This is something that most students learn in school. But do you have any thing to add above that?
Added later: Do all animals and plants have a mind?
Added still later: One major difference between plants and animals is that plants lack a nervous system and neuro humoral system. Is this why they lack a mind? Is the mind located in the nervous system?
Narayanan
Both are living organism. They differ in important aspects.
See 15 differences between plants and animals through link.
http://www.biologyexams4u.com/2013/02/difference-between-plant-cell-and.html#.VbtzH7Ucbfd
http://www.mcwdn.org/Plants/PlantsDiffer.html
Dear Narayanan !
How very absurdly interesting ...
I'm thrilled with your question.
Plants can't run, nor fly, nor leave their ground to further distances...
They have circulation, they have the power to communicate, they are living creatures, they reproduce, they belong to Nature.
But they cannot run, nor fly, nor immigrate to different grounds. (do they have decision will?)
Apart from that, when I visit the Amazonian rain forest, I realised something that doesn't come from books: there is certainly a soul in Mother Nature. A common soul, that is shared by the vegetation and its animal inhabitants.
Dear Narayanan,
Plants have 98% of the elements found in humans. But for some characteristics they are classified in the biological kingdom Plantae. They multicellular being with limited motility and most importantly, they are able to manufacture their own food. They are essential for the existence of life in this planet and this is why Dr. Maria can see a soul in them. This is a beautiful way to look at these living being, to give them a living soul.
The major difference : Plant can not move from his place, whereas the animals are able to movement.
Other difference, the animal may eat other animal but plant cannot eat other plant
Thank you, Chun, Subhash, Maria, Vilemar and Qasim for your replies
Dear Qasim, There are insect 'eating' plants and plants that survive on other plants (Saprophytes) aren't there? Fungus also grows on us (if we consider them as plants).
Dear Maria, you mentioned soul, but let us think of the mind before that.
Does all animals and plants have a mind?
Narayanan
Dear All
Thanks Barbara
Do you think both plants and animals have a mind?
Narayanan
Dear Barbara,
How happy we are to read you! Dr. Maria has not done any research, as far as I am aware of on the soul of the plants. But if whoeverer doubt that should go to the rain Forest. You can feel there the energy plants. There is a strong feeling those living beings a watching you. There is no use to argue against it. There an uncountable reports of people who say they have seen proof of God just enjoying nature. If one does not know a Forest they should never go for an inocent walk. They can be surprised or never be back. Plants know so much. They produce hormones that smell exactly e qual to the smells produce by mating animals. They produce seedless fruits when there are birds that eat there seeds and digest them. They make their leaves fall when they need more light. I would go on and on. So, why should we need to search for organized structures in planta if they can do much more than the animais to survive?
Dear Naranaynan,
The right question is if plants need a mind, not if.they have one.
Dear Vilemar
If you think they have a mind, then the next question is obviously, 'Do plants need a mind'. I think that you think plants do not have a mind. Is that so?
Narayanan
Dear Narayanan !
As I contemplated the beautiful palm trees in the garden, after my early morning swim, I suddenly got the answer to your question...
Beyond doubt, Natural trees don't need a soul on their own. Plants are there to serve and surround those that bear a soul, and Mind... They are essencial to us, for fresh air, for shade, for fruits and food. They are Part of our soul... They are essencial to purify our environment, and even to bring our early morning music, with birds. They were put (planted) there to make us feel united with God, with our soul, and our mind. I think the same of Water. It is there to support, as an essencial pedestal to our soul and serenity of mind and Body.
These soothing early morning thoughts make me feel united and One with the Universe, and they bring the certainty of my honest pure and simple thoughts, that I share with you.
I hope that you agree with this Western European friend, because this would mean that you too are in peace with the Universe...
Dear Maria,
your words are in the first pages of the Bible. Genesis one.
Oh. Yes, you are right. I hadn't noticed,,, Are you accusing me of plagiarism, dear Vilemar ???
To quote the Bible is never plagiarism, even when you are not aware of that. Perhaps you are just citing a well established truth.
OK, Vilemar and Maria seems to agree that plants do not have a mind or soul. (When we say mindless behavior, does it mean we are behaving like plants? Taking and Giving with out any thought of self, no ego?)
One major difference between plants and animals is that plants lack a nervous system and neuro humoral system. Is this why they lack a mind? Is the mind located in the nervous system?
Narayanan
Dear Naranaynan,
I would never compare a numan being to a plant.
Dear sirs.
Even if I wouldn't dare compare a plant to a human being, even if we all agree that plant don't have nervous system, thus are edible goods, I might insist that they are essencial constituents of the integrating part of our mind and soul. ... Would you guarantee that a human person would have a mind or a soul, if it weren't for the existence of plants?
And on a more pragmatic view, would you guarantee the good function of our nervous system, if there were no vitamin input, as brought from plants?
Wouldn't we become plants (and/or minerals), ourselves, if there were no vegetation left???
In the Bible, the world is prepared to receive life. Plants were done first because they were needed to control the quality of air, to serve as shelter and for food.
Dear Maria, Vilemar
I fully agree with you; If there were no plants, there would have been NO oxygen and animal life as we know would not have existed. Even now they are the fundamental supporters of animallife; no plats-> no animals.
But my question is definite: If plants do not have a mind, and since they have no nervous system, does it mean that animals have a mind only because they have a nervous system? Is the mind located in the nervous system?
Narayanan
Dear Narayanan,
I have problems with such a question. You want to compare totally different creatures. We had such a discussion many times. What we really should discuss, at which status or evolution starts the differentation. It cannot be DNA, it cannot be accumulation of many cells, it cannot be the number of cells or the diversity in phenotype.
Indeed mind could be a parameter to find a decision. But automatically combine nervous system with mind is a not prooved statement. Think about earthworms!
How very disgusting, dear Hanno !
I wouldn't dare think that the earthworm would have a mind. of its own...
But you are indeed right. Different Natural Kingdoms are different things. We'll soon proceed to wonder whether minerals have a soul...
(and I often think that the Ocean does have the soul of Neptune, because it enhances my spirituality as nothing else...)
But I see your point. Yes, dear Hanno, you make us rethink the concepts of Darwin. Where is the frontier that differentiates the living creatures?
I prefer to think that plants have souls and mind than think that Darwin was right. Hahahahahaa.
if humans have a mind, a soul a nervous system. Plants can perform some movements characteristics of man without necessarily have the same structures. Say a parrots can speak some words and yet they do not have the same capacity to create discourse as humans. Dog understand lots of words, obey commands and yet they do not have the same capacity to reason as men. Some gens are the same, some organs are the same in different soecies, but what governs them is different. So, they are not equal.
Welcome Dear Hanno
I agree, and this would be a question that would have been discussed since eons ago. May be I have some definite aim, which I will tell later on. Please bear with me.
Now earthworms do have a nervous system, and I presume they have a mind too, though their intelligence may be near zero compared to us at least most of us) Or do you opine that they do not have a mind? But plants definitely do not have a mind (though JCBose thought otherwise, and if you can believe this http://www.viewzone.com/plants.html), at least a conscious mind which have the potential to give them a sense of purpose or something like that.
And can you add any other difference between plant and animal, other than those given earlier?
How do animals depend on plants?
See ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C146FEpZmQ
Plants and Animals Depend on Each Other!
God has created living things to coexist within communities, meeting their needs through an interdependence on others and the environment in which they have been placed. All living things - including plants, animals and people - possess a variety of unique features that enable them to live and breathe, to access food and water, and to reproduce and offer protection for their young. Being part of a community or ecosystem gives living things the ability to not only meet their own needs but, through God’s incredible plan, to provide for the needs of others around them.
See ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH3UwX3bPaM
http://www.integratededucation.com/site/interactiveeducation/files/Discover%20Sheets/1139%20C4%20DS%20SCI%201-4%20FINAL.pdf
Dear Narayanan
Mind as I understand is an invisible power residing in all human beings. If we consider thinking and cognition as effects of the mind, animals and plants do possess minds of their own. The mind has no physical form and its location has been postulated to be in the spiritual heart, in the brain and in the entire body. There is no concrete proof for any of these and it is left to the individual's innovative imagination.
Animals recognize their partners, enemies within their kind, love and fiercely protect their herd/young ones and fear predators... actions associated with the mind.
You gave some good examples of carnivorous plants. How do they recognize their prey? Plants respond to stimuli---phototropism, geotropism, photoperiodism etc. Mimosa pudica folds its tiny leaves when we touch them but does not respond in a similar way to wind or ecto/endo trophic bacteria/fungi. Plants do recognize changes in the weather and respond. Leaf shedding, flowering, fruiting etc. are observed in diverse plant species in different seasons. They also respond by producing defensive chemicals to biotic and abiotic stresses. Some people claimed that plants respond to music, vedic mantras or homas--scientifically yet to be proved. Legendary biologist J.C. Bose's experiments with plants probably answer your question partially if not entirely. I read long time ago that a researcher recorded electro-magnetic changes in trees when an woodcutter approached them with an axe. Did they shiver and fear death? In some of the legends it is written that plants planted by princes withered when they were in danger-- a kind of telepathy! Nobel Laureate Dr. Norman Borlaug used to spend long hours in wheat fiends and many believed that he had a way of communicating with them.
With our incomplete understanding of the mind and its potential, personally I feel it is difficult to conclude that plants lack mind because we lack techniques or equipment to detect it in plants. Let us wait and see whether our innovative and dynamic younger generation can solve this puzzle and come out with scientific proof.
Thank you Barbara and Rajeshvar
Both of you well have outlined the differences between plants and animals, one as regards their biology and the other their 'psychology', assuming that they have a sort of a mind.
Plants do have a sensorium even if they lack a nervous system, and some effector mechanisms, and consequently some sort of a mind, though it may be different from animals. Having a sensorium, I am sure that plants too have very primitive desires too, isn't that so? Is not desire to live, and exist, to be, the hallmark of life? They certainly have thirst and hunger, and one may at least philosophically say that this is the reason why they elongate their roots and their stems bend.
They do have desire for procreation, another hallmark of life, isn't that so?
Am I right or am I right in the above?
Narayanan
I do agree that plants need water and nutrients for survival and reproduction. Plants have a tendency to direct their energy towards reproductive parts during flowering and fruiting stages, at least in flowering species. In non-flowering plants, they tend to reproduce vegetatively. Certain basic characteristics are common to all beings.
Dear Narayanan:
Although some distinctions between plants and animals are obvious, others are not so clear. The most animals, for example, can move autonomously, which is not the case with most plants, although some unicellular algae have filamentous structures called flagella, allowing them to swim.
For the most part, plants contain the green pigment, chlorophyll called, which allows them to produce their own food via photosynthesis process. The animals depend on food produced by green plants. Once again, however, there are exceptions to the rule. The fungi and even some spermatophytes not have chlorophyll and therefore do not produce their own food.
Unlike animals, plants do not have nervous system, so usually do not react quickly to stimuli. However, the leaves of the sensitive plants bend quickly when touched.
Even the cellular structure of plants and animals is different. Most plants has rigid cell walls cellulose containing a substance existent in animals. Also, the growth dynamics of these two types of living beings is processed differently. Animals only grow until they reach maturity; the plants never stop growing while living.
Best Regards.
Andréa
Dear Narayanan !
I'm waiting to read your own personal view on the subject.
Why did you propose this question? What did you expect us to tell you?
Do you think plants are smarter than us? Do they have a secret different mind? Are they secretly preparing to conquer and rule the World?
Dearest Naranayan,
The plants stem bends for a phenomenon called phototropism. They contain aurins which tends to move away from light. The dark side of the plant gets heavier, grows more, with the action of aurins and it bends due to the differenc on weight. It is not for any primitive desire.
Dear All,
Thanks for the informative replies.
Dear Maria
No, I don't think plants are smarter than us except in Narnia, Utopia, Wonderland or some such place.
I just wondered what are the differences, especially if they have desires.
Dear Vilemar,
How can we say that they don't have any desires? If their desire for food and water is just biochemistry, is not ours too the same? Is not hunger, thirst etc based on biochemistry in our throat and gastric mucosa, and our satiety centre? We can say that we have memories and likings for favorite food; plants too may have this.
Only thing I can say is that plants do not have an 'ego', a knowledge of self like man; the moot point is whether other animals really have it.
Narayanan
Plants do not need food, they sythetize their own food. They do not have any desire for water also. The desire man when he wishes somethinig or long for it has nothing to with light and water given to plants.
How could there be a favorite food for a plant if they will have only the son supplying them light in order to realize photosynthesis? Minerals do not have any taste a plan can recognize as their favorite.
Now I agree with you. You say that you know plants do not have an ego. You got it. That is it. Concerning an ego in animals, it is easy to define. Just be with a pet for 30 minutes and you will be able to realize how wonderful all creation look like and how unique humans are.
Dear Vilemar
Plants take raw materials and water and synthesize their food; in this case the roots are equivalent to mouth, tongue etc and leafs to animal parts that do synthesis of many macromolecules. Actual mechanisms vary, but in Life's principle these are equal or equatable.
For plants too there is good food and bad food; that is why we give fertilizers. I don't know if their roots will grow more towards good food or not.
In a way animal body also takes up raw materials (of course they are not elemental, except a few) and from them build up body building blocks. Proteins are named so because they are the first building or most important building blocks. For plants the equivalent will be cellulose I think.
Taste and smell, the most primitive senses, need contact and consequent biochemical interactions. In a way they are similar to what a plant may be experiencing through its roots or leaf.
Concerning the ego, a man has what may be called 'self realization' (not in the Philosophical sense). Do animals really have this?
May be they can; otherwise they can not socialise or live together in colonies or have a chief or a mate.
Narayanan
Unfortunately, dear Naranayan, I can not agree with you. Plants do not need fertilizers. The seed has everything a plant needs until it starts synthetizing its own food from light and not from nutrients from the ground. They need to be there to maintain life in the soil which will air the area. If the energy, not food, comes from the sun what similarities would these systems have? There is not any universal law that every living being to be fed has to have a mouth. This is is why it is so difficult to define what a living being is.
Dear Vilemar,
a small additional remark. Plants need fertilizers but only the natural ones from the surrounding. Remember all the minerals like phospor, calcium, potassium, natrium etc. They use all these substances from the ground, otherwise the will not grow. And spend these trace elements back with their death. Artificial fertilizers are only needed for non natural artificial overproduction. So minerals are a bad criterion to find plant-animal distinctions.
May be I am not able to understand you well. We actually live in different worlds and I do respect all you have done so far as a scientist and besides you are very agreeable person to chat with, to exchange ideas. Although I have the impression there are not much difference for you between a plant and animals. What is needed it to recognize a similar structure for these living beings and this is not so, at least as far as I knowledge allows me to go. For me, there is not such a thing as a digestive system in plants. They capture light from the chlorophyll, water and carbon dioxide from the air and some minerals they may get from the ground are used directly by plants without being broken, digested.
Dear Vilemar,
I know your infos, and be sure, not the use of minerals or not will make the difference between animals and plants. They are not identical. But you cannot manifest it by nutrition of these creatures. There are different models. Mind, central or peripheral nerve systems...
A small hint: Do you know the plant sundew. It´s eating and digesting animals. It´s really not so easy.
Dear Hanno,
Thanks for becoming active.
Dear Vilemar
Digestion is just breaking up food to absorbable particulate/molecular size. Plants do not have digestive system because either they get sort of predigested, absorbable nutrients, which we can call their food. As Hanno said, there are plants which do digest, but this is done externally. Fungi growing on your skin, or on trees digest you and eat you. Carnivorus plants also do this. For them most of the digestion is done by Nature itself (decaying mainly). We can metaphorically say that the roots and leaves are their mouth, is it not right.
Anyway we agree that plants lack an ego, sense of self, even if they have any desire for particular food.
Another difference, related to mind and knowledge of self, that I think there is between plants and animals is in the matter of sexual reproduction.
Both animals and plants have urge to reproduce, sexually. In the case of plants, the male plants produce pollen which are carried by wind, bees, etc.,to the female receptacles. The male plants just produce these, KNOWING NOT WHETHER THEY WILL REACH THE FEMALE OR NOT; MAY BE THEY DONT EVEN KNOW THERE IS SUCH A THING AS A FEMALE.
But this is not so in the case of animals. They have find out a female OF THE SAME SPECIES and deposit the sperm in her (or at least on the eggs), WHICH IN A WAY SUGGESTS THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE SOME SORT OF REALISATION AS TO SELF. (OF COURSE YOU CAN ARGUE THAT ALL THIS IS DONE BY PHEROMONES, BUT EVEN THEY HAVE TO GO OUT AND DO IT.
So I come to one reason why I asked this question: Is this not a very important difference between plants and animals?
I a way does not each generation of animal life start with this decisive action of the male?
[;-)]
Narayanan
Naranayan,
I had just tried to give another contribution and I saw that it was what you just said above. Plants to do not need a digestive system, they dissolve their "food" and absorb it directly.
So, do we end up with the fact that plants don't have nervous system, no mobility, no will power, no digestive system... And even worse, no sexual life. (!!!)
Yet, they reproduce, they generate, they are an important, fundamental part of our eco-system, they complement our World, and we cannot live without them.
I thank God for plants.
( But I also thank God that I am not a plant... - !!! - )
Dear Friends,
But.plants are able to synthetize the same smell some females produce to attract polinizers. Nature is wonderfully complex. Having or not a mind, a digestive system is not much if we consider all they are able to do. Each ecosystem is a universe. One of the beauties is that they can do wonders and yet they do not need some of our complexo structures. Simple? Not always, but without them life as we know would not exist.
Dear Maria
We also thank God that you are not a plant!
Dear Vilemar
Exactly! Plants have to produce pheromones to attract polinizers; that is they depend on animals heavily for propagation (I won't say self propagation since I have committed that they have no self-realization, where as animals self propagate!). I am sure that they have a mind, even if no nervous system or self realization. They certainly have a sensorium, at least receptors, and reflex actions are local since no motor or sensory pathways.
Do we all agree in these?
Dear Hanno what idoes your wisdom say. Please do come out
Narayanan
Dear Naranaynan,
Yes, plants and all creation are amazing. The universe is intrixically connected. I would accept more easily a master mind who rules over all that, but never a mind for a bacterium or a plant. I just can't see weed as one element that needs to be exterminated. I can't kill an animal just because I am afraid of it, unless it shows it can also attact me. The power which makes us dependent of one another is also very interesting to me. The planet Earth "obeys" several laws and yet no mind to it is needed.
Many years ago it was taught that plants and animals were composed of different materials: plants, of a chemical substance of three elements,- carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen; animals of one of four elements, nitrogen being added to the other three.
--- Asa Gray
Yes, dear Subhash,
C H O N is our code key!
Maybe this is why there are no human Martians on Mars...
I like to think of C h o n p s adding to Maria contribution phosphorus and sulfer.
1. plants usually installed roots in one place and do not move on their own, while most of the animals have the ability to move.
2. plants contain chlorophyll and can manufacture their food by photosynthesis, while animals can not make their food and rely on other plants and animals in the fed.
3. Allenbata give oxygen and consume carbon dioxide, while animals give carbon dioxide, which plants need to make their own food, plants and animals consume oxygen in the breathing process.
4. plant cells have a wall, and has a cell different from the cells of animals installation configuration.
5. plants do not have the ability to sense, and animals have developed nervous system, intelligent animals used either plants there.
6. plants have very primitive League system and depends on the pressure and potential differences, and most of the animals have periodically closed system.
Thank you Neghmouche
As regards point 2, can we put it in a different way:
Animals have their own fire in their body using which they can cook their own food where as plants have to depend on the sun for the fire?
This puts the perspective that animals are more evolved than plants.
Narayanan
@Neghmouche,
a short remark to your point 5: Of course plants can sense, the turn their leaves to the sun, the close their leaves when it is to dry, the catch insects actively and eat them (Dionaea muscipula and Aldrovanda vesiculosa). But I agree: plants cannot think.
Dear Napoleon
Thank you for the well put answer, especially the 'Creativity'
Is it right to say that individual plants lack individuality where as animals have individuality, as a generalisation?
Narayanan
Im not so sure. Invidualism is formed by the surrounding. And this condition may form plants and animals in a similar manner.
Thanks, Hanno
One reason that prompted me is that Plants lack a Nervous system, and it is reasonable to assume that it is the Nervous system that giveth individuality.
Narayanan
This is a very good question. And many excellent answers have already been given.
Even so, there is still more that can be observed about plants vs. animals. For example, consider the following papers available here on RG. A particularly interesting paper introduces what is known as plant blindness:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265342706_Attention_Blinks_Differently_for_Plants_and_Animals
The alpha beta diversity of plants and animals is considered in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40691969_Alpha_and_beta_diversity_of_plants_and_animals_along_a_tropical_land-use_gradient
Plant polinator networks and food webs are considered in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267044590_Components_of_Phylogenetic_Signal_in_Antagonistic_and_Mutualistic_Networks
Article Attention "Blinks" Differently for Plants and Animals
Article Alpha and beta diversity of plants and animals along a tropi...
Article Components of Phylogenetic Signal in Antagonistic and Mutual...
I remember a school level answer to this question which is as follows: Plants are stationary where as animals can move.
Plant can produce his one food ... can live on places animals don't like ... Sam plants can live for long time ....plants make oxygen ...plants feed the world and please our senses
This easy law of movement is wrong. I know a lot of moving plants and of resting stationary animals. Its not so easy.
Thanks Mahamad.
Thanks Hanno. These are only generalisations, and many of them will remain so.
Thanks Peter. I am going through the articles.
Narayanan
Of course Napoleon
Physically, each plant has its own individuality; even snowflakes have it since no two snowflakes are alike.
What I mean to say is the individuality associated with the psyche/self/mind or whatever. May be you or Hanno or someone else may be able to put it better, if you understand what I mean.
Please do it for the others to understand
Another difference I would say is 'warmth'; plants lack warmth where as animals have it.
Am I right?
Narayanan
Dear all
What are the differences between plants and animals?
The most prominent difference is that animal take in oxygen to produce carbon dioxide, and plant filters carbon dioxide out of the air and produce oxygen. Otherwise plant and animal have a lot of similar. For example competition, there is also competition between plants even in same varieties. Only strong one can grow well.
1. Animals have locomotive, plant do not have.
2. Animals and plants both reproduce, but plants in most cases depend on other animals and insects as well as natural agency (wind, water etc.) for reproduction.
3. Animals whether wild or domesticated can avenge, while it rarely happens in the case of plants.
4. Animals can express in their way their love, affection and pain, plant can't. They don't cry or protest when being cut down.
Dear Chun, Thanks
dear Mohammed, You have certainly brought out some interesting points.
Thank you both
Narayanan
The self-organizing behavior that exists throughout the structure of animals and plants it is definitely different, Mankind too, also, morphogenesis. We should take into account that both organism (plants and animals) are alive, that’s common ground.
Their structures are organic rather than mainly crystalline and life exists through two dichotomous properties (article at the bottom):
1) The life pattern, appears with exact and precise arrangements through the micro- macro levels.
2) Such an expected Life pattern, will occur only through sensitive dependence on the initial Conditions that will enable the necessary unique characteristics to arise, as exact precision is required. Enough iterations are needed to produce such an uncommon, fine-tuned outcome, out of chaotic events.
The implications of the environment and surroundings should be taken into account through all scales (micro to macro) and must go hand to hand, with the necessary requirements needed to allow the precise scenario for evolution to occur. I mean by evolution, a complex dynamical system that would behave through nonlinear ways, dissipating energy while time evolves. Not a Darwinian evolution or natural selection. In fact a partially directed evolution.
Although, there is a wide variety of animals and plants, such variety arises though well-defined limits. Those limits allow us to differentiate from microscopic, (atoms), DNA arrangements to more complex structures at the mesoscopic scale. All the way from micro to macro, the differences are amazing. Here I would like to share with you just few of the articles to give out an overall view of what I have said.
About the particular importance of memory, microtubules do appear in plants and animal cells, acting through the limits and structures of plants and also, animals. However, the behavior of microtubules cannot go further and exhibit the great importance of memory, like in the way microtubules act in a human structure, like the way our brain and mind are.
Article Self-organization in the genome
Article Self-organization of living systems: A formal model of autopoiesis
Chapter Microtubules in the Cerebral Cortex: Role in Memory and Consciousness
Article Nontrivial quantum and quantum-like effects in biosystems: U...
Article Evolution through the stochastic dyadic Cantor Set: the uniq...
Article Biological pattern formation: from basic mechanisms to compl...
Article The physical principles underpinning self-organization in plants
@ Diego Sebastian Mahecha,
thanks for the interesting paper collection.
Regards
Dear Diego
Thank you very much for the very detailed, interesting reply with new insights.
I liked the part abou Darvinian selection/Natural selection
Would I be right if I say that it is not Natural selection, but Nature's selection? Sort of purposeful selection
Also about the memory. Interesting. I am glad that this point is at last reached.
The seeds of both plants and animals (eg. the zygote in the uterus is a seed) grow and become the living being of the species producing that seed (except when there is a mutation). Which obviously means that the Nucleic acids of both carry a genetic memory.
But each individual animal will have its own memory of past experiences, which I dont think any plant has. Is this not an important difference, apart from the anatomical one of having a nervous system?
The opinion of every one is welcome
Narayanan
Thanks for the articles
Interesting question and discussion. I come across today (almost 2 years later).
Plants too living organisms but stationary they have DNA and genes like human beings. We have blood vessels for transportation like that they have xylem for water transport (transpiration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpiration, http://www.smartsciencepro.com/transpiration-plants/)(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylem) and phloem tissue for organic nutrients (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phloem) transportation. They are autotrophs prepare their own food in the presence of Sunlight light+Air (CO2) +Water+Chlorophyll=Starch (Photosynthesis (http://sactree.com/pages/302) release Oxygen during day time. They too respire by transpiration using stomata (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoma) release CO2 during night time so it was advised not to sleep under trees during night time as they excel CO2. Fertilization i.e. Sex life in plants (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilisation) pollen is arranged on stamens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamen) male part and gynoecium is the carpel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gynoecium) female part need not be separate plants both present in the same flower, to explain it takes lot of time monoecious (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoicous) where both stamen and carpel are present in same flower where dieceous flowers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dioecy) stamen i.e. male flowers on one plant and female flowers (pistillate) on different (some particular species show this kind of variation not all)
Vilemar Magalhaes mentioned 'They do not have any desire for water also' without water plants die afater some time they cannot persist. Only Xerophytes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerophyte) can survive with little water.
Another interesting part I wonder how come all forget that too Indian fellows forget Sir Jagadish Chandra Bose (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagadish_Chandra_Bose) hypothesized that plants can "feel pain, understand affection etc."
Jagadish Chandra Bose (http://www.famousscientists.org/jagadish-chandra-bose/)
He was also a pioneer in the field of biophysics and was the first one to suggest that plants too can feel pain and understand affection
(https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jagadish-Chandra-Bose) he constructed automatic recorders capable of registering extremely slight movements; these instruments produced some striking results, such as Bose’s demonstration of an apparent power of feeling in plants, exemplified by the quivering of injured plants
Research into Plant Intelligence (http://humantouchofchemistry.com/jagdish-chandra-bose.htm)
Jagdish Chandra Bose showed experimentally plants too have life. He invented an instrument to record the pulse of plants and connected it to a plant. The plant, with its roots, was carefully picked up and dipped up to its stem in a vessel containing bromide, a poison. The plant's pulse beat, which the instrument recorded as a steady to-and-fro movement like the pendulum of a clock, began to grow unsteady. Soon, the spot vibrated violently and then came to a sudden stop. The plant had died because of poison (http://www.iloveindia.com/indian-heroes/jagadish-chandra-bose.html)
Useful information
The stages of fertilization process in the plants
http://www.online-sciences.com/the-living-organisms/the-stages-of-fertilization-process-in-the-plants/
Phloem vs. Xylem
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Phloem_vs_Xylem
Plant and flower parts
http://ejdio.weebly.com/plant-and-flower-parts.html
Dear All
The last ansswer to this question was added nearly a year ago; the one before that two years ago. Almost all points on the differences have been covered in this time. I would like to add an answer which looks at the question from a different perspective.
We all know that animal life ultimately depends on plant life, especially for oxygen to breath and secondarily for food. No argument about this. This is because, plants can tap the energy from Sun and do the above.
But looking at it another way, one may say that plants depend on the Sun for their existence and this is because they are unable to 'burn' their food and produce energy. One may metaphorically say that Plants lack the Jiiva jyothi (Life fire). One may perceive these as plants lack any warmth. You don't cuddle against a plant for warmth!!!
But, on the other hand, plants (given oxygen and food) produce heat and you can cuddle many animals for warmth.
Could this be the biological reason for the belief from ancient times that plants lack a soul/spirit/atman (if there is such a belief??)??? I believe so and also that the ancients were well aware of this. And this is I think is the role of the Spirit in the animal body; to act as a sort of point to initiate and keep the fire burning. And I reiterate that I am not a religious person, and believe that many any ancient beliefs had Biological foundation (see my project on BioAstrology)
Any comments, any one??
Narayanan
Ethics of species discrimination is not my strongest suit. There are various -isms stemming from there. But there is a side of it where both plants and animals (and other vaguely recognised beings) end up as food.
The Latin phrase ab ovo usque ad mala denotes beginning the day with a breakfast, and both animal and plant foods are there. Egg and an apple.
Omne vivum ex ovo is somewhat less culinary one but denotes the idea that all beings come from something common.
The most to the point are the verses from Taitiriya Upanishad [3.10.6] (in Itrans transliteration):
ahamannamahamannamahamannam . ahamannAdo.a3hamannAdo.a3ahamannAdaH . aha{\m+}shlokakR^idaha{\m+}shlokakR^idaha{\m+}shlokakR^it .
Or translated “I am food... I am food eater... I am the binding agent” and denotes we are all but food, although capable of agency.
I'd say plants evolved by their utility to offer themselves as food. Just imagine the randomness of flowers producing nectar, and it will be a loooong stretch. We evolved as food eaters. But it seem to me both plants and animals have some active role in what they will evolve to in the next generation ... or so.
Very right, Davor. Animals get nourishment from plants and when we die, they can get nourished by our decayed bodies (or those of the animals that eat us); it is all a cycle, each being the anna for the other. But when we live we produce warm; where as plants don't.
Thank you for the excellent exposition of the verses
Narayanan
Thats wrong, some plants produce “warm“. Typically examples are arum macular and nelumbo nucifera, all cycadaceae and a lot of angiosperms.
I am sorry, but you need better arguments And criteria.
Oh, I knew that someone will come up with some exceptions (which do not disprove a wide generalisation)
The arum and nelumbo 'warmth' is not in all tissues, only in the flowers; and not necessary for life sustenance of the plant. In cycadaceae too heat only in the sexually reproduced cones. I understand that in angiosperms too, the warm is related to sexual reproduction in flowers.
Well plants too flush when 'thinking' of sex and birth.
I think I will hold with what I generalised about animal warmth.
And I am not very particular about 'winning' any arguement. It is a generalisation, and if unacceptable, it will just wither away. I don't mind
Narayanan
Narayanan
Dera Narayanan,
if you give a statement like warmth is not produced by plants, this statement must be absolutely correct, otherwise it’s no scientific rule. So I’m still looking for criteria, not only to be right or you wrong etc. I’m highly interested.
regards hanno
Dear Hanno
Pseudoscientists like me can make statements and generalisations like these; and try to see a forest as a forest instead of the trees. If you are really interested, try to establish criteria. I am not competent in this area. I just suggested a different way of looking at things
Narayanan
No pseudo, it’s really more problematic. I want to have some simple rules look at the design of cells. You will find exceptions. Look at mobility, problem. Look at eating animals, Problem. And so on.....
could be mind, but try to define mind in primitive animals.
regards
Plants are usually rooted in one place and do not move on their own, while most animals have the ability to move.
Plants contain chlorophyll and can make their food by photosynthesis, while animals can not make their own food and depend on other plants and animals to feed them.
Rather than the mind, I would go in for the Spirit/Soul/Atman, if I am religious. Mind is just the complementary part of the body.
I would say that what I said is the best support, biological one, for plants not having a soul and animals, yes all animals (though that of man is possibly on a different level) having one, and it being the ultimate source of all warmth.
What would you say, Vilemar
Narayanan
Plants give oxygen and consume carbon dioxide, while animals give the carbon dioxide that plants need to make their food, plants and animals consume oxygen in the breathing process.
Most animals have a nervous system and respond quickly to external stimuli. They are also able to move or at least a part of their body moves like some porous animals, such as porphera, but plants do not have a nervous system and are very slowly influenced by external stimuli. To identify the scientific difference between animals and plants.
The main difference between animals and plants is in the feeding method. Plants contain chlorophyll and can therefore be used for construction
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Teacher Education
- School