>>55150466>Any animal with fur can do just fine in the winter,Aside from this being blatantly not true (there are plenty of tropical and subtropical, furred animals that would absolutely die in the cold), how is that different than plants? Both lifeforms need special adaptations to survive in colder climates, with some opting to hibernate. That's literally what plants (or all life for that matter) do.
>they only hibernate because food is less plentiful in the winter not because they’re weak to cold damage."Cold damage" isn't some binary force. If the temp drops too low, bears, squirrels, etc.. will die, hibernation or not. Drop a squirrel in the south pole unassisted, and lets see how long it lasts.
>Any animal truly weak to the cold doesn’t live in the cold, humans being the one exceptionAgain, "cold" isn't some binary, but also you contradicted yourself here. If it's "weak to the cold" it doesn't live there, because it dies. Which is a universal trait.
>>55150496Stupid ass analogy. Trees have specifically adapted to do engage in that process with no harm to itself, and they do so yearly. If you yearly shed your fingers during winter and grow them back, with no consequences, then yes you would be adapted to the cold.
Also ALL organisms are "weak to the cold" at different temps. Plants have adapted to their environment just as well as other organisms have. They are not particularly vulnerable, in fact are arguably more resilient, as they don't need to expend energy to survive harsh climates and aren't at the mercy of resources when theyre at the most thin like animals are.
>>55150514Not any more of a weakness than needing to hibernate or just dying in the cold like other animals do. See above. If you want to call that a weakness, go for it, but its inconsistent with virtually the entire type chart.
