Plants Are Superior Organisms To Humans

Props to Con for the children of the corn indoctrination reference; I genuinely laughed at that...well done Con. Given that organisms react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis, per the definitions of this debate, plants are superior organisms to humans, because... 1. Plants use tropisms to REACT TO STIMULI by differential cell growth expending less energy than humans to accomplish the same stimuli detection task. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2. Plants REPRODUCE so efficiently and so self-sufficiently, that even if there are no other living organisms present, plants can viably reproduce millions of offspring with the mere help of the wind, and the un-germinated seeds can sometimes last up to 8 years and still be viable for reproduction; any human "seed" dies within 3 days of being in an atmosphere other than the inside of a woman. 3. Plants GROW and "can regenerate all body parts from precursor cells...many trees, for example, can be cut off at the ground and, in due course, sprouts appear at the margins of the stump...these go on to develop new stems, leaves, and flowers." If this were true with humans, we wouldn't have amputees from trauma. http://biology-pages.info... 4. Plants MAINTAIN HOMEOSTASIS with water, nitrogenous soil, and sun, which are abundant and ubiquitous resources, while humans are incapable of directly extracting metabolizable energy from the largest source of energy in our solar system (the sun), and, as a result, humans must go to far greater lengths to simply consume energy. Humans are also incapable of utilizing the most abundant gas in our atmosphere (nitrogen), a necessary component for cell generation in all animals, without consuming plants directly or indirectly, which indicates humans' utter dependence on their superiors, plants. I think these reasons adequately affirm that plants are superior organisms to humans. But Con doesn't seem to see it that way. Con reasons: "If there were no sunlight, both people and plants would die. If we both benefit or suffer drawbacks from the same thing, then we are even." My response: How does sharing a benefit and a drawback make humans and plants even with respects to photosynthesis? Shouldn't we be measuring the extent of benefit for each? Humans can't metabolize the sun's energy, and plants can. Humans get vitamin D from the sun, and plants get metabolizable energy that directly or indirectly fuels nearly all life on earth. Plants are winning the photosynthesis battle. Con had originally said: "Without wind...plants are screwed." Thinking that this hypothetical case was implying a total lack of wind.. I had responded: No wind would mean that there is either no air or no air density fluctuations, both of which would kill most life on the planet. So Con got angry and said: "This part is actually pretty stupid. There are such days where there are no wind." My response: Yeah, so Con refuted that plants can reproduce simply with the help of the wind by saying: "Without wind, plants are screwed, because there are such days where there is no wind." Um, ok. Is Con saying that on some days plants are temporarily screwed with respects to reproduction? Without "no wind" being permanent, plants aren't screwed, because wind will eventually occur after a day or so. So, this part IS actually pretty stupid...Con tried to negate plants' superiority over humans in using the wind for reproduction by claiming that when wind is temporarily halted, for those moments, plants cannot reproduce with the help of the wind. Con were you reading your own argument when you said "This part is actually pretty stupid?" Con then tries to get bold: "In fact, do you know what causes wind? Hot air rises, cold air sinks." My response: You mean like the "air density fluctuations" that I mentioned 3rd round, Con? Why did you feel the need to "teach" me about density, when I had already mentioned it? Lame. Despite Con's and my disagreement about what "natural" means, buildings that are made with steel still have wood inside their structures, from studs behind drywall, to doors throughout the building. Now, I had mentioned that plants can survive generation after generation, successfully living and reproducing underwater and on volcanoes, and I sourced both of those claims, but you know how Con is... Con replies: "(Facepalm) Submarines. Fallout shelters. Bunkers. International Space Station. People can survive underwater or underground, given they have the proper housing." My response: (Back of Con's headpalm) Hey Con, have ANY humans EVER reproduced generation after generation, maintained homeostasis, and thrived permanently underwater or on active volcano byproducts? This is the actual case for plants, and isn't a viable possibility for humans, because of humans' vulnerability to water and high temperatures, like that of volcanoes; plants are superior survivors. Con tries again: "Going by your logic, people are superior to plants because we can exist in outer space, while plants can"t." My response: Plants CAN exist in outer space. https://www.nasa.gov... Con gets weird: "For your spaz about CO2, I am still trying to comprehend your diarrhea of the mouth. It's just filler text because you have a weak argument, or because you didn't know what to put there. Either way, very poor sportsmanship." My response: Con, you attempted to mitigate plants' ability to reduce CO2 by claiming that they release CO2, so I sourced and explained that plants take in way more CO2 then they ever release, which supports the claim of an effective reduction of CO2 by plants...and humans cannot accomplish this feat simply through respiration, because they are inferior to plants. Con continues: "People can make a massive dent in plant life...everyday, thousands of trees are cut down...that's just from a few small logging teams...if there were thousands more people cutting wood, we would effetely destroy ecosystem after ecosystem." My response: I had pointed out that if every human on earth killed 100 plants each, then it wouldn't make a dent in total plant life, indicating plants' reproductive dominance over humans; I was trying to show how much of a gap there was with respects to human/plant population. Con used this to try to show humans' superiority with regards to destroying things, or destructive dominance, but destroying things isn't really a part of being a successful organism, rather it's a compensation for needing so many limited resources to the point that destruction becomes humans' only option to maintain homeostasis. Also, if thousands of trees are being cut down EVERYDAY, as Con claims, then why do plants STILL outnumber us Con? What if thousands of humans were killed every day...how long until all humans were gone? We kill all of these trees, yet plants are still reproductively superior...interesting. Con said insulin came from pigs, so I asked Con if pigs consumed plants, and Con tried to get bold again and said: "Pigs...and people are omnivores because we eat both plants and meat. Pigs can exist on meat. Really gotta use your brain sometimes. " My response: Wow! Omnivores are secondary consumers, which means they have to eat primary consumers or producers. Hey Con, where do primary consumers, which is the meat that both pigs and humans consume, get their energy? Maybe you "really gotta use your brain sometimes." Con, the terrestrial animal whose meat that pigs and humans consume has either directly or indirectly consumed plants, so if you're claiming that pigs' metabolism is not contingent on plants, then you don't understand energy flow through the food chain. Yes, I know what an omnivore is, and I understand that omnivores are contingent on plants, thanks to the food chain. Con adds: "The bacteria used photosynthesis to create oxygen. So plants aren"t the only ones using photosynthesis." My response: Again with the irrelevance...Con, can humans photosynthesize light into sugar? Then bacteria's photosynthetic properties are irrelevant, because bacteria are just another example of organisms that are superior to humans with regards to metabolizing sunlight. Con really tries to make a point: "When people lose limbs or organs, we can replace them...scientist are developing a way to custom print working organs for people." My response: Yeah, well while people are futzing around trying to develop a way to print organs, plants have been regenerating limbs for their entire existence; this indicates that plants are in fact ahead of humans on this ability. Con continues: "to say that people can"t regenerate anything is an extremely stupid statement" My response: Con you are dishonest, I never once stated that, check the debate. I asked you if humans can regenerate VITAL APPENDAGES. The answer is no, and replacing is not regenerating; this shows humans trying to compensate for not being able to regenerate limbs, while plants need not compensate for such, because they regenerate vital appendages. Then Con gets errant: "Plants don't regenerate period." My response: B.S. Con. http://biology-pages.info... You can cut grass over and over again, and what happens? Caterpillars engorge on leaves all of the time, and leaves regenerate. Plants CAN regenerate Con, and this makes them superior organisms to humans. Con gets wrong again: People are the only sentient organisms on planet earth. My response: "Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors." http://fcmconference.org... Yep, some non-human animals are conscious. I affirm that, as an organism, plants are superior to humans.