Do plants move?

[Rofl Harris]

It's a simplification for children, not a scientific first principle.

But yes, plants "move". Their stoma open and close, requiring movement to do so; locomotion or movement through growth may not be the prerequisite intended.

 

[Sherokain]

I know that banana plants while not trees as most people think, are vines and they "walk" they are planted with around a 2 foot gap to allow them room to move as they grow, this movement is of course very slow however so in the case of the banana plant it is quite literal they move.

 

[Maximum Bert]

Yup trees and plants definitely move some of them more than others like animals I suppose ever heard of Quercus Nicholas Parsonus also known as the the legendary walking tree of Dahomey apparently it can reach speeds of up to 50 mph when really in a hurry and regularly travels over distances of 2000 miles to take in water and other necessities that are optimum for its wellbeing.

There is also the decidedly slower walking palm tree found in some rainforests which apparently move at about 1 meter a year of course some people will probably dismiss the idea of trees uprooting themselves and moving around when no one is looking but these people are generally laughed at among the serious community regarded as closed minded killjoys who cant see the forest for the trees.

 

[Kukakkau]

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?

Well a virus isn't a sustainable life. It's strands of genetic material (DNA or RNA) that inserts into a host and binds to host's genes to hijack systems. It's really just a capsule with receptors on the outside to bind to it's target which cause the proteins to insert the nucleic acid.

It doesn't respire, consume energy products or produce anything itself - it's just a little strand that tricks a cell into doing all of it for it.

So it is arguable but they don't really fulfill what are classed as life processes.

And for an AI I guess you can argue at life if it can reproduce (copy coding) and react to external stimuli itself. But not really a living organism

 

[Pinkamena]

I misread the title as "Do pants move". I was very confused.

 

[Ashadowpie]

yes plants move, now i dont mean they get up and walk around of course. any leaf and flower will very slowly face the sun, its also why Sunflowers" are called Sunflowers, you can actually visually see them move to face the sun.

its the reason why people who have plants infront of a sunny window should turn them once a week because they start to lean and wont start straight anymore. its actually really cool.

prayer plants are a tropical leafy plant that actually folds its leaves in half lengthwise when its nightime, and open up again in the day, so the plant looks different every day i have one in my room and its really cool noticing the changes.

Sensitive plants actually curl into itself if you touched them so thats definate movement, it does stress the plant if you do it often though.

Venus Flytraps move instently as well, they're actually really quick if they catch somthing in there " mouth"

so yah...plants move. FACT!

 

[Michaluk]

As has been pointed out the crux of the argument is the definition of "movement". Everything moves. A strong wind can blow my rock down a hill, but that doesn't mean the rock is alive.

You could refine the definition to be something like "motion generated internally without any external cause". In this case my rock with a stick of dynamite in it moves. The rock-dynamite system would classify as having movement. And the fact that the dynamite has to be lit by an outside force is irrelevant; you could say the same thing about a person (the chemical imbalance that gives a body "life" and causes all the interesting behavior is started by an outside force (one's mother) and is sustained with outside forces (food)).

You could keep refining the definition but you'd keep running into counter examples.

The problem is two-fold. One, the above definition is not a good, scientific definition and therefore will always run into trouble when being used to evaluate "fringe" cases. It's not a rule, it's more of a useful heuristic. It can distinguish a person as alive and a rock as not, but it's going to fall down on more complicated things.

Two, "life" seems to be better defined as a continuum rather than a binary state. Animals are "more alive" in some sense than plants and plants are "more alive" than rocks. But the exact point at which things go from "alive" to "not alive" is both fuzzy and, ultimately, arbitrary and not useful.

Think about a person. A person is alive. Is a single cell of an individual alive? Maybe (note: a body cell might be considered different than a single celled organism since the body cell would be incapable of sustaining itself without the collective work of lots of other cells. There are single celled organisms that most people would agree are alive.). If a single human body cell is alive, is its nucleus alive? What about an individual chromosome?

 

[spartan231490]

Movement is not a requirement to be classified as alive. They must respond to stimuli, which plants do by growing towards light and ect. but they do not need to be able to move. You're teacher was an idiot.

 

[spartan231490]

Mrs Nerg? I thought it was Mrs Gren.

M Movement
R Respiration
S Sensitivity

G Growth
R Reproduction
E Excretion
N Nutrition

I would say the saying is flawed before any matter. What happened to the I for intelligence? Mrs Gren or Nerg can explain a car for example.

What? Cars don't reproduce, or grow. Further, I don't know where this mnemonic is comeing from, it's wrong. Movement is not a requirement of being alive, reaction to stimuli is. Plants react to light by releasing hormones that inhibit growth, which is why a plant grows taller when it's in shadow then in sunlight.

Just to throw it in, some plants (definitely ferns, possibly some others, my biodiversity class was a long time ago) produce motile sperm cells (morphologically similar to animal sperm). So at least some plants don't need a discussion on "what constitutes movement" to be said to move.

EDIT: Also, there are non-motile bacteria and fungi. The specific requirement for "movement" seems a bit weird.

That's because movement isn't required, response to stimuli is.

 

[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.

I think you just called a few previous posters morons.

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

Plenty of websites say that the world is run by Jewish lizard people. You shouldn't believe them, either.

 

[hermes]

Movement is not a requirement for life, as well as many others. The virus example is relevant because they don't do most of the stuff listed in your mnemonic (they don't grow, don't reproduce by themselves, don't breath, etc), yet they have a DNA and would be considered alive.

By the way, plants do move. One of the most classic examples is the sunflower.

 

[Spaloooooka]

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?

http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_wolpert_the_real_reason_for_brains.html

Using this as an analogy. If you hang a halite crystal by a string in a saline solution under a current, the crystal shows preferred twinning and growth towards the current, or source of nutrition.

 

[Prosis]

Plants move. Sunflowers turn through the day to face the sun. Carnivorous plants such as the venus flytrap can capture prey. A plant in the shade will grow taller in order to reach sunlight (over several days or weeks of course). Roots grow deeper to reach water.

Movement is not considered to be a necessity. While it is possible that an organism must be able to move in order to live (I can't think of any living organisms that live, but do not move) having movement as a requirement for life serves no purpose. This is because too many things move without being alive. Diffusion causes particles to spread. Crystals and stalactites grow in different directions depending on water/nutrition available. Water moves in currents. Even glaciers move. While movement may be required for life, the ability to move serves absolutely no benefit in classifying living organisms .

For example, we could say that all living things are made of matter. A requirement for life is that it must be made of matter. This is true, it is a fact. By this rule, expressions of energy (light, heat, sound, etc.) and empty space are not alive, as they are not composed of matter (we're ignoring quantum for the sake of the example). However, that would be all that it would eliminate. It would not eliminate rocks, water, chemicals, metals, and many more nonliving entities.

There are four requirements to be considered a living organism.
1) Ability to reproduce
2) Ability to respond to stimuli (this could be argued as ability to move)
3)Ability to grow
4)Uptake of nutrients, and excretion of waste

There are many more things which are required to live, and shared by all organisms. An organized structure. A membrane or some method of separating the organism from the environment. Every individual is a product of a former generation. But these classifications are not as simple as the basic requirements for living, and thus, do not serve any purpose in classifying living organisms (at least, for something as simple as whether or not it is alive).

Since its been thrown around a couple times, I'll also say that its still highly debated whether or not viruses are alive. And its entirely possible that once there is a definitive answer, the requirements for life may be changed. This is because viruses lack the ability to reproduce on their own; they have to hijack a living cell or bacteria, and use the cell's machinery for their own reproduction. And scientists argue whether or not this counts as a valid form of reproduction.

 

[BeeGeenie]

This is a stupid argument. Of course plants move: even if they didn't move on a macro level, they move at a cellular level.

Although I'd say that movement isn't even necessary, since if we take it to its logical extreme, all atomic particles move.

 

[Dansen]

A few carnivorous plants move. Venus fly traps need to be fast movers to trap their pray and cape sundews will slowly wrap around pray.

Yeah, there is also a plant that closes when you touch it, Mimosa pudica ... quite a cool plant to be honest.

I just struggle to think why anybody would deny that plants move or that movement isn't a requirement of life.

What is life then :/
If you think about it, humans are just a self perpetuating chemical reaction. I think your perspective is way to narrow.
Would you say robots aren't alive, if so what does that make us?

 

[omega 616]

A few carnivorous plants move. Venus fly traps need to be fast movers to trap their pray and cape sundews will slowly wrap around pray.

Yeah, there is also a plant that closes when you touch it, Mimosa pudica ... quite a cool plant to be honest.

I just struggle to think why anybody would deny that plants move or that movement isn't a requirement of life.

What is life then :/
If you think about it, humans are just a self perpetuating chemical reaction. I think your perspective is way to narrow.
Would you say robots aren't alive, if so what does that make us?

All the philosophers and scientists in the world haven't answered that yet.

I have already said that robots aren't alive, don't need to breathe or need nutrients for a start.

Why did you post an anime clip? You know that's not real, right? On that note, robocop isn't a good example either.

 

[Dansen]

A few carnivorous plants move. Venus fly traps need to be fast movers to trap their pray and cape sundews will slowly wrap around pray.

Yeah, there is also a plant that closes when you touch it, Mimosa pudica ... quite a cool plant to be honest.

I just struggle to think why anybody would deny that plants move or that movement isn't a requirement of life.

What is life then :/
If you think about it, humans are just a self perpetuating chemical reaction. I think your perspective is way to narrow.
Would you say robots aren't alive, if so what does that make us?

All the philosophers and scientists in the world haven't answered that yet.

I have already said that robots aren't alive, don't need to breathe or need nutrients for a start.

Why did you post an anime clip? You know that's not real, right? On that note, robocop isn't a good example either.

Did you watch it?

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

I mean they're not gonna win any marathons or anything but yeah they definitely move.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

All plants move. End of story. All plants have some small motion inside themselves to regulate the incoming and outgoing substances. For example plants have stomata which are pores designed to take in the CO2 for photosynthesis. If the day is VERY dry these will close by flooding "guard cells" with fluid to force them shut over the pore. This is to retain liquid, water can be lost via the pore if the wind is up or the humidity is very low. They then open again at night and when it is damp to maximize CO2 uptake.

MOVEMENT IS NOT UNIQUE TO CARNIVOROUS PLANTS! JUST BECAUSE YOU CANNOT SEE IT DOESNT MEAN IT ISNT THERE!

As far as i know all plants have stomata. Plants have control over the movement of guard cells to open and close a pore to control what goes in and out of their leaves. Thats life.

Not to mention ALL their cells move at a subcellular level. They grow and divide and shuffle organelles around and have a cell skeleton used to move their DNA to the poles when they need to split. If a bunch of life working together isnt life then i cant understand what IS life.

 

[Altorin]

they move as much as mussels or barnacles do, and I wouldn't say those aren't alive.

Most bacteria don't have self-propelled motion either, they only move because things move them, and science is fairly confident that bacteria is alive.

The problem isn't the movement.

The problem is that that mnemonic is bunk and should be thrown out.