>>37222
>Fungi being harmful
>empirically observed
And how is that observed?
>The diseases never appear without the fungus
Because the "diseases" visible on plants are simply a result of the detox reaction from a dormant fungus.
>the disease causes the fungal signs- then it should be possible to have the disease alone.
But if the fungus was dormant, then it shouldn't be possible unless this disease is isolated, which it never has been, since Pasteur's theory is universally held and it's just explained as being caused by the fungus to begin with.
>This means the fungus was metabolically active, getting energy from somewhere, and reproducing itself so it would be positioned within each of the thousands of plants. But where was it getting its energy from, the plant itself?
From the plant, if they can also supposedly get their energy from insects etc., then why not plants?
>And why does nobody find the fungus in healthy plants, given how it must, by what your postulate, be in every single healthy plant?
Nobody find the fungus? What, are they on a scavenger hunt for fungi and they can't find it?
>the disease never appears without the fungi, then they necessarily came in together
Assuming they're not dormant or that the fungus doesn't go through a detox procedure and that it really is "fungal disease control", which just assumes the germ theory.