Absolutely not! In fact, I was making precisely the opposite point!cowsmanaut wrote:anyway, the way you describe it all gives an idea of sentience to the plants though as they would need to make this change
Plants don't "choose" to evolve. It is simply a question of the "better" variations from generation to generation having a slightly higher chance of producing the next generation. That's all, and hopefully that's obvious.
As has been pointed out above, evolution takes tens of thousands of generations to take hold; 170 years, or 28 generations is nothing at all. Equally, the selective breeding of cats / dogs etc isn't evolution, that's not random genetic mutation leading to an advantage, it's selecting two parents so that the offspring have certain characteristics - completely different.
All the "counter" examples you give are nothing to do with evolution, they're completely different processes. What evolution is is the result of a series of small random changes that gives rise to a slightly better chance of breeding; that's all.
Whether that be animals that live in symbiosis or seeds or whatever, in each case there is a clear series of steps between amoebic blob and the current situation each one of which is an advantage to the last.
If you want to come up with a cast iron "proof" against evolution, all you need to do is find something where there *isn't* a series of small steps from a single cell organsim to the current species where *every single step* is an advantage over the last. For example, if there was an animal that moved by having wheels on an axle then that couldn't have evolved (because the previous step - just having an axle without any wheels - isn't an advantage, in fact it would be a disadvantage!).
/mophus.png)
