Proof that God exists

[The Grand Nudger]

This spring I'm planning to clone some apple and blueberry bushes (old blueberry bushes  30-40yrs.).  I was wondering what insight you give me regarding my endeavor.  I select green shoots right?  Pull all the leaves off to prevent desiccation?  Or do I leave a couple leaves?  What is the reasoning when deciding how to balance the transpiration and photosynthesis for the goal of growing new roots?  My understanding is that the roots need sugar to develop and that comes from the leaves, but the leaves also dry-out the plant.  So I'm confused and have no experience to call upon.

LOL, so, firstly, don't clone old fruit bushes you knob.  Get new ones.  They're more productive.   

 For apples, ideally no, you don't want green shoots.  You want to pick a dormant tip from last season now, in winter (closer to spring is better, above freezing but still dormant). At least two buds, but no sign of growth.  If you're going to grow on it's own roots obviously you want to hit the end with rooting hormone and shove it into a container full of peat, perlite, and sand.  1/1/2parts.  Tent it, keep it moist.  

But.....if you have the opportunity, use the process above to create scions for grafting.  If you have the right rootstock for your area you can graft two or three varieties onto one tree.  You can even graft apples and pears onto the same tree.   If you select a dwarfing stock you can graft multiple scions in a ring and turn multiple tall habit trees into a single low shrub.  You mentioned that you've air rooted, so, the process for a ring graft is alot like an air root in that you debark a portion of the rootstock (and notch the bottom portion of that) to slide the scions in, the difference being that you seal the exposed woods with ag wax after the graft.  

Blueberries otoh -are- best cloned with green wood (but still best done in early, early spring when it's still cool).  Pretty much the same process, though.  Pick a good long stem from your best bush, strip it of leaves, cut it into 4 inch lengths, dust pot and tent.  

The only use for leaves in cloning, is cloning directly with a leaf cutting.  Not easy to pull off with fruit bearing trees and shrubs.  Heres a pro-tip.  Mark the "top" ends of your cuttings and keep them wrapped in a moist paper towel....in the fridge, until they get hormone and media.  They won't root upside down (geotropism).  The liquid hormone is worlds better than the powder, as well.  It can take up to three months for new clones or grafts to show adequate growth, so..be patient...and you might want to do them a dozen at a time (some will just fail, no way around it).  

The reason for doing this late winter or early spring is that, yes, the roots need all sorts of things to develop...and that -should- have been drawn into the stems at the onset of winter in preparation for spring.  Plus, the temperatures are cooler and that inhibits the kinds of fungus that routinely makes clones and grafts fail.  The cuttings -should- provide the requirements for roots, and the new roots -will- produce new leaves (or the stock roots, when the graft is complete and they come out of winter dormancy).

---

Yes I suppose that's right.  I actually thought of typing that yesterday, but didn't think it would paint the picture I wanted to convey, but now that you've mentioned organic chemistry, then I think we're on the same page.

If life is defined as or indicated by a decrease in entropy, then chemistry doesn't fully capture the process of what it means to grow.  The chemical process of burning wood results in all sorts of disorganization while the chemical process of a sprouting seed results in organization, so it's more than just a succinct descriptor of a dumb process.  Perhaps there is a 5th fundamental force affecting entropy.

You're musing over hidden fundamental forces when you lack a basic grasp of biology and have "issues" with it?  I don't think that's going to be very productive.  

Artifice - clever or cunning devices or expedients, especially as used to trick or deceive others.

So, "artificial" is a product of intelligence and that makes a beaver dam artificial.     Intelligence is also a product of the universe and therefore artificial things are natural things with an artificial and arbitrary distinction.  

Sure, beaver damns are artificial in precisely the same sense as artifical selection is.  The trees didn't grow that way nor do they form such structures left to their own devices.  Sure, intelligence is a product of the universe....and artifical things are, in an important sense, natural..but again, artificial is not somehow meant or taken to be the opposite of something natural.  Here, as with "law" you are attempting to find some way to re-enforce your misapprehension rather than correct it.  

There is a distinct difference between a beaver damn and a forest, or even a pile of logs in a river.  One set is an artifact of artifice, the other is not. 

I'm going further and claiming they are one organism.  A tree growing in a pot is sold as a tree and I'm not charged separately for the pot and dirt... all of it is the tree because we can't have a tree without the dirt.  Or would you be saying that if you asked someone to hand you a tree that they would yank it from the pot and shake the dirt off the roots? "Here you go sir; the tree you requested."  

That's an absurd claim.  Interdependance of organisms should not be taken to mean that disparate organisms are the same organism.  I can tell you where a flower ends and a bee begins, and I assume that you're similarly capable of recognizing the distinction between them. 

You asked me a question about cloning..notice, nowhere in my advice did I suggest that you grab a handful of root dirt from the parent tree?  Because it's not necessary, and would kill the clone/graft.   In that case, you actually do have to create an "unnatural" environment or the process of life will fail.  You will never, in your life..put a shovel to the ground and find a 1/1/2 mix of naturally occurring peat, perlite, and sand, nor will that shovel full of sand be covered with a rooting tent..nor will it be contaminated with liquid growth hormone.  In picking your best trees and bushes, you will be propagating traits which may or may not express themselves in the more mundane version of reproduction the plant would undergo.  You will be engaging in artificial selection on every conceivable level..which is distinctly different from natural selection, and you are a distinctly different organism than the apple tree.  

If you want to engage in a little natural selection..you could just grind all the fruits into the dirt and wait for something to seed.  

 
In a sense, you're right that it doesn't make any difference.  After all, in my view of things, you're god playing the part of the guy who doesn't believe in god.  That's perfectly fine and it makes no difference.  There is no reason for me to proselytize except to have my own logic critiqued and that's only because I'm god playing the part of the guy who finds it fun to solve these puzzles.  You and I are part of the same process and the same ground of being.

As gratifying as it would be, I'm no god, lol.  

How is it that you see they had a choice?  As far as I can tell, the only ones who believe in freewill are the judaic religions (and maybe the hindus to an extent.)  I'm not sure I've heard any of the 4 horsemen asserting freewill and I recall Sam Harris being all over youtube proclaiming no freewill.  Do you believe you have freewill?

What does free will have to do with replacing god with evolution or vv, or atheism and theism?  Freewill is yet another subject that stands or falls on it's own.  Do I believe in it?  Well, I can't help but believe in it...even if I understand both that and -why- those beliefs are wrong.  Free will is, at least, a compelling fiction.  There is no atheist position on free will.  You'll find just about every possible opinion on the subject represented here in our atheist members.  

Yes, but evolution is the process OF an organism itself.  Evolution is a process that organizes information over time through selection of the best-equipped-of-the-bunch in each iteration.  If life is defined as a decrease in entropy, then evolution is evidence of life.

Ish, it's not a product of any specific organism or any specific representative of any specific organism.  Evolution occurs to all life that we know of and happens at the population level.  

We (as lifeforms) use the principle of evolution in algorithmic programming to find solutions to complicated problems.  I'm pretty sure that is how cars drive themselves (they learn in an evolutionary process).  Therefore evolution is a tool to create order from disorder and when spotted in nature as a spontaneous happening, it must be considered evidence of life.

I'm limiting myself to describing evolutionary biology to you when we discuss evolution...to keep us from drifting into analogies to other things (like cars learning to drive) that may or may not be fruitful.  Evolutionary biology is not a description of how cars learn to drive.  

That's my point... there is no selective pressure for consciousness, so how did it get here?

It's an interesting question...but are you sure that's really true?  It seems as if conscious animals are -highly- successful.  

The intelligence you think you have is just a determined process of the universe (if/then statements).  For example, if I want to melt ice, then I utilize an oven.  So, there is no difference in artificial and natural selection because both are being driven by processes that you ultimately have no control over.  To think you have control over it is an illusion.

What's more important to you, understanding evolutionary biology or reasserting yourself?   In any case, neither natural or artificial selection is about "having control", so why is that a problem for natural or artificial selection?  A great deal will be out of your control when you artificially select your fruit bushes (much of which you probably aren't aware of to control in the first place, even if you could).

Now, my question becomes: Why is the illusion necessary?  It's not!  So why do I see it?  Well, because god was bored, I guess, and wanted to watch a show.  What else?  I mean, there is no reason I have to be in this skin, watching the game go on.  And further, why do I have this point of view and not some other?  I could have the point of view of a goose and would have been just as entertained within that neural framework.

.........................................................................?  Most of this isn't directly related to our discussion..but, I have to ask.  Why and how -could- you have "the point of view of a goose"?  You are not a goose.  I can't comment on how entertained geese (or gods) are, relative to yourself, so I'll leave that alone.  There are at least two reasons you're "in the skin you're in", and you know them as mommy and daddy.  

You say "happens", I say "grows".

Evolution doesn't "grow".  You say alot of things about it..but thusfar those things have rarely been accurate.

Which implies life because evolution is a product of life and not the other way around.

Ish.  Evolution is certainly a product of life like ours, in a sense, combined with other factors, yes.  Conceivably, some other type of life could exist that did not evolve, or use genetic transmission of traits, or be subject to a competitive environment.  

I think you may be holding a misunderstanding of buddhism because it's not pantheistic.

Meh, like I said, I think it's pretentious horseshit. The bit about their pantheon was a joke.