:

Qubit said:


So your implying that if god actually designed an efficient plant they wouldn't create ecosystems for other life to flourish?  There is no evidence of that at all.  Efficient plants would create an ecosystem just like inefficiency plants, they would just do it more efficiently.

As it stands plants are inefficient and thus arnt growing back as fast as they are cut down.  In this light, efficient plants can provide more in terms of ecosystem and food than in inefficient plant.

---

Quote:

I don't think the effectiveness of plant survival has anything to do with the effectiveness of photosynthesis, but I still think it's very effective for the plant.

OrgoneConclusion said:

Seeing as how I never used the word effective and it has a totally different meaning than efficient, I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

---

---

Quote:

My apologies for not having read the whole thread, so this may have been posted before, but... plants do strive for efficiency, but they can't do it by increasing the efficiency of photosynthesis. Think about the way plants turn their leaves to face the sun, or the way large rainforest trees collect light in a 'canopy'. They are competing with every other plant in the rainforest, so they grow taller to get more light. They wouldn't have to do that if they could increase the efficiency of photosynthesis. There is just as much evolutionary pressure on one than on the other, so from this we can conclude that photosynthesis is as efficient as it can get (without fundamental changes that are unlikely to evolve any time soon).

---

Qubit said:

Quote:

My apologies for not having read the whole thread, so this may have been posted before, but... plants do strive for efficiency, but they can't do it by increasing the efficiency of photosynthesis. Think about the way plants turn their leaves to face the sun, or the way large rainforest trees collect light in a 'canopy'. They are competing with every other plant in the rainforest, so they grow taller to get more light. They wouldn't have to do that if they could increase the efficiency of photosynthesis. There is just as much evolutionary pressure on one than on the other, so from this we can conclude that photosynthesis is as efficient as it can get (without fundamental changes that are unlikely to evolve any time soon).

---

I find that argument highly suspect!  If I didnt know you were I biologist Id call bullshit out right.  How again do you know that plants are as efficient in photosynthesis as possible?  Saying they wouldnt have to grow taller if they could  increase photosynthesis efficiency, but the converse is also true.  They wouldnt have to increase photosynthesis efficiency if they could grow taller.  What does either of those statements tell us?  Nothing from what I can tell...

---