"D. Staples" wrote in message
omsupplyinc...

"sympleass" wrote in message
...

"D. Staples" wrote in message That just proves
the point that the books are wrong. They way it is being
taught is wrong and confusing.

Define element

define nutrient

define food

Really pathetic, yard boy, editing my post to make look like spoke your
idiot words, here is the whole post. You are really a clueless punk.

Don Staples - Consulting Salvage Hog
http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/Services/salvage.htm

Ok, then, Don Staples. Please provide data specific to Texas that states
that your salvage and restoration work increases the health of a forest
rather
than what I state, that your practice is deforestation. Please
provide the page and paragraph number where your data can be found stating
that you increase forest health by your salvage and restoration work. You
claim I am a fraud while all along you promote deforestation claiming sound
treatment for landowners investment. You claim to be a consulting forester.
Please consult and provide the data for your practice.
http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/Services/salvage.htm

In reality Don Staples claims to be a "consulting forester" while he refuses
to define specifically what that is at his website at:
http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/forestry/staples.htm

--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Tree Biologist
www.treedictionary.com
and
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
Watch out for so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, tornado's, volcanic eruptions and other
abiotic forces keep reminding humans that they are not the boss.

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"symplastless" wrote:

"Chris" wrote in message
...
On Sep 16, 6:57 pm, "symplastless" wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message

...
On Sep 14, 7:40 pm, "symplastless" wrote:

Thank you for your input.

Chris show me one per. table that identifies elements as nutrients.

--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Tree Biologistwww.treedictionary.com
andhttp://home.ccil.org/~treeman
Watch out for so-called tree experts who do not understand tree
biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, tornado's, volcanic eruptions and
other
abiotic forces keep reminding humans that they are not the boss.

The table I mentioned above (the one in Campbell & Reece) has is
titled "Plant Nutrients" and it has two columns. The first is divided
into two subsections, titled macronutrients and micronutrients.
Nitrogen, for example, is listed as a macronutrient. The second column
is titled, "Form available to plants." When we look there, we see the
(macro)nutrient nitrogen is available not as N or even N2, but only as
NO3- or NH4+. So the plants cannot absorb elemental nitrogen (the
common atmospheric form of which is N2) but they must get their
nitrogen as either nitrate or ammonia.

Note the difference between humans and plants here. Human nutrients
are commonly listed (and I have taught nutrition as well as General
Biology) as energy, protein, carbohydrate, lipid, water, minerals, &
vitamins.
God help your students. So what kind of energy are we talking here,
kinetic or potential?

Define element

define nutrient

define food

Define wise.

Wrong answer.

--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Tree Biologist
www.treedictionary.com
and
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
Watch out for so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, tornado's, volcanic eruptions and other
abiotic forces keep reminding humans that they are not the boss.

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article

Sorry Chris, counselors, or medical practitioners, nutritionists may be
but they aren't biologists, chemists, or physicists. Just because some
of them may use a term to define a condition doesn't mean that the term
is based in the hard sciences. The term may have meaning to them but is
meaningless to the greater scientific community.

So why not call an element an element and something with energy a nutrient,
as long as it contains elements.

--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Tree Biologist
www.treedictionary.com
and
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
Watch out for so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, tornado's, volcanic eruptions and other
abiotic forces keep reminding humans that they are not the boss.

In article
,
Chris wrote:

On Sep 19, 12:54 am, Billy wrote:
In article
,



Chris wrote:
On Sep 17, 8:56 pm, Billy wrote:
In article ,

"symplastless" wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message
.
..
On Sep 16, 6:57 pm, "symplastless" wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message


m...
On Sep 14, 7:40 pm, "symplastless"
wrote:

Thank you for your input.

Chris show me one per. table that identifies elements as nutrients.

--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Tree Biologistwww.treedictionary.com
andhttp://home.ccil.org/~treeman
Watch out for so-called tree experts who do not understand tree
biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, tornado's, volcanic eruptions
and
other
abiotic forces keep reminding humans that they are not the boss.

The table I mentioned above (the one in Campbell & Reece) has is
titled "Plant Nutrients" and it has two columns. The first is divided
into two subsections, titled macronutrients and micronutrients.
Nitrogen, for example, is listed as a macronutrient. The second
column
is titled, "Form available to plants." When we look there, we see
the
(macro)nutrient nitrogen is available not as N or even N2, but only
as
NO3- or NH4+. So the plants cannot absorb elemental nitrogen (the
common atmospheric form of which is N2) but they must get their
nitrogen as either nitrate or ammonia.

Note the difference between humans and plants here. Human nutrients
are commonly listed (and I have taught nutrition as well as General
Biology) as energy, protein, carbohydrate, lipid, water, minerals, &
vitamins.

God help your students. So what kind of energy are we talking here,
kinetic or potential?

Excuse me? Um, first off, energy is not so simplistic, I am afraid.
There are more kinds of energy than kinetic or potential- you know
that, right? There's thermal energy, and electromagnetic radiation
(like X-rays) neither of which can be classified as kinetic or
potential energy.

Let's see. Thermal energy requires a gradient, that is to say high
energy to low energy, in order to function. Allowing an object in a
high energy state to go to a lower energy state. That is called potential
energy.

Only if you want to use a highly nonstandard definition of potential
energy. But feel free.

It is a very standard definition of energy, whether you are talking
foot-pounds or joules.


And you must have heard of Erwin Schrödinger and wave mechanics.
Can you say photon? Sure you can. It can be treated as a wave or a
particle. So what is all this crap? My response was to John, who has a
biology book but doesn't understand the terms in it. The science

If you want to reply to someone, perhaps you should take a little more
care in responding to the right person. If you look at the
attributions, your response was to me, not John. Here's a free clue:
those little '' thingies (or whatever your newsreader inserts before
quoted material) actually tell you something.

It must be serendipity to have found another ignorant person in
need of instruction.

vocabulary is as different from normal English as the legal vocabulary
is.

But the answer to your question, of course, is that it's chemical
energy. Chemical bonds retain energy, and breaking those bonds
releases the energy. Lipids contain more of those bonds, and more high-
energy bonds, than do carbohydrates or proteins, hence there are more
Calories/gram in fats than in the other two nutrients.

Hydrocarbons are basically hydrogen and carbon with a greater percentage
of carbon to be oxidized than carbohydrates, which already contain
oxygen, or proteins which have oxygen and nitrogen comprising part of
their weight. Where are you going with your sneering stupidity?

Sneering stupidity? What's your issue? You have some real problems.
That chip on your shoulder is big enough to block your view of
reality.

No response to the substance of the discussion?


The most dangerous form of malnutrition goes by the acronym PEM, for
protein-energy malnutrition. In PEM we see a deficiency both in
essential amino acids and in caloric intake. In children this leads to
kwashiorkor- the poor kids with the hugely swollen bellies (a result
of an inability to move liquids back into the blood), and in adults it
manifests as marasmus, or wasting, where we see the body mobilizing
lean muscle tissue for energy. But note the name- "energy
malnutrition". Yes, energy is classified by nutritionists as a
nutrient. You're welcome to check any nutrition textbook.

Synonyms for protein-energy malnutrition and related keywords:
protein-energy malnutrition, PEM, protein-calorie malnutrition,
kwashiorkor, marasmus, starvation, hunger, poor diet, nutritional
deficiency.

Just bought a thesaurus, did you? (Now _that's_ a sneer.)


Sorry Chris, counselors, or medical practitioners, nutritionists may be
but they aren't biologists, chemists, or physicists. Just because some
of them may use a term to define a condition doesn't mean that the term
is based in the hard sciences. The term may have meaning to them but is
meaningless to the greater scientific community.

Well, as a professional biologist working in biology, I can assure you
that you're mistaken.
My condolences to biologists everywhere.

There was a day when biologists were the butt of scientist's jokes.
They would take simple chemistry or simple physics and avoid "real"
scientists, but those days are gone and now biologists are specialized
biochemists and very respected.
I can only presume you are a throw back to the "studying morphology"
type of biologist as opposed to the "mitochondrial sequencers" or
studiers of enzyme systems. I can only imagine the hilarity that would
break out if you talked about protein-foot pound malnutrition or
protein-joule malnutrition.

Thanks for the chuckle.

But you have a nice day.

Chris
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1016232.html

In article ,
"symplastless" wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article

Sorry Chris, counselors, or medical practitioners, nutritionists may be
but they aren't biologists, chemists, or physicists. Just because some
of them may use a term to define a condition doesn't mean that the term
is based in the hard sciences. The term may have meaning to them but is
meaningless to the greater scientific community.

So why not call an element an element and something with energy a nutrient,
as long as it contains elements.

John, everything has energy (potential or kinetic). Physicists tell us
that even a void has energy but in our world, energy from the Sun is
captured in reduced carbon dioxide bonds which incorporates water into
the process. This is done by chlorophyl and is stored as a form of
glucose. It is the energy from the re-oxidation of these carbon bonds
that is responsible for all eucaryotic (cells with membranes around the
nucleus) life on the planet.
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1016232.html

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"symplastless" wrote:
Define
nutrient

element

food

from you knowledge of chemistry.


--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Tree Biologist
www.treedictionary.com
and
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
Watch out for so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, tornado's, volcanic eruptions and other
abiotic forces keep reminding humans that they are not the boss.

In article ,
"symplastless" wrote:

Define
nutrient

element

food

from you knowledge of chemistry.

You are in no position to demand squat. I worked for my knowledge,
now it is your turn.
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1016232.html

On Sep 19, 9:06*pm, Billy wrote:
In article
,



*Chris wrote:
On Sep 19, 12:54 am, Billy wrote:
In article
,

*Chris wrote:
On Sep 17, 8:56 pm, Billy wrote:
In article ,

*"symplastless" wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message
.
..
On Sep 16, 6:57 pm, "symplastless" wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message


m...
On Sep 14, 7:40 pm, "symplastless"
wrote:

Thank you for your input.

Chris show me one per. table that identifies elements as nutrients.

--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Tree Biologistwww.treedictionary.com
andhttp://home.ccil.org/~treeman
Watch out for so-called tree experts who do not understand tree
biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, tornado's, volcanic eruptions
and
other
abiotic forces keep reminding humans that they are not the boss.

The table I mentioned above (the one in Campbell & Reece) has is
titled "Plant Nutrients" and it has two columns. The first is divided
into two subsections, titled macronutrients and micronutrients.
Nitrogen, for example, is listed as a macronutrient. The second
column
is titled, "Form available to plants." *When we look there, we see
the
(macro)nutrient nitrogen is available not as N or even N2, but only
as
NO3- or NH4+. So the plants cannot absorb elemental nitrogen (the
common atmospheric form of which is N2) but they must get their
nitrogen as either nitrate or ammonia.

Note the difference between humans and plants here. Human nutrients
are commonly listed (and I have taught nutrition as well as General
Biology) as energy, protein, carbohydrate, lipid, water, minerals, &
vitamins.

God help your students. So what kind of energy are we talking here,
kinetic or potential?

Excuse me? Um, first off, energy is not so simplistic, I am afraid.
There are more kinds of energy than kinetic or potential- you know
that, right? There's thermal energy, and electromagnetic radiation
(like X-rays) neither of which can be classified as kinetic or
potential energy.

Let's see. Thermal energy requires a gradient, that is to say high
energy to low energy, in order to function. *Allowing an object in a
high energy state to go to a lower energy state. That is called potential
energy.

Only if you want to use a highly nonstandard definition of potential
energy. But feel free.

It is a very standard definition of energy, whether you are talking
foot-pounds or joules.



And you must have heard of Erwin Schrödinger and wave mechanics.
Can you say photon? Sure you can. It can be treated as a wave or a
particle. So what is all this crap? My response was to John, who has a
biology book but doesn't understand the terms in it. The science

If you want to reply to someone, perhaps you should take a little more
care in responding to the right person. If you look at the
attributions, your response was to me, not John. Here's a free clue:
those little '' thingies (or whatever your newsreader inserts before
quoted material) actually tell you something.

It must be serendipity to have found another ignorant person in
need of instruction.



vocabulary is as different from normal English as the legal vocabulary
is.

But the answer to your question, of course, is that it's chemical
energy. *Chemical bonds retain energy, and breaking those bonds
releases the energy. Lipids contain more of those bonds, and more high-
energy bonds, than do carbohydrates or proteins, hence there are more
Calories/gram in fats than in the other two nutrients.

Hydrocarbons are basically hydrogen and carbon with a greater percentage
of carbon to be oxidized than carbohydrates, which already contain
oxygen, or proteins which have oxygen and nitrogen comprising part of
their weight. Where are you going with your sneering stupidity?

Sneering stupidity? What's your issue? You have some real problems.
That chip on your shoulder is big enough to block your view of
reality.

No response to the substance of the discussion?

That was the substance of your discussion? That's it?

Sorry, it seemed inconsequential. You included a tiny bit of 9th-grade
science among all the ad hominem attacks so it was easy to miss. But
congratulations, yes you get your gold sticky-star now go sit down
again.

And have another nice day, and remember, keep track of those
attributions, otherwise you look really silly.

Chris




The most dangerous form of malnutrition goes by the acronym PEM, for
protein-energy malnutrition. In PEM we see a deficiency both in
essential amino acids and in caloric intake. In children this leads to
kwashiorkor- the poor kids with the hugely swollen bellies (a result
of an inability to move liquids back into the blood), and in adults it
manifests as marasmus, or wasting, where we see the body mobilizing
lean muscle tissue for energy. But note the name- "energy
malnutrition". Yes, energy is classified by nutritionists as a
nutrient. You're welcome to check any nutrition textbook.

Synonyms for protein-energy malnutrition and related keywords:
protein-energy malnutrition, PEM, protein-calorie malnutrition,
kwashiorkor, marasmus, starvation, hunger, poor diet, nutritional
deficiency.

Just bought a thesaurus, did you? (Now _that's_ a sneer.)

Sorry Chris, counselors, or medical practitioners, nutritionists may be
but they aren't biologists, chemists, or physicists. Just because some
of them may use a term to define a condition doesn't mean that the term
is based in the hard sciences. The term may have meaning to them but is
meaningless to the greater scientific community.

Well, as a professional biologist working in biology, I can assure you
that you're mistaken.

My condolences to biologists everywhere.

There was a day when biologists were the butt of scientist's jokes.
They would take simple chemistry or simple physics and avoid "real"
scientists, but those days are gone and now biologists are specialized
biochemists and very respected.
I can only presume you are a throw back to the "studying morphology"
type of biologist as opposed to the "mitochondrial sequencers" or
studiers of enzyme systems. I can only imagine the hilarity that would
break out if you talked about protein-foot pound malnutrition or
protein-joule malnutrition.

Thanks for the chuckle.

But you have a nice day.

Chris

--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Barshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTfcAyYGg&ref=patrick.nethttp://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1016232.html

A comestible is a actuality that contains an aspect with an activity antecedent and an aspect without. Nitrogen is NOT a comestible for chlorophyll containing trees. A actuality that is actual top in elements and activity it is alleged a nutrient. To accomplish this clear, amuse acquiesce me to allotment this with you. Essential elements.