Bernd
06/04/2020 (Thu) 12:19:04
No.37222
del
06/04/2020 (Thu) 12:19:04
No.37222
del
>>37209
Fungi being harmful and spreading through known means explains what is empirically observed better than your theory, which can't even offer an explanation.
Inoculation of very small quantities of fungal reproductive tissue produces disproportionate symptoms, this is explained as the living parasite expanding itself. I gave you a possible explanation but it's not as strong.
The diseases never appear without the fungus, which is only natural given the established causal relationship, but given you reverse the relationship -the disease causes the fungal signs- then it should be possible to have the disease alone.
Generations of thousands of healthy plants, completely devoid of both the disease and the fungus, can go before the two show up in one plant. If the fungus causes the disease this is easy to understand. If, on the other hand, it just shows up where the disease is and was laying on the plant, there are only questions and contradictions with what's observed.
This means the fungus was metabolically active, getting energy from somewhere, and reproducing itself so it would be positioned within each of the thousands of plants. But where was it getting its energy from, the plant itself? You do have to explain that. And why does nobody find the fungus in healthy plants, given how it must, by what your postulate, be in every single healthy plant?
Alternatively the fungi come from outside the healthy plant. This still means they have a metabolism elsewhere. However, if both the fungi and the disease come from outside and the disease never appears without the fungi, then they necessarily came in together. You said the disease are toxins from insects, then the fungi are necessarily from the insects too, and have a metabolism within them. It'd also mean there'd be an observable relationship between insect control and fungal disease control. But you discarded this.
The only alternative you're left with is that the fungi are spreading through the established means of germ theory, they just aren't harmful. But if harmless things spread this way, harmful things can, too.
Fungi being harmful and spreading through known means explains what is empirically observed better than your theory, which can't even offer an explanation.
Inoculation of very small quantities of fungal reproductive tissue produces disproportionate symptoms, this is explained as the living parasite expanding itself. I gave you a possible explanation but it's not as strong.
The diseases never appear without the fungus, which is only natural given the established causal relationship, but given you reverse the relationship -the disease causes the fungal signs- then it should be possible to have the disease alone.
Generations of thousands of healthy plants, completely devoid of both the disease and the fungus, can go before the two show up in one plant. If the fungus causes the disease this is easy to understand. If, on the other hand, it just shows up where the disease is and was laying on the plant, there are only questions and contradictions with what's observed.
This means the fungus was metabolically active, getting energy from somewhere, and reproducing itself so it would be positioned within each of the thousands of plants. But where was it getting its energy from, the plant itself? You do have to explain that. And why does nobody find the fungus in healthy plants, given how it must, by what your postulate, be in every single healthy plant?
Alternatively the fungi come from outside the healthy plant. This still means they have a metabolism elsewhere. However, if both the fungi and the disease come from outside and the disease never appears without the fungi, then they necessarily came in together. You said the disease are toxins from insects, then the fungi are necessarily from the insects too, and have a metabolism within them. It'd also mean there'd be an observable relationship between insect control and fungal disease control. But you discarded this.
The only alternative you're left with is that the fungi are spreading through the established means of germ theory, they just aren't harmful. But if harmless things spread this way, harmful things can, too.