Yet you miss the point that trees get by perfectly well without any intelligent intervention.No your childish crap doesnt work here.
The fact that humans can plant trees does not suggest that all trees were planted by humans.
The ability of a human to plant a tree demonstrates the control his mind/intelligence has over the process of planting that tree.
Unless a person who plants a tree does not use his mental faculties in the process; you have nothing to dispute here.
Again, trees do not require us to do this.The mechanisms of intelligence involve the ones that make the person conscious of how to prepare the soil and plant the seed.
Intelligence manifest there as the digression to not plant the seed too deep, not to plant it in muddy ground to rot the seed, not to plant it in the shade where it will not get enough sunlight etc.
We can also observe this influence of intelligence on natural process in a hydroponic environment; where the person determines conditions and necessities that will make the plant survive outside its "natural habitat" and creates those conditions through intelligence.
Again, trees don't need that. Water falls of its own accord sometimes. It's called rain. The reason however I said to skip the bit about the jug of water is that once the seed has been planted, and has water, there are no intelligent processes (as far as we know) that cause the tree to grow. It's all a natural occurrence. Just like a baby developing in the womb, no intelligence is required once we have a zygote.And why skip the bit about the jug of water?
Intelligence controls the health and vitality of the plant by determining that and when and how much water it should get.
That is why Markie's assertion fails. Just because scientists can recreate natural conditions does not necessarily mean that an intelligence was required. Yes, we CAN get a jug of water and pour it on a seed. But water falling by itself from the sky and feeding plants is a common every day natural occurrence which has no intelligent intervention required.