Do plants move?

[PhiMed]

First of all, whoever told you movement was necessary for life was a moron. There are plenty of bacteria and phytoplankton that have no method of motility, and are completely at the mercy of surrounding water currents. There isn't a single scientist on earth who would argue that they are not alive.

Second, of course plants move. What a silly question.

 

[PunkRex]

Well locomotion is exclusive to kingdom animalia, thats what ive been taught anyways. Movement can mean alot of things, im going to be honest here guy, ive been studying Biology on and off for a few years now and ive never heard this, is it an American thing?

 

[omega 616]

First of all, whoever told you movement was necessary for life was a moron. There are plenty of bacteria and phytoplankton that have no method of motility, and are completely at the mercy of surrounding water currents. There isn't a single scientist on earth who would argue that they are not alive.

Second, of course plants move. What a silly question.

I think you just called a few previous posters morons.

Plenty of websites say movement was necessary for life, plenty that say the opposite.

 

[CriticalMiss]

Mrs Gren isn't really all that scientific, it's just something used in early school lessons to simplify 'life'. In reality it's not as clear cut as saying that something has to have all of those traits to be alive, fire has a lot if not all of the Mrs Gren traits (some a bit more tenuously than others) so is fire alive? There is a divide in science as to whether viruses are alive too. Some say no because they can't reproduce on their own, but some parasites can't reproduce in isolation and yet are still alive. They also have DNA/RNA, which some say is good enough to be considered alive.

Anyway, to the matter at hand! Plants do move. They track the Sun across the sky, their roots move through soil to find water and some will climb up things to reach sunlight. That's more movement than some Americans! There are also walking trees that can (very slowly) move around.

 

[CriticalMiss]

Well locomotion is exclusive to kingdom animalia, thats what ive been taught anyways.

There are bacteria that move, quite a few actually. Definitely not exclusive to Animals.

 

[PunkRex]

Well locomotion is exclusive to kingdom animalia, thats what ive been taught anyways.

There are bacteria that move, quite a few actually. Definitely not exclusive to Animals.

I know they can use Flagella and Cilia to move around but I was told this wasn't the same thing as what animals do.

 

[CriticalMiss]

Well locomotion is exclusive to kingdom animalia, thats what ive been taught anyways.

There are bacteria that move, quite a few actually. Definitely not exclusive to Animals.

I know they can use Flagella and Cilia to move around but I was told this wasn't the same thing as what animals do.

Why is it not the same? Do jellyfish not move because they have no legs? It'sa different method, certainly, but they still move with purpose. Predatory bacteria can sense when other bacteria are near them and move in that direction. Aerobic bacteria can sense the oxygen gradient of the medium they are in and move in the direction with the highest amount of oxygen. They don't really make 'informed' decisions on how to move, but it isn't just a random motion either.

 

[Lieju]

I have never heard of this either.

I mean, are we arguing that corals and other animals that just stay in one place are not animals then?

Isn't it viruses people disagree on whether they are alive or not?

 

[mad825]

Mrs nerg can explain cars? Cars can reproduce? Cars can Grow?

Viruses do not move. Can Mrs Gren explain that?

It's a simple question; does everything need the same qualities to classed as alive? Another question; would a highly evolved AI be classed as living?

 

[PunkRex]

Well locomotion is exclusive to kingdom animalia, thats what ive been taught anyways.

There are bacteria that move, quite a few actually. Definitely not exclusive to Animals.

I know they can use Flagella and Cilia to move around but I was told this wasn't the same thing as what animals do.

Why is it not the same? Do jellyfish not move because they have no legs? It'sa different method, certainly, but they still move with purpose. Predatory bacteria can sense when other bacteria are near them and move in that direction. Aerobic bacteria can sense the oxygen gradient of the medium they are in and move in the direction with the highest amount of oxygen. They don't really make 'informed' decisions on how to move, but it isn't just a random motion either.

Thats what im saying, its not the same as locomotion as they are not making the decision to move there. Thats why I said there were many different types of movement in my first comment.

Still, your proberly right, ive mostly been doing Geology lately (much to my distain) and won't be focusing on Biology again until next year so I can't remember alot of this, which reminds me I need to revise...

 

[rcs619]

When I was in school, I was taught mnemonic that lets you remember what the object needs to be alive, it was "mrs nerg" (or mrs gren) Movement; Respiration; Sensation; Growth; Reproduction; Excretion; Nutrition.

Now, I somehow got into a "heated discussion" about this and plants ... after looking round the net (aka page 1 of google) There seems to be a split.

Either plants are alive and move, movement isn't a necessity or plants don't move.

What is your take on this highly controversial topic, that is on the forefront of everyone's mind?

Plants *are* alive though. Like, according to every scientific requirement to be considered alive, they are alive. They breathe, they can sense the world around them, they grow, they reproduce and they do move. Granted they don't move much, in most cases, but plants do tend to angle themselves towards sunlight. And there's all sorts of little pores and openings on their leaves that open and close. Then there are more extreme cases, like sunflowers or venus flytraps which quite visibly move.

They aren't just, like, rocks or something. Or some sort of inanimate things sticking out of the ground. Plants are another form of life. Some plants can even communicate with neighboring ones (simply of course) by releasing scents or particles into the air. There have been some recent studies that show that plants can even feel pain, and 'scream' in response to being broken, or torn apart.

I have never heard of this either.

I mean, are we arguing that corals and other animals that just stay in one place are not animals then?

Isn't it viruses people disagree on whether they are alive or not?

Coral does move though. The actual coral organism itself is a polyp. Coral polyps actually feed on plankton and tiny crustaceans that float freely in the water. They may not move visibly to human eyes, but between the tentacles and their internal structures, there is movement within the coral polyps themselves.

Viruses do exist in a gray area though. Can can sense the world around them (a lot of viruses only attack specific types of cells, and pass over the rest), they are able of some movement, and they certainly reproduce. But they don't actually undergo respiration though. Viruses simply latch onto another cell and inject a strand of their own DNA to hijack the cell's natural processes to construct more viruses. No virus ever takes in any nutrients and converts them into energy of any sort.

Viruses are just such weird, alien things. They're such complex mechanisms for something so simple. At their core, they're basically parasitic bits of DNA and RNA surrounded by some proteins and lipids. And there's viruses for everything. Plants, animals, bacteria, individual species of each of the above. They're just... strange. They behave like lifeforms. Literally, their only function is to hunt down the specific cells they infect and use them to reproduce... and yet, according to our current understanding and definitions of life, they aren't actually alive.

 

[MetalMagpie]

Mrs nerg can explain cars? Cars can reproduce? Cars can Grow?

Viruses do not move. Can Mrs Gren explain that?

It's a simple question; do all living things need the same qualities to classed as alive? Another question; would a highly evolved AI be classed as living?

My biology teacher at school told us that viruses were the interesting ones, because by some definitions (such as Mrs Gren) they aren't actually living things. They're just complex chemical structures that appear to be alive.

Other people argue that this is nonsense. Viruses are just as alive as bacteria are - they're just a hell of a lot simpler simpler. Classic checklists for life (such as Mrs Gren) are too narrow.

And then there's a third camp (which my teacher was part of) who say it's impossible (and silly) to draw a concrete line between living and non-living things. There exists (at least in possibility) a complete spectrum of entities that cannot be easily classified as one or the other.

TLDR: Human beings like to classify things. The universe doesn't generally work that way.

 

[MetalMagpie]

I have never heard of this either.

I mean, are we arguing that corals and other animals that just stay in one place are not animals then?

Isn't it viruses people disagree on whether they are alive or not?

Corals do move (for one thing, they release eggs), they just don't relocate once they've landed somewhere. In order for Mrs Gren to work out, you need to take "move" as broadly as possible.

But yes, viruses are the tricky one as they really don't fit Mrs Gren. My teacher was firmly of the opinion that it's silly to pretend there's some sort of concrete line between living and non-living things. After all, living things developed from non-living things, so it's reasonable to assume that (at least in theory) you can have a continuous spectrum between the two.

 

[leeprice133]

Most plants move to some extent - flowers tend to open and close in response to light, and many plants move their leaves to make efficient use of sunlight, then you also have plenty of examples of rapid plant movement like Venus flytraps, bladderworts, sundews, and Mimosa pudica, not to mention the elastic pollen and seed release of Himalayan balsam and white mulberry (over 350mph!)

But it's all moot really - plant cells have metabolic processes and use homeostatic regulation of their cells which pretty much defines them as living things.

 

[omega 616]

Mrs nerg can explain cars? Cars can reproduce? Cars can Grow?

Viruses do not move. Can Mrs Gren explain that?

It's a simple question; does everything need the same qualities to classed as alive? Another question; would a highly evolved AI be classed as living?

Spoiler: serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/yellowstone/viruslive

"Viruses straddle the definition of life. They lie somewhere between supra molecular complexes and very simple biological entities. Viruses contain some of the structures and exhibit some of the activities that are common to organic life, but they are missing many of the others. In general, viruses are entirely composed of a single strand of genetic information encased within a protein capsule. Viruses lack most of the internal structure and machinery which characterize 'life', including the biosynthetic machinery that is necessary for reproduction. In order for a virus to replicate it must infect a suitable host cell".

So, I would say MRS GREN wouldn't cover them as they "straddle the definition of life".

Well would an AI need to breathe to live? I doubt it, would it be able to reproduce biologically? No. So I would say no, it wouldn't.

 

[rcs619]

I have never heard of this either.

I mean, are we arguing that corals and other animals that just stay in one place are not animals then?

Isn't it viruses people disagree on whether they are alive or not?

Corals do move (for one thing, they release eggs), they just don't relocate once they've landed somewhere. In order for Mrs Gren to work out, you need to take "move" as broadly as possible.

But yes, viruses are the tricky one as they really don't fit Mrs Gren. My teacher was firmly of the opinion that it's silly to pretend there's some sort of concrete line between living and non-living things. After all, living things developed from non-living things, so it's reasonable to assume that (at least in theory) you can have a continuous spectrum between the two.

Yeah, that's the crazy part to think about. The components of living things, of humans even, aren't really that special. We're composed of the same atoms, and molecules and chemicals as so many other non-living things on the planet. The only real difference is that in our case, those materials have arranged themselves in various complex ways that allow the biological functions to occur.

If you really want to get trippy, think about cells. Every single cell in the human body is a living thing. They can sense changes in the environment around them, move, respirate, reproduce, etc. In a way, humans (and all other lifeforms of course) aren't really singular organisms. Yes, we're each individual consciousnesses in control of individual bodies... but when you think about it, we're also composite organisms of millions of individual, simpler lifeforms working in unison.

 

[Lieju]

I have never heard of this either.

I mean, are we arguing that corals and other animals that just stay in one place are not animals then?

Isn't it viruses people disagree on whether they are alive or not?

Corals do move (for one thing, they release eggs), they just don't relocate once they've landed somewhere.

So... Like plants?

But yes, viruses are the tricky one as they really don't fit Mrs Gren. My teacher was firmly of the opinion that it's silly to pretend there's some sort of concrete line between living and non-living things. After all, living things developed from non-living things, so it's reasonable to assume that (at least in theory) you can have a continuous spectrum between the two.

Yeah, that's how biologists I know tend to look at it.
But they also do like to argue whether viruses are alive or not, but it's more about what our definition of 'life' should be. (I've heard arguments that computer-viruses should be considered 'alive')
But I haven't realised people commonly think plants aren't alive.

 

[DrOswald]

When I was in school, I was taught mnemonic that lets you remember what the object needs to be alive, it was "mrs nerg" (or mrs gren) Movement; Respiration; Sensation; Growth; Reproduction; Excretion; Nutrition.

Now, I somehow got into a "heated discussion" about this and plants ... after looking round the net (aka page 1 of google) There seems to be a split.

Either plants are alive and move, movement isn't a necessity or plants don't move.

Doesn't video this prove plants move and that movement is a necessity?

What is your take on this highly controversial topic, that is on the forefront of everyone's mind?

I would say that movement is not a requirement of life, and in my 3 and a half years of studying biology at the university level I have never met any professor who would argue it is or read any text book that even suggested the idea. I have met with many biologists specifically to discuss and debate the definition of life (it is a sort of pet project of mine to try and convince people that a specifically designed robot or even a specially designed program could be considered alive) and "movement" has never, not even once, come up. Reaction to stimuli? Yes. The ability to adapt? Yes. But specifically "movement"? Never.

If movement was one of the basic qualifiers for life or if there was any serious debate on the subject in the scientific community I think I would know about it. I believe you have been misinformed.

 

[Naeras]

Plants do have certain forms of movement, but they can't move. However, they definitely exhibit all the basic requirements to be considered 'life'(movement is not one of those) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions].

As for viruses, since that topic popped up: they fill some, but not all, of the definitions above(they don't have a metabolism and homeostasis, and aren't really cells either), and are thus considered to be "particles on the edge of life" rather than "life". That also applies to viroids [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viroid] and virusoids [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virusoid], who fill even fewer of the requirements as they're basically only replicating RNA.

 

[gewata]

To put an end to this argument, there is a tree that actually walks. It's called Socratea exorrhiza (google it), aka "Treebeard".