| Final-Fan said: 1. Look. We were arguing about plant intelligence. I said whether they are intelligent depends on how you define intelligence, and that they were more intelligent than you thought they were. You said that they weren't, because it was debatable whether what they had was definable as "intelligence". I don't know how you could mean that EXCEPT to quibble with the semantics of whether I should be using the term "intelligence" to describe what they had more of than you thought. |
1. Yes, I am quibbling. 
3. Corn does not occupy an entire level of the food chain by itself (being domesticated it would be hard to put corn on any level of the food chain BTW). Getting rid of an entire level would possibly doom us, but not just one part of that level, because there would still be other lifeforms on that level (humans occupy an entire level by themselves).
4. What's a "corn food chain"? There's only one food chain (that of Earth), and it's hard to find a place for corn on it. The fact that corn isn't really a prodcut of nature of also quite important.
5. 50% of photosynthesis does not imply 50% oxygen supply. Plants are the chief producers of algae. IF plants disappeared, algae could not pick up the slack for them (unless their populations increased by 75%, which is unlikely, as they would become a huge source of food for aquatic life, and would actually get eaten much quicklier).
"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"
"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."
(The Voice of a Generation and Seece)
"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"
(pizzahut451)







