>>37224
>And how is that observed?
Even with your eyes.
>Nobody find the fungus? What, are they on a scavenger hunt for fungi and they can't find it?
I'm not on a scavenger hunt for lichens and I still see them, they're visible to the naked eye. So do the signs -unambiguously fungal tissue- of a number of fungi. What you postulate is easily verifiable.
>Because the "diseases" visible on plants are simply a result of the detox reaction from a dormant fungus.
If the fungus is dormant, it isn't reproducing. If it isn't reproducing, it isn't getting to all of the plant's offspring, and the offspring's offspring and so on. Yet the offspring's offspring's offspring, maybe thousands of plants, still exhibit the same reaction, which would require the fungus, too, to grow by the thousands, and hence, be metabolically active. So dormancy is ruled out, plain and simple.
>From the plant, if they can also supposedly get their energy from insects etc., then why not plants?
If they were metabolically active then sooner or later their signs would show up and you'd see that with your eyes. But they don't.
Besides, if they are getting their energy from the plant, then it might by symbiosis but just as well might be parasitism. There's no law stating parasitism is impossible.