Do plants feel pain?

[Zero]

Originally Posted by sarinmall

Check the below link for scientific study of our anatomy
http://bodyscience.org/are-humans-ca...or-herbivores/

You can find many more similarties between humans and herbivores in the below link
http://agnvegglobal.blogspot.in/2011...umans-are.html

Off course, we have couple of similarities with omnivores too but that is because of adaptation just like cats adapted to vegan food..

You should probably pick better sources, those ones just sound <snip> and aren't actually scientific studies, they contain no real studies, its all anecdotal and biased from the author's own <snip> perception.

"It should not take a genous to identify that it would contribute absolutely no biological and/or logical sense if our eyes were placed anywheres other than in the front of the skull." So that's why all those rabbits and deer walk sideways, along with the crabs and their front facing eyes.

Hilarious.

There probably aren't many critters that are 100% carnivorous or 100% herbivorous, if humans didn't have access to the range of foods we do, it would be impossible for many to be vegan and not die a few years down the line from deficiencies. But we do, and some people apparently live healthy lives without eating meat, just as others seem to be thriving from eating solely meat and offal... Humans are remarkable.


edited by SF staff

Originally Posted by sarinmall

Nope time..You are very wrong...You are still living in the nineteenth century..It's a very wrong thinking that most of the population ate meat..So, we are carnivores. I have done detailed study on science and Darwin theory of evolution is one of blunderer theory of science. There were two kinds of people in this world. 1) Civilized 2) uncivilized
Civilized people ate meat sparingly while uncivilized adapted themselves to survive primarily on meat..What you are saying is about uncivilized people.

What? Isnt the whole "civilized" "uncivilized" victorian/19th century thinking?

I don't buy Darwin theory of evolution. I don't believe in evolution at all..According to evolution theory, Humans were neanderthal man 10000 years ago. And everybody believed in this <snip>..Now there are evidences of many advanced civilization with some dating back to 30000 years. Check out discovery of dwaraka. Recently, in south africa, there is discovery of civilization atleast 1,00,000 years old..They were humans not neanderthal man..If You come to India and says about Darwin theory of evolution, they will say it's a absurd nonsense...Neanderthal,homo erectus and other species, which survived on meat, co-existed with man..There was no evolution, only adaptation.

You are misleading common concieved notions about evolution. Homo erectus left africa roughly a million years ago, and spread throughout europe/africa and asia. The ones in Europe evolved in to Neanderthol, some in asia were isolated in islands and became the "hobbit" we know of (that is indeed adaptation), and the ones that stayed in africa, became us. When Homo Sapian crossed into Eurasia, we cross bread with neanderthol and erectus, as well as out competing them for resources.

We have looked at genetics, and there are links between us, erectus and neanderthol, just beyond being relateed to a common anscestor. We interbreeded. We can see this in genetics, and it proves humans and neanderthol both evolved from erectus, due to adaptation to northern climates.

.Check for the latest genetic studies..Don't go by what you were taught in schools. Still, if you believe in evolution, then note the following fact about our ancestors

Chimpanzees-Leaf and fruit eater veg
Howler monkeys - Leaf eaters
Marmosets - gum eaters
Sportive lemurs - Leaf eaters
Gelada baboons- Leaf eaters
Black-and-white colobuses - Leaf eaters
Gelada - grass eater
Mantled guereza- Leaf eaters

For one, chimps arent our ancestor. Chimps and us share a common ancestor, and that common ancestor is from the line that evolved into the other apes. Chimps are not herbivores. Sure, they do have a diet rich in fruits, but they also cannibalize other chimps and monkeys and eat them. That is not by definition a herbivore. Please find me an example of a herbivore that by definition is cannibalistic.

The only ape on that list where we can draw the parallels you are trying to use, is from chimp - and even then your facts are skewed from all common notions of biology and genetics.

Why you are looking for evidences in fossil fuels and archaeology?..They are no concrete evidences..Look at the anatomy and traits of humans with omnivores or carnivores and then tell me Which traits of humans matches with carnivores/omnivores..I listed out more than thirty similarities between
humans and herbivores in my articles. You show me similarities of humans with carnivores/omnivores.
I have done detailed study on humans traits and have written many articles
on this topic..So, your outdated links is of no meaning to me..I am not allowed to post links of my website and the links which i post of other sites is removed..So, I leave out to you to research for latest evidences in Google.

You do realise the anatomy used is based on the geological/fossil record?

One other thing, that chart you linked is over 60 years old. It does not take into account us cooking our food, therefore the general way we would group us doesnt necassarily work. Cooking bypasses the need to chew as much, and to digest as much. Utensils helped reduce the need for chewing, which is why our teeth are flat AND have sharp incisors. Humans also have one stomach, which is a general rule to classify carnivores. Our eyes face forward, which is an evolutionary advatange to predators (who eat meat). The fact we are built to run and sweat, besides the very early evolution of us running for survival, 200 000 years ago, we were persistance hunting - that being hunting down animals by forcing them to overheat. This is even before we are classified as "human".


The archeological record is more then proof of evolution. You can see most of the steps in which we went from small arborial apes, to bipeadal terrestrial apes, who sweat and out run out prey. The reason why we are hairless and sweat is due to our hunting adaptation. Why would we evolve to out run any animal on the planet (besides a minor few) at a distance, if we didnt hunt? IF we evolved to run completely for self defence, we would have evolved to run at a faster top speed rather then distance.

You are also completely ignoring the fact that mean played a huge part in our brain development. Meat is a "cheap" source or protein and fat. Our bodies can digest the protiens from fat easier then veggies (cooking helps even more on both accounts). We get more fat/protien/minerals per gram of meat then veggies. The extra fat from meat aided our brain growth, since our brain takes up 1/3 of our total energy output. THis in turn help our voice boxes evolve and our exemplary communication skills, which sets us apart from the other apes.

Also, people use the example of our digestive system to say we are herbivorious. This is errendous and again uses 50 year old "evidence". It ignores cooking, which is by far one of the most importiant adaptations/use of tools that we have done. The only part of our digestive system that is the exact same, or similar to herbivores is the small intestine. This needs to be very, large in order to break down the cellulose that surrounds most plant tissue, cooked or not. The assembly of bacteria in your gut also shows that we have BOTH bacteria for breaking down meat and plant matter. Our single stomachs are generally characteristic of meat diet. OUr teeth are a mix of herbivore and carnivore.


The problem is, you cannot go into pre human history (well say, pre homo sapian) and say "HUMANS ARE VEGETARIANS". We werent even completely human, and even back then our diets were dependent on the environment and most still had meat, whether thats fungi insects or even scavanged meat. The reason humans are so successful is because of our hunting stratagies, and the fact we can and will eat to what ever food is available. This makes us situational omnivores.

[knightofalbion]

Literally hundreds of scientific studies have highlighted the connection between red meat consumption and cancer. The more you eat the greater the risk. Flame cooked meat especially is the most potentially carcinogenic food you can consume.
Ditto saturated animal fat and heart disease/stroke etc.
Ditto dairy produce linked to dozens of ailments, including again cancer (breast, prostate and ovarian) and again the higher the intake the higher the risk.

[knightofalbion]

Originally Posted by knightofalbion

Physically and spiritually man is designed to be herbivore.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/94656/The-...tomy-Of-Eating

'We' may have the capacity to eat other things - technically we have the capacity to eat cardboard, though I wouldn't recommend it - but it is not man's true and intended diet.

........

[Zero]

Originally Posted by knightofalbion

Literally hundreds of scientific studies have highlighted the connection between red meat consumption and cancer. The more you eat the greater the risk. Flame cooked meat especially is the most potentially carcinogenic food you can consume.
Ditto saturated animal fat and heart disease/stroke etc.
Ditto dairy produce linked to dozens of ailments, including again cancer (breast, prostate and ovarian) and again the higher the intake the higher the risk.

What studies?

Originally Posted by knightofalbion

Literally hundreds of scientific studies have highlighted the connection between red meat consumption and cancer. The more you eat the greater the risk. Flame cooked meat especially is the most potentially carcinogenic food you can consume.
Ditto saturated animal fat and heart disease/stroke etc.
Ditto dairy produce linked to dozens of ailments, including again cancer (breast, prostate and ovarian) and again the higher the intake the higher the risk.

This is a logical fallacy. You can get cancer from the sun, yet I dont see everyone staying indoors their entire lives. Anything in excess is bad, even water.

Also, I posted a link stating we have a general resistance to the bad effects of fat and what not. We just go "ape" over it. You can also eat too any veggies and fruits. I ate so many oranges as a kid, I ended up with ulcers from my mouth into my intestine. If i kept eating them, I would most likely get sick from blood poisoning due to so any open wounds. My dr told me to stop eating them for a while.


Please, show me a few of these studies, I would be interested in seeing these

Originally Posted by Time

What? Isnt the whole "civilized" "uncivilized" victorian/19th century thinking?




You are misleading common concieved notions about evolution. Homo erectus left africa roughly a million years ago, and spread throughout europe/africa and asia. The ones in Europe evolved in to Neanderthol, some in asia were isolated in islands and became the "hobbit" we know of (that is indeed adaptation), and the ones that stayed in africa, became us. When Homo Sapian crossed into Eurasia, we cross bread with neanderthol and erectus, as well as out competing them for resources.

We have looked at genetics, and there are links between us, erectus and neanderthol, just beyond being relateed to a common anscestor. We interbreeded. We can see this in genetics, and it proves humans and neanderthol both evolved from erectus, due to adaptation to northern climates.




For one, chimps arent our ancestor. Chimps and us share a common ancestor, and that common ancestor is from the line that evolved into the other apes. Chimps are not herbivores. Sure, they do have a diet rich in fruits, but they also cannibalize other chimps and monkeys and eat them. That is not by definition a herbivore. Please find me an example of a herbivore that by definition is cannibalistic.

The only ape on that list where we can draw the parallels you are trying to use, is from chimp - and even then your facts are skewed from all common notions of biology and genetics.



You do realise the anatomy used is based on the geological/fossil record?

One other thing, that chart you linked is over 60 years old. It does not take into account us cooking our food, therefore the general way we would group us doesnt necassarily work. Cooking bypasses the need to chew as much, and to digest as much. Utensils helped reduce the need for chewing, which is why our teeth are flat AND have sharp incisors. Humans also have one stomach, which is a general rule to classify carnivores. Our eyes face forward, which is an evolutionary advatange to predators (who eat meat). The fact we are built to run and sweat, besides the very early evolution of us running for survival, 200 000 years ago, we were persistance hunting - that being hunting down animals by forcing them to overheat. This is even before we are classified as "human".


The archeological record is more then proof of evolution. You can see most of the steps in which we went from small arborial apes, to bipeadal terrestrial apes, who sweat and out run out prey. The reason why we are hairless and sweat is due to our hunting adaptation. Why would we evolve to out run any animal on the planet (besides a minor few) at a distance, if we didnt hunt? IF we evolved to run completely for self defence, we would have evolved to run at a faster top speed rather then distance.

You are also completely ignoring the fact that mean played a huge part in our brain development. Meat is a "cheap" source or protein and fat. Our bodies can digest the protiens from fat easier then veggies (cooking helps even more on both accounts). We get more fat/protien/minerals per gram of meat then veggies. The extra fat from meat aided our brain growth, since our brain takes up 1/3 of our total energy output. THis in turn help our voice boxes evolve and our exemplary communication skills, which sets us apart from the other apes.

Also, people use the example of our digestive system to say we are herbivorious. This is errendous and again uses 50 year old "evidence". It ignores cooking, which is by far one of the most importiant adaptations/use of tools that we have done. The only part of our digestive system that is the exact same, or similar to herbivores is the small intestine. This needs to be very, large in order to break down the cellulose that surrounds most plant tissue, cooked or not. The assembly of bacteria in your gut also shows that we have BOTH bacteria for breaking down meat and plant matter. Our single stomachs are generally characteristic of meat diet. OUr teeth are a mix of herbivore and carnivore.


The problem is, you cannot go into pre human history (well say, pre homo sapian) and say "HUMANS ARE VEGETARIANS". We werent even completely human, and even back then our diets were dependent on the environment and most still had meat, whether thats fungi insects or even scavanged meat. The reason humans are so successful is because of our hunting stratagies, and the fact we can and will eat to what ever food is available. This makes us situational omnivores.

No matter the link is older or new..The point that matters is that it represented true facts about human as herbivores which you chose to ignore..


Above chart is prepared by Milton R. Mills,M.D, Associate Director of Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM),North america.. Now don't tell me that he is not a recognized or inexperienced doctor.

then you are again stating facts thinking evolution as a true concept. Now check the below link which states Darwin theory as false and hence all your statements as false..

http://www.discovery.org/a/10661
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...on-genes-wrong
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxNeK3qeXeY
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1
http://www.darwinsdeadidea.com/index-1.html

You said "Humans have one stomach, so we are carnivores".Whom you are fooling man?.. even herbivores animal like horses and rabbits have one stomach...Many herbivores animals have eyes on the front like all monkeys, Giant panda etc..Really, your example of running and sweating which proves nothing made me laugh...You are using hair to group human as herbivores or carnivorous..How can you even think of that? many herbivores animals like elephants, kangaroos etc are hairless..As far as nutrients is concerned,there are many vegetables and fruits that are five time more nutritious than meat..I will create a separate thread for it since this is not a suitable thread to talk about sources of nutrients... You have just copy pasted from some website where a person who wanted to eat meat tried his best to group humans as carnivores/omnivores

I don't see any use of debating with you because i can see clearly that you will ignore all facts and will come up with same logic of the nineteenth century and evolutionary concepts which are blunderous hypothetical theories.
I have not posted link to any of my articles...That will bombast all your claims..
I will request all forum members to Google out the truth instead of reading this unnecessary debate since the topic was about plants feeling pain?
Time....Stop this discussion..All forum members are smart enough to find out the truth...As i said before, i have done more research than you...So, don't think that you can convince me with your evolutionary logic...

Now don't tell me above source is not authentic or i should have chosen better sources.. Hope the administrator don't remove this links...

Originally Posted by sarinmall

http://www.discovery.org/a/10661

THis article ignores a few things. One, it ignores the fact that darwin didnt have genetics, and he admitted that something that was beyond his understanding was at play. Two: It ignores the fact that darwins theory has been extrapolated upon, his whole theory wast wrong, it is admittingly rushed and unfinished because he didnt have time to complete it. Also this part:

But Darwin knew that the major animal groups—which modern biologists call “phyla”—appeared fully formed in what were at the time the earliest known fossil-bearing rocks, deposited during a geological period known as the Cambrian. He considered this a “serious” difficulty for his theory, since “if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed… and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures.”

Ever hear of the PRE CAMBRIAN? The fossils were found in newfoundland:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake...d_and_Labrador

It is the site of the Mistaken Point Ecological Reserve, which contains one of the most diverse and well-preserved collections of Precambrian fossils known. The site was first discovered in 1967 by S.B. Misra, when he discovered a fossil, Fractofusus misrai in the reserve in June 1967, which was eventually named after him in 2007.[1]

Notice the term PRE CAMBRIAN and MULTICELLULAR.

Excepting a few contested reports of much older forms from USA and India, the first complex multicellular life forms seem to have appeared roughly 600 Ma. The oldest fossil evidence of complex life comes from the Lantian formation, at least 580 million years ago. A quite diverse collection of soft-bodied forms is known from a variety of locations worldwide between 542 and 600 Ma. These are referred to as Ediacaran or Vendian biota. Hard-shelled creatures appeared toward the end of that time span. By the middle of the later Cambrian period a very diverse fauna is recorded in the Burgess shale, including some which may represent stem groups of modern taxa. The rapid radiation of lifeforms during the early Cambrian is called the Cambrian explosion of life.[6][7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian

You see, there are many links to before the cambrian. You are also ignoring the fact that most, if not all organisms, multicellular or not were soft bodied, which means it is almost impossible to find it - but we can find coal, which is only formed with life.

Things didnt just "pop" into existance during the cambrian. Most of the evidence is gone from either glaciations or plate technonics (which darwin had no idea about at all, which again doesnt mean he is wrong, plate technonics explained adaptation and his "survival of the fittest/struggle for existance" postulations.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/

This article does not prove darwin is wrong by any means. Here is the last paragraph:

eeing me to the door, Gingerich volunteered something personal: "I grew up in a conservative church in the Midwest and was not taught anything about evolution. The subject was clearly skirted. That helps me understand the people who are skeptical about it. Because I come from that tradition myself." He shares the same skeptical instinct. Tell him that there's an ancestral connection between land animals and whales, and his reaction is: Fine, maybe. But show me the intermediate stages. Like Charles Darwin, the onetime divinity student, who joined that round-the –world voyage aboard the Beagle instead of becoming a country parson, and whose grand view of life on Earth was shaped by attention to small facts, Phil Gingerich is a reverant empiricist. He's not satisfied until he sees solid data. That's what excites his so much about pulling shale fossils out of the ground. In 30 years he has seen enough to be satisfied. For him, Gingerich said, it's "a spiritual experience."

"The evidence is there," he added. "It's buried in the rocks of ages."

The article is about searching for evidence about evolution changing peoples mind about creationism, and how some of darwins assumptions about ancestry may have been wrong using new tech. It says nothing about darwin evolution - or any evolutionary theories based on that is wrong.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...on-genes-wrong

Again, this one just states that darwin forgot a "but". In other words, evolution isnt as simple as "random mutation", but the exeriments in the article shows light on adaptation to environment, and how that can effect our genes. Its now accepted it isnt nature vs nurture at all, its both.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxNeK3qeXeY
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1
http://www.darwinsdeadidea.com/index-1.html

I don't see any use of debating with you because i can see clearly that

The last 3 links arent exactly reliable sources. The first ones were good read for sure and I appreciate you showing them to me.

[knightofalbion]

Originally Posted by Zero

What studies?

There are hundreds of them out there. Three samples...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17349943
http://www.allgov.com/news/controver...09?news=849681
http://www.notmilk.com/52reasons.txt

[knightofalbion]

On the subject of plants. They don't have souls, whereas animals do. They certainly do possess a degree of consciousness though.

But as they lack a central nervous system it would seem logical that they do not feel pain.

That being said, when we look back, say, 400 hundred years, man had written wonderful works of literature, created astonishingly beautiful works of art, constructed amazing buildings, bridges and monuments - and yet his consciousness did not accept that black people had souls or were really human beings like the Europeans. But we know better now.
Maybe in future times we will have a greater understanding of plants and how they respond to their environment - and us.

Certainly, in the spiritual veganism advocated in the 'First Blessing' the instruction is to eat of the fruits of the earth, which does not involve the destruction of the plant.