Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Is a real life Groot possible? The obvious answer to that question is "I am Groot"   (foxnews.com) divider line 83
    More: Interesting, plants, talk.Marvel/Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, animal hybrids, plant cells, seedlings, carnivorous plants, plausibility, botanists  
•       •       •

3236 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 Aug 2014 at 8:12 AM (22 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



83 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-30 05:56:24 AM  
Plants inability to move is a function of their structure.  Plants that could be mobile would need to have structures similar to those found in animals such as a skeleton and muscle structures as well as a nervous system of some kind to control everything.  If there was some evolutionary advantage to plants walking, there would be walking plants.  The only plant (that I know of) that is capable of such movement is the Venus Fly Trap and that is because it offers a specific evolutionary advantage.

It may be possible to engineer such a plant, but I don't see what the purpose would be.
 
2014-08-30 08:23:36 AM  
ts1.mm.bing.net

Hold still and I'll explain it to you.
 
2014-08-30 08:27:29 AM  
In before Groot.
 
2014-08-30 08:33:15 AM  
cache.reelzchannel.com
 
2014-08-30 08:53:02 AM  

Ambivalence: Plants inability to move is a function of their structure.  Plants that could be mobile would need to have structures similar to those found in animals such as a skeleton and muscle structures as well as a nervous system of some kind to control everything.  If there was some evolutionary advantage to plants walking, there would be walking plants.  The only plant (that I know of) that is capable of such movement is the Venus Fly Trap and that is because it offers a specific evolutionary advantage.

It may be possible to engineer such a plant, but I don't see what the purpose would be.


Evolution involves random mutations that are then more or less likely to be passed on if they aid in reproduction.

It doesn't matter how much of an 'evolutionary advantage' it would be for us to have laser beams shooting from our eyes if we never randomly head down the millions of years path it would take to get them.

To take a trait that does not exist and use then conclude that said trait is therefore not beneficial to a species is getting the whole process backwards.
 
2014-08-30 08:57:06 AM  
Didn't this already happen when the primordial goo grew a tail?
 
2014-08-30 09:03:59 AM  

i586.photobucket.com

 
2014-08-30 09:04:38 AM  
I think my great great aunt Esther came pretty close, we had to pour a bucket of water over her head turn her wheelchair towards the sun to get her to stop babbling on about "The Catholic Menace."
 
2014-08-30 09:06:57 AM  
I have no idea who or what Groot is so I'll just keep looking at Daisy
 
2014-08-30 09:20:56 AM  

Bob Down: I have no idea who or what Groot is so I'll just keep looking at Daisy


I think if I hang on just a little longer, I'll never have to find out what this is either. I've still managed to not find out exactly what "twerking" is, so I have hope.
 
2014-08-30 09:22:01 AM  

cryinoutloud: Bob Down: I have no idea who or what Groot is so I'll just keep looking at Daisy

I think if I hang on just a little longer, I'll never have to find out what this is either. I've still managed to not find out exactly what "twerking" is, so I have hope.


Bless your heart.
 
2014-08-30 09:24:35 AM  

Ambivalence: Plants inability to move is a function of their structure.  Plants that could be mobile would need to have structures similar to those found in animals such as a skeleton and muscle structures as well as a nervous system of some kind to control everything.  If there was some evolutionary advantage to plants walking, there would be walking plants.  The only plant (that I know of) that is capable of such movement is the Venus Fly Trap and that is because it offers a specific evolutionary advantage.

It may be possible to engineer such a plant, but I don't see what the purpose would be.


Ever see a walking palm?
 
2014-08-30 09:25:37 AM  
Ik ben ook groot.
 
2014-08-30 09:28:22 AM  
I came to make a comment about farming intelligent plants for their oils, but the source was already referenced.
 
2014-08-30 09:41:39 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-08-30 09:43:33 AM  

Smackledorfer: To take a trait that does not exist and use then conclude that said trait is therefore not beneficial to a species is getting the whole process backwards.


Just because something seems beneficial doesn't mean it's advantageous on the whole.  Something that seems cool and useful could have major drawbacks.

The way plants uptake nutrients pretty much precludes being mobile.  Sure, if algae developed into a multi-cellular organism it might swim in water, but being rooted means, being rooted.

It takes a great deal of energy to move and photosynthesis may not be able to support those energy needs.

That's why plants are the way they are.

And I'm not arguing that just because something doesn't exist now doesn't mean it's impossible, but when you're talking about entire kingdoms of life forms without any indication of a specific trait one has to think that perhaps there's a reason for it.

For example, one can't argue that egg laying is disadvantageous in animals because many many species (including at least one mammal species) does it.  But only one animal (that I know of) makes use of photosynthesis (and even then it has to harvest its chlorophyl from algae).  There is probably nothing animals can gain from photosythesis that outwieigh the drawbacks.
 
2014-08-30 09:46:32 AM  

Ambivalence: If there was some evolutionary advantage to plants walking, there would be walking plants.


Not necessarily, no.

Not that I'm saying walking plants are super likely.
 
2014-08-30 09:47:19 AM  
Been seeing that "I am groot" thing around. Was wondering what it was. Now I know.
 
2014-08-30 09:48:22 AM  

towatchoverme: Ever see a walking palm?


Is that a euphamism for something?
 
2014-08-30 09:50:36 AM  

towatchoverme: Ik ben ook groot.


You mean you don't know? Maybe you should go outside more often.
 
2014-08-30 10:16:16 AM  
files.aeonsun.webnode.cz

Might have one or two things to say about the matter...
 
2014-08-30 10:17:25 AM  
This article is as retarded as the time in 1989 when Larry King Live devoted an entire hour to the question "Does Batman suffer from PTSD?".
 
2014-08-30 10:27:00 AM  

Ambivalence: Smackledorfer: To take a trait that does not exist and use then conclude that said trait is therefore not beneficial to a species is getting the whole process backwards.

Just because something seems beneficial doesn't mean it's advantageous on the whole.  Something that seems cool and useful could have major drawbacks.

The way plants uptake nutrients pretty much precludes being mobile.  Sure, if algae developed into a multi-cellular organism it might swim in water, but being rooted means, being rooted.

It takes a great deal of energy to move and photosynthesis may not be able to support those energy needs.

That's why plants are the way they are.

And I'm not arguing that just because something doesn't exist now doesn't mean it's impossible, but when you're talking about entire kingdoms of life forms without any indication of a specific trait one has to think that perhaps there's a reason for it.

For example, one can't argue that egg laying is disadvantageous in animals because many many species (including at least one mammal species) does it.  But only one animal (that I know of) makes use of photosynthesis (and even then it has to harvest its chlorophyl from algae).  There is probably nothing animals can gain from photosythesis that outwieigh the drawbacks.


You have about zero understanding of how species evolve, and/or an inability to properly communicate thoughts with others.
 
2014-08-30 10:35:05 AM  

DerAppie: towatchoverme: Ik ben ook groot.

You mean you don't know? Maybe you should go outside more often.


*confuseddog.jpg*
 
2014-08-30 10:46:27 AM  

towatchoverme: DerAppie: towatchoverme: Ik ben ook groot.

You mean you don't know? Maybe you should go outside more often.

*confuseddog.jpg*


Sorry, misread that. Somehow I added a word in the middle.
 
2014-08-30 10:58:39 AM  

Lydia_C: [files.aeonsun.webnode.cz image 340x255]

Might have one or two things to say about the matter...


And if you turn on the lights bright enough, a few photogasms, too.
 
2014-08-30 11:00:38 AM  

TV's Vinnie: This article is as retarded as the time in 1989 when Larry King Live devoted an entire hour to the question "Does Batman suffer from PTSD?".


Obviously he does.

I mean BABA BOOEY BABA BOOEY HOWARD STERNS PENIS BABA BOOEY.
 
2014-08-30 11:18:45 AM  

4.bp.blogspot.com



/Oblig
//You knew it was imminent
 
2014-08-30 11:52:46 AM  

Chris Ween: [i586.photobucket.com image 833x591]


I'd Groot her.

/if you know what I mean
//and I think you do.
 
2014-08-30 11:57:50 AM  

Ambivalence: Plants inability to move is a function of their structure.  Plants that could be mobile would need to have structures similar to those found in animals such as a skeleton and muscle structures as well as a nervous system of some kind to control everything.  If there was some evolutionary advantage to plants walking, there would be walking plants.  The only plant (that I know of) that is capable of such movement is the Venus Fly Trap and that is because it offers a specific evolutionary advantage.

It may be possible to engineer such a plant, but I don't see what the purpose would be.


Awesome. The purpose would be awesome.
 
2014-08-30 11:59:30 AM  

Bob Down: I have no idea who or what Groot is so I'll just keep looking at Daisy


I feel sorry for you.
 
2014-08-30 11:59:52 AM  

HeartBurnKid: Ambivalence: Plants inability to move is a function of their structure.  Plants that could be mobile would need to have structures similar to those found in animals such as a skeleton and muscle structures as well as a nervous system of some kind to control everything.  If there was some evolutionary advantage to plants walking, there would be walking plants.  The only plant (that I know of) that is capable of such movement is the Venus Fly Trap and that is because it offers a specific evolutionary advantage.

It may be possible to engineer such a plant, but I don't see what the purpose would be.

Awesome. The purpose would be awesome.


And sex.
 
2014-08-30 12:23:11 PM  
Slow news day, huh, Faux?

I am Cat.
 
2014-08-30 12:31:54 PM  

Smackledorfer: I think if I hang on just a little longer, I'll never have to find out what this is either. I've still managed to not find out exactly what "twerking" is, so I have hope.
Bless your heart.


I'm sure that your life has been enriched far beyond mine by watching Miley Cyrus rub her crotch on things.
 
2014-08-30 12:45:17 PM  

Ambivalence: Smackledorfer: To take a trait that does not exist and use then conclude that said trait is therefore not beneficial to a species is getting the whole process backwards.

Just because something seems beneficial doesn't mean it's advantageous on the whole.  Something that seems cool and useful could have major drawbacks.

The way plants uptake nutrients pretty much precludes being mobile.  Sure, if algae developed into a multi-cellular organism it might swim in water, but being rooted means, being rooted.

It takes a great deal of energy to move and photosynthesis may not be able to support those energy needs.

That's why plants are the way they are.

And I'm not arguing that just because something doesn't exist now doesn't mean it's impossible, but when you're talking about entire kingdoms of life forms without any indication of a specific trait one has to think that perhaps there's a reason for it.

For example, one can't argue that egg laying is disadvantageous in animals because many many species (including at least one mammal species) does it.  But only one animal (that I know of) makes use of photosynthesis (and even then it has to harvest its chlorophyl from algae).  There is probably nothing animals can gain from photosythesis that outwieigh the drawbacks.


It's not just about drawbacks but about how easy a structural change is to evolve.

It was a lot easier for bats and birds to have their forelimbs co-opted into wings than to have completely separate wings develop. That's not because it's disadvantageous to have wings and four other limbs, but developing two major structures from scratch is simply a lot less likely than minor adjustments to the pre-existing body plan.

Especially in light of the fact that evolution isn't directed towards an end-goal so every intermediate step has to be better than what came before it. In the case of wings, having some semi-arm semi-wings may be useful for gliding and stabilized running, but a half-evolved extra appendage is signficantly less likely to be useful.

Similarly, plants are not geared toward locomotion. That's not to say that a plant with the ability to move wouldn't be very successful, but any step toward evolving locomotion would require walking back some major structural features of most plants that would be decidedly not advantageous. There simply aren't many, if any, good intermediate stages between plants as they currently exist and walking plants.

No matter how good form C is, if form B is worse than form A, you will never get from form A to form C.

If an organism loses a trait over time, it probably wasn't beneficial and may have been actively disadvantageous. If it never evolves a trait, there are too many possible reasons for why to pin it down to "there must be a disadvantage to having that trait." It may range from "the trait is too hard to evolve" to "there are better alternative adaptations or adaptations that are simply more likely to crop up and preclude the adaptation in question" to "just blind luck" to, in some cases, "this isn't a trait that is physically possible under the laws of physics."

You can determine reasons why traits that appear in species might lend an adavantage or why traits that disappear weren't advantageous enough to be retained, but it's literally impossible to determine exactly why a trait that has never appeared at all in a population wasn't evolved. In most such cases, it's simply a matter of random chance and necessary structures just not being likely to appear rather than anything to do with how helpful or detrimental that trait would have been if it had arisen.

Evolution just doesn't know how good something is "going to be" until it actually appears. So unless there have been walking plants that quickly died out, you can't say that the lack of walking plants is because they would be poorly adapted to survive.
 
2014-08-30 12:47:35 PM  
Yeah, a walking talking tree can happen.  Thank you FOX News, for keeping us informed.
 
2014-08-30 12:49:57 PM  

cryinoutloud: Smackledorfer: I think if I hang on just a little longer, I'll never have to find out what this is either. I've still managed to not find out exactly what "twerking" is, so I have hope.
Bless your heart.

I'm sure that your life has been enriched far beyond mine by watching Miley Cyrus rub her crotch on things.


I pity you.
 
2014-08-30 01:28:50 PM  

DerAppie: towatchoverme: DerAppie: towatchoverme: Ik ben ook groot.

You mean you don't know? Maybe you should go outside more often.

*confuseddog.jpg*

Sorry, misread that. Somehow I added a word in the middle.


Ah.

For non Dutch speakers:

"Groot" is Dutch for "big."

So "I am Groot" is a subtle-ish pun on the order of "Vader/Father".
 
2014-08-30 01:30:16 PM  
If we're just  spitballing ideas...

Though Groot looks like one plant, what if it was actually a community of small, stand-alone plant-like forms, that inter-connected? Each individual unit would need to move just a little bit, to effect a large movement in an overall limb. The stretching and contracting could be done hydraulically, by capillaries expanding and contracting, or other, tendril-like attachments with elastic properties, like hydrogels.

As to why a plant might want to be mobile, it would be an advantage to be able to follow sources of water and nutrients, or sunlight, for example, on a world with a very slow rotation, and avoid toxic or unproductive areas, or evade predators.  That Groot ends up looking man-shaped is a conceit for storytelling purposes: I Imagine a real walking plant would be more like a grass-covered centipede than an Ent.
 
2014-08-30 01:30:19 PM  

Delta1212: Ambivalence: Smackledorfer: To take a trait that does not exist and use then conclude that said trait is therefore not beneficial to a species is getting the whole process backwards.

Just because something seems beneficial doesn't mean it's advantageous on the whole.  Something that seems cool and useful could have major drawbacks.

The way plants uptake nutrients pretty much precludes being mobile.  Sure, if algae developed into a multi-cellular organism it might swim in water, but being rooted means, being rooted.

It takes a great deal of energy to move and photosynthesis may not be able to support those energy needs.

That's why plants are the way they are.

And I'm not arguing that just because something doesn't exist now doesn't mean it's impossible, but when you're talking about entire kingdoms of life forms without any indication of a specific trait one has to think that perhaps there's a reason for it.

For example, one can't argue that egg laying is disadvantageous in animals because many many species (including at least one mammal species) does it.  But only one animal (that I know of) makes use of photosynthesis (and even then it has to harvest its chlorophyl from algae).  There is probably nothing animals can gain from photosythesis that outwieigh the drawbacks.

It's not just about drawbacks but about how easy a structural change is to evolve.

It was a lot easier for bats and birds to have their forelimbs co-opted into wings than to have completely separate wings develop. That's not because it's disadvantageous to have wings and four other limbs, but developing two major structures from scratch is simply a lot less likely than minor adjustments to the pre-existing body plan.

Especially in light of the fact that evolution isn't directed towards an end-goal so every intermediate step has to be better than what came before it. In the case of wings, having some semi-arm semi-wings may be useful for gliding and stabilized running, but a half-evolved extra appendage is signficantly less likely to be useful.

Similarly, plants are not geared toward locomotion. That's not to say that a plant with the ability to move wouldn't be very successful, but any step toward evolving locomotion would require walking back some major structural features of most plants that would be decidedly not advantageous. There simply aren't many, if any, good intermediate stages between plants as they currently exist and walking plants.

No matter how good form C is, if form B is worse than form A, you will never get from form A to form C.

If an organism loses a trait over time, it probably wasn't beneficial and may have been actively disadvantageous. If it never evolves a trait, there are too many possible reasons for why to pin it down to "there must be a disadvantage to having that trait." It may range from "the trait is too hard to evolve" to "there are better alternative adaptations or adaptations that are simply more likely to crop up and preclude the adaptation in question" to "just blind luck" to, in some cases, "this isn't a trait that is physically possible under the laws of physics."

You can determine reasons why traits that appear in species might lend an adavantage or why traits that disappear weren't advantageous enough to be retained, but it's literally impossible to determine exactly why a trait that has never appeared at all in a population wasn't evolved. In most such cases, it's simply a matter of random chance and necessary structures just not being likely to appear rather than anything to do with how helpful or detrimental that trait would have been if it had arisen.

Evolution just doesn't know how good something is "going to be" until it actually appears. So unless there have been walking plants that quickly died out, you can't say that the lack of walking plants is because they would be poorly adapted to survive.


Again - see the "walking palm."

There are already species of plants with (limited) self-locomotion.
 
2014-08-30 01:32:27 PM  
Slime molds FTW
 
2014-08-30 01:41:34 PM  
Still hope we do find an intelligent, mobile plant species when we go to the stars.

/go ahead, explain to them how Veganism is more moral then being an Omnivore.
 
2014-08-30 01:45:53 PM  
img2.wikia.nocookie.net
/Obscure
 
2014-08-30 02:04:17 PM  
Hodor.
 
2014-08-30 02:08:03 PM  
 
2014-08-30 02:12:21 PM  

towatchoverme: Delta1212: Ambivalence: Smackledorfer: To take a trait that does not exist and use then conclude that said trait is therefore not beneficial to a species is getting the whole process backwards.

Just because something seems beneficial doesn't mean it's advantageous on the whole.  Something that seems cool and useful could have major drawbacks.

The way plants uptake nutrients pretty much precludes being mobile.  Sure, if algae developed into a multi-cellular organism it might swim in water, but being rooted means, being rooted.

It takes a great deal of energy to move and photosynthesis may not be able to support those energy needs.

That's why plants are the way they are.

And I'm not arguing that just because something doesn't exist now doesn't mean it's impossible, but when you're talking about entire kingdoms of life forms without any indication of a specific trait one has to think that perhaps there's a reason for it.

For example, one can't argue that egg laying is disadvantageous in animals because many many species (including at least one mammal species) does it.  But only one animal (that I know of) makes use of photosynthesis (and even then it has to harvest its chlorophyl from algae).  There is probably nothing animals can gain from photosythesis that outwieigh the drawbacks.

It's not just about drawbacks but about how easy a structural change is to evolve.

It was a lot easier for bats and birds to have their forelimbs co-opted into wings than to have completely separate wings develop. That's not because it's disadvantageous to have wings and four other limbs, but developing two major structures from scratch is simply a lot less likely than minor adjustments to the pre-existing body plan.

Especially in light of the fact that evolution isn't directed towards an end-goal so every intermediate step has to be better than what came before it. In the case of wings, having some semi-arm semi-wings may be useful for gliding and stabilized running, but a half-evolved extra appendage is signficantly less likely to be useful.

Similarly, plants are not geared toward locomotion. That's not to say that a plant with the ability to move wouldn't be very successful, but any step toward evolving locomotion would require walking back some major structural features of most plants that would be decidedly not advantageous. There simply aren't many, if any, good intermediate stages between plants as they currently exist and walking plants.

No matter how good form C is, if form B is worse than form A, you will never get from form A to form C.

If an organism loses a trait over time, it probably wasn't beneficial and may have been actively disadvantageous. If it never evolves a trait, there are too many possible reasons for why to pin it down to "there must be a disadvantage to having that trait." It may range from "the trait is too hard to evolve" to "there are better alternative adaptations or adaptations that are simply more likely to crop up and preclude the adaptation in question" to "just blind luck" to, in some cases, "this isn't a trait that is physically possible under the laws of physics."

You can determine reasons why traits that appear in species might lend an adavantage or why traits that disappear weren't advantageous enough to be retained, but it's literally impossible to determine exactly why a trait that has never appeared at all in a population wasn't evolved. In most such cases, it's simply a matter of random chance and necessary structures just not being likely to appear rather than anything to do with how helpful or detrimental that trait would have been if it had arisen.

Evolution just doesn't know how good something is "going to be" until it actually appears. So unless there have been walking plants that quickly died out, you can't say that the lack of walking plants is because they would be poorly adapted to survive.

Again - see the "walking palm."

There are already species of plants with (limited) self-locomotion.


The idea that walking palms actually move is a myth.
 
2014-08-30 03:20:31 PM  
True Groot

img.fark.net
 
2014-08-30 03:44:16 PM  

LewDux: [img2.wikia.nocookie.net image 488x368]
/Obscure


My penis disagrees.

/Self Reported
/IYKWIMAITYD
 
2014-08-30 03:50:19 PM  

Delta1212: The idea that walking palms actually move is a myth.


*Googles*

Crap, you're RIGHT! Damn rain-forest guides LIED to me.

Thanks for that.
 
2014-08-30 03:51:02 PM  
DOH.

Sorry, post fail.

I swear to God this is WATER in this glass.
 
Displayed 50 of 83 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report