To say consciousness does not play a part in evolution to me is not completely correct. Sexual attraction plays a part and although it may not be a conscious decision it does factor in.

Flowers were not created to allow man to see beauty or bath in their scent they have evolved to attract pollinators.

My explanation then means that flowers that are shaped to mimic a certain insect are selected by evolution and the relationship between plant and insect.

Seeds are selected for by ability to germinate and grow to maturity.

So again we see an organism selected by its environment and everything in that environment not just hot, cold, wet and dry.

What really boggles my mind is, helicopter leaves spin when they fall to allow them to travel a distance from the tree which in turn allows them to grow more easily. So this means the tree itself must be aware of the wind and its surroundings.

As a horticultural major and enthusiast, This is a question that indeed fascinates me as well but here are my thoughts on the matter.

Besides algae and moss, i feel that grass is probably the most successful plant evolutionary speaking. And what i mean by that is, if i were to visit an exo-planet, i would not be surprised to see the surface covered with grass. I often postulate that perhaps some time ago, Mars had grassy fields. My point is though, to begin evolution, and sexual selection, one must survive first and foremost. So, producing a singular blade of grass with a singular root system would seem to me as the easiest method of begining to expand out of the primordial waters of life that were probably plentiful with algae, perhaps to a point where it would crowded in places, thus creating an evolutionary nedd for advancement and survival. And as far as breathing CO2, because of early earth's abundant volcanoes, the air would probably be little more than CO2.

So as life begin to crawl out the primordial soup, the most abundant food source would be grasses. So these plants were potentially eaten to near extinction. So plants had to become tougher or find ways of surviving being eaten. Thus plants became tall and tough skinned and have evolved into the trees we know today, or the began to encase their seeds in a hard shell, some with or without a sugary, and colorful fruit. The color was developed to help distinguish the seed from a bland grassy environment, to ensure being eaten, and thus being deposited into a nutritious substrate that ensures viability. Some plants also split in their sexuality, fruits being the most common, as an additional method of survival, the most successful probably being plants that pollinate by spreading it to the wind instead of requiring a host. Plants that received less wind such as tree dwelling orchids and the ancient like, thus finding more success becoming colorful, and patterned, and deeply aromatic to certain creatures, such as bee's and other sub-primary pollinating bugs and animals, examples being humming birds and hummingbird moths. Additionally, some plants elect to disguise their seeds, or create them so small, that they cannot be eaten but by ants. I would say that the maple seed you displayed probably evolved in an environment that had strong late summer, early fall winds, like Colorado for example. And it evolved to disguise it's seed with the other falling leaves, and by the next summer having a nice mulch of last season's decomposed leaves to begin life in.

What i feel i'm trying to get at is that throughout the eons, the initial blade of grass become increasingly complex to satisfy environmental changes, and sexual selection. So like animalistic evolution, all evolution was done because the plants that did not change, would eventually fail, by not being able to repopulate after being eaten, couldn't survive increasingly hot or cold climates, or changes in rain fall. The list could go on forever for every unique environment on this planet.

I should correct myself, moss is not a plant, but rather a fungus, which in my opinion are more fascinating than the evolution of plants. Have you ever seen a black morel? What was the Darwinian purposes to that?

Another fascinating part of plant evoulution is how did certain plants develop certain pschotropic qualities in animals and humans. What was the purposes to that? Maybe the chemicals were designed to kill certain creatures while produces unpleasant or disorienting effects so as to prevent it being eaten in the future. Alhough, a leafy green plant is particularly interesting as it is the only plant on earth that produces certain chemical compounds that seem to have a universal effect on the animals or humans that ingest it. Although discovery of these traits in plants was probably fairly easy for proto-humans, how did the plant's chemicals become so unique in their effect on the human brain. Have we evolved to be more, or perhaps less, receptive of complex molecules interacting with the perception center of the brain? Or perhaps, have our brains evolved so rapidly that the introduction of chemical compounds never before digested from certain plants, lead to un-evolved reactions? i feel the latter is probably more likely.

One thing i love though is how we humans, have an infinite variety of uses for just as many plants.

Hops+Barley+Yeast+Water= True manufactured gold
Chicken+Legume+Tomato Salsa+Flour Torilla=easy meal
Tree+Human= The frames of your house
Decomposing Plant Matter+Underground Pressure+Time= A just as diversely useful Mineral (Coal), or Fluid (Crude Oil)

Again the list goes on. Just as Animals have no conscientious direction of the evolution of their own race or any power in decision of that direction, neither do plants. They are simply living to survive and reproduce, just like any other form of life.

Sex wouldn't be as awesome if there was a divine creator. :-)

Originally posted by colin42
To say consciousness does not play a part in evolution to me is not completely correct. Sexual attraction plays a part and although it may not be a conscious decision it does factor in.

True, but that sexual drive is in itself a function of evolution. Only humans have been shown to have a level of intelligence that may affect this outcome.

Originally posted by TheMindWar
What really boggles my mind is, helicopter leaves spin when they fall to allow them to travel a distance from the tree which in turn allows them to grow more easily. So this means the tree itself must be aware of the wind and its surroundings.

No. You apparently didn't read all posts in this thread, or read anything about on evolution?

Originally posted by Cilvanus
I should correct myself, moss is not a plant, but rather a fungus, which in my opinion are more fascinating than the evolution of plants. Have you ever seen a black morel? What was the Darwinian purposes to that?

Pigmentation does not necessarily have to be an outcome of an evolutionary selection in the visible spectrum. Anthocyanins in plants are in most cases purple, but only because they protect against high intensity light, not because plants prefered looking colorful. Same thing goes with flowers - They look totally different in UV light, which is what they were actually selected for.

And mosses are definitely plants, not fungi.

Allow me to digress a moment.

Whatever makes any of you think that plants don't have minds and consciousness?

Have you ever compared the root system to the chains of neurons that compose the animal brain?

The root system does more than just anchor the plant and suck up water and nutrients, it allows the plant to think.

Not in the same way as us, and not using the same time scales, but they think and react to their environments. there have been numerous studies done that show they react to a threat, recognize people, and enjoy some kinds of music. Just do a little research.

Sheesh, perhaps if any of you actually spent time in a forest or grew a garden, or spent some real time with plants, it would be more obvious to you.

As far as evolution goes, they evolve in the same way we do: the mechanisms of evolution are pretty much identical for all living things.

Originally posted by colin42
So to me 'cheating' is part of evolution. Intellegence of sorts plays a part and we see this in so many species it is a shared trait and part of the process.

That is still sexual drive from the lesser males.

Originally posted by apacheman
Have you ever compared the root system to the chains of neurons that compose the animal brain?

No I haven't, because it is stupid. If you had any idea of how action potentials work in neurons, you would know that they are significantly different from root cells. Last time I studied root structure was 2 days ago under a confocal microscope, a feat I don't assume you haven't had time to do, from all your time in the forest.

The root system does more than just anchor the plant and suck up water and nutrients, it allows the plant to think.

Using that argument, then all living cells on earth can think. You often take a crap, and then discuss the latest political news with the bacteria in your poop?

Just do a little research.

I have. I'm currently undertaking my Phd in plant molecular biology - What did you do, read a few websites?

Sheesh, perhaps if any of you actually spent time in a forest or grew a garden, or spent some real time with plants, it would be more obvious to you.

I tend to my plants at university every single day, and my parents own their own small forest, thank you very much.

As far as evolution goes, they evolve in the same way we do: the mechanisms of evolution are pretty much identical for all living things.

Yes they are, but the outcomes are not. Deny ignorance dude.

I didn't read all of the answers after "god gave it a wing"... but here's my explanation.

Originally posted by drivers1492

Plants react to the environment but lack a mind, or consciousness which is one thing I have always thought would be necessary for the drive to make changes.

A mind or consciousness isn't required for evolution. Have you ever thought about how you would improve your offspring to better survive? You haven't because it isn't possible. You can't create certain genetic mutations just because you thought about it. Small organisms like bacteria don't have minds either. Sure there are situations where animals mate with other animals that possess specific traits, but that's a whole different case.

To explain the tree situation, here's an example that might help you picture it:
1. A certain species of tree starts to grow in some sort of valley, where there isn't much sunlight throughout the day.
2. The trees that were short died out, because they didn't get enough light. The taller trees survive and reproduce.
3. Since the trees are taller, their seeds have a longer fall to the bottom. Most of the trees die out, because their seeds break apart on impact with the ground. However, one tree contains a mutation where the seed don't just grow and fall off. They also grow part of a leaf out of the seed. When they fall off, they get some air resistance, lessening their impact with the ground.
4. Those mutated seeds have a better survival rate, therefore more of them reproduce. After that, the most aerodynamic mutations outlive the older ones, so on and so on.

Thanks for all the replies I have been away a couple days and am just catching up. It seems I need to clarify my thoughts on consciousness or awareness. I'm not asserting that an animal or plant can willfully cause a change for the future offspring but for lack of a better explanation a will of sorts. Basically the idea that a need for change to make life better or easier for an organism may happen because it is aware it is needed and the dna alters on the offspring due to the need. Its not exactly driving the change but the genetics respond to the awareness for that need for change.

I am not claiming consciousness on the level I think most are taking it for hence some of the replies implying a degree of ignorance on my part. But more an awareness of life that isn't being noticed or given proper due. It's a fascinating idea and I have no clue if I am way off base or not but I am enjoying the views of everyone.