18 Mar 2003 08:41:50 -0800 Todd O wrote:

Steve Turner wrote in message . ..
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

I am trying to nail-down the inverse or reverse relationship. As to why
plants need animals to reform nitrogen.

Plants lack the biochemical pathways for large scale protein
degradation. That is the specialty of saprophytes (e.g. fungi and
bacteria). Legumes are able to convert atmospheric nitrogen to usable
form by virtue of rhizobia bacteria in root nodules (it is the
bacteria which do the conversion). Plants can also use inorganic
(mineral) nitrate as a source of nitrogen. Higher animals are a
relatively minor source of nitrogen.

True enough. There are some plants that eat meat (like Venus Flytrap)
but they are generally located in nitrogen depleted areas.

There is an important symbiosis between plants and animals, in that
plants use carbon dioxide and emit oxygen, and animals do the
opposite.
Um, not quite. Plants respire just fine. It's just that they make
their own oxygen so that they can use respiration in an oxygen
atmosphere to reduce the sugars they've made to use energy.
Photosynthesis is the storage of energy. Respiration is the use or
release of that energy. Animals do the latter. Plants do both.

Well, here you are talking about two processes, that of photosynthesis
and that of respiration. I do not know if in QM of physics that particle
is a process and that wave is a process.

Particle complements the wave in physics. And it seems to me that in
biology, oxygen complements carbon dioxide for plants and animals.

Biology talks about symbiosis and commensalism. Phyics talks about
duality and complementarity.

It seems to me that in the microscopic realm of physics there is particle
and wave. But in the macroscopic realm of biology, this particle wave
duality and complementarity makes itself apparent by things such as
plants need carbon dioxide and animals need oxygen and the both need
each other. Not only for carbondioxide to oxygen but also nitrogen to
hydrogenbonds (sugars).

Why would the plant kingdom even bother with photosynthesis and the making
of sugars if not for the existence of animals? It seems to me that plants that
are photosynthetic and making sugars are not doing it for the benefit of the
plant kingdom but rather for the benefit of the animals so that the animals leave
behind nitrogen in a useable form for plants.



Some symbiosis not because of the nitrogen or carbon cycles but for
breeding purposes. Some higher plants have learned to use animals to

Trouble with analysis of physics entering biology is that those persons
tied up with biology are apt to wander astray with sideissues of
reproduction. We know that both animals and plants have to reproduce.
But reproduction is an altogether irrelevancy and sideissue to my
thesis that QM of physics pervades biology and that symbiosis
and commensalism are really QM dualities and complements.


pollinate them and spread their seeds. Wind pollination is inefficient
and random. Animal pollination is efficient relative to wind
pollination. Animals carrying seeds away from the mother plant helps
spread them in different directions instead of just downwind. In
return, animals get valuable nutrition. Most lower plants don't take
advantage of this situation as they developed before animals were
important to the ecosystem.

In conclusion, the hypothesis that the nitrogen cycle must include a
direct animal to plant transfer does not seem to have any proof and
the symbiosis exists for other reasons, in indirect transfer (animal
to ground to plant) and in other cycles.

Todd O.

It has no proof as of yet because biologists have never attempted to look
at their subject and say "symbiosis and commensalism" are ill defined.
And have never asked hard questions as to key elements such as nitrogen
between plants and animals.

And in fact, biologists have never attempted to make their subject QM
foundation. I can only guess that it is perhaps that biologists have never
had the aptitude to make their subject of biology a Quantum Mechanics
foundation.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

18 Mar 2003 08:41:50 -0800 Todd O wrote:

Um, not quite. Plants respire just fine. It's just that they make
their own oxygen so that they can use respiration in an oxygen
atmosphere to reduce the sugars they've made to use energy.
Photosynthesis is the storage of energy. Respiration is the use or
release of that energy. Animals do the latter. Plants do both.

Respiring plants are a new one on me. Without mitochondria or
oxidative phosphorylation I'm not sure how they'd go about using
oxygen. I've never heard of oxygen being anything but a waste product
to plants. They derive energy from the sun, not from chemical
oxidation.

Steve Turner

Real address contains worldnet instead of spamnet

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

each other. Not only for carbondioxide to oxygen but also nitrogen to
hydrogenbonds (sugars).

This is an incorrect conceptualization. There is no conversion of
nitrogen to hydrogen bonds or sugars. The atoms in sugars come from
carbon dioxide and water, with light supplying the energy.

Why would the plant kingdom even bother with photosynthesis and the making
of sugars if not for the existence of animals? It seems to me that plants that
are photosynthetic and making sugars are not doing it for the benefit of the
plant kingdom but rather for the benefit of the animals so that the animals leave
behind nitrogen in a useable form for plants.

I suppose the "why" is something of a philosophical question. But in
a scientific sense, plants definitely manufacture sugars for their own
use. Sugars are the building blocks of carbohydrates such as
cellulose, which form the plant's cell walls & etc.

Steve Turner

Real address contains worldnet instead of spamnet

Steve Turner wrote:

Respiring plants are a new one on me.

I take it back. There must be some mechanism for plants to utilize
oxygen. However, it seems to be a minor process compared with
photosynthesis.

Steve Turner
Real address contains worldnet instead of spamnet

On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:06:42 GMT, Steve Turner
wrote:

18 Mar 2003 08:41:50 -0800 Todd O wrote:

Um, not quite. Plants respire just fine. It's just that they make
their own oxygen so that they can use respiration in an oxygen
atmosphere to reduce the sugars they've made to use energy.
Photosynthesis is the storage of energy. Respiration is the use or
release of that energy. Animals do the latter. Plants do both.

Respiring plants are a new one on me. Without mitochondria or
oxidative phosphorylation I'm not sure how they'd go about using
oxygen. I've never heard of oxygen being anything but a waste product
to plants. They derive energy from the sun, not from chemical
oxidation.

they still need to metabolize the products of the chloroplasts in
their own mitochondria via respiration..

probably due to the symbiotic origin of eukaryotic cells

In article ,
Steve Turner wrote:
Steve Turner wrote:

Respiring plants are a new one on me.

I take it back. There must be some mechanism for plants to utilize
oxygen. However, it seems to be a minor process compared with
photosynthesis.

Plants have all the stuff you find in other eukaryotic cells, mitochondria
and all the rest. Obviously, root cells aren't exposed to sunlight, yet
they metabolize and grow, powered by sugars translocated from above ground.
Green cells in plants have chloroplasts, in which photosynthesis takes place.
From there on, it's like animal, fungal, protist (or whatever they are called
now) cells all the way.

All that "how to be a cell and do cell things" DNA is very standardized.
It's really close to the same in barley, yeast and beer drinkers. They
all run on glucose, but they obtain it in different ways.

From: Steve Turner

Respiring plants are a new one on me. Without mitochondria or
oxidative phosphorylation I'm not sure how they'd go about using
oxygen. I've never heard of oxygen being anything but a waste product
to plants. They derive energy from the sun, not from chemical
oxidation.

Turn out the lights, eh? What happens with plants when the sun goes down? They
start respiring, plants use their mitochondria to do that. What happens inside
plant roots where there is generally no light? They use their mitochondria to
get energy from the sugars the leaves made.

Sean



--
Visit my photolog page; http://members.aol.com/grommit383/myhomepage
Last updated 08-04-02 with 15 pictures of the Aztec Ruins.
Address mungled. To email, please spite my face.

18 Mar 2003 08:41:50 -0800 Todd O wrote:

Um, not quite. Plants respire just fine. It's just that they make
their own oxygen so that they can use respiration in an oxygen
atmosphere to reduce the sugars they've made to use energy.
Photosynthesis is the storage of energy. Respiration is the use or
release of that energy. Animals do the latter. Plants do both.

Respiring plants are a new one on me. Without mitochondria or
oxidative phosphorylation I'm not sure how they'd go about using
oxygen. I've never heard of oxygen being anything but a waste product
to plants. They derive energy from the sun, not from chemical
oxidation.

Steve Turner

Real address contains worldnet instead of spamnet

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

each other. Not only for carbondioxide to oxygen but also nitrogen to
hydrogenbonds (sugars).

This is an incorrect conceptualization. There is no conversion of
nitrogen to hydrogen bonds or sugars. The atoms in sugars come from
carbon dioxide and water, with light supplying the energy.

Why would the plant kingdom even bother with photosynthesis and the making
of sugars if not for the existence of animals? It seems to me that plants that
are photosynthetic and making sugars are not doing it for the benefit of the
plant kingdom but rather for the benefit of the animals so that the animals leave
behind nitrogen in a useable form for plants.

I suppose the "why" is something of a philosophical question. But in
a scientific sense, plants definitely manufacture sugars for their own
use. Sugars are the building blocks of carbohydrates such as
cellulose, which form the plant's cell walls & etc.

Steve Turner

Real address contains worldnet instead of spamnet

Steve Turner wrote:

Respiring plants are a new one on me.

I take it back. There must be some mechanism for plants to utilize
oxygen. However, it seems to be a minor process compared with
photosynthesis.

Steve Turner
Real address contains worldnet instead of spamnet

On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:06:42 GMT, Steve Turner
wrote:

18 Mar 2003 08:41:50 -0800 Todd O wrote:

Um, not quite. Plants respire just fine. It's just that they make
their own oxygen so that they can use respiration in an oxygen
atmosphere to reduce the sugars they've made to use energy.
Photosynthesis is the storage of energy. Respiration is the use or
release of that energy. Animals do the latter. Plants do both.

Respiring plants are a new one on me. Without mitochondria or
oxidative phosphorylation I'm not sure how they'd go about using
oxygen. I've never heard of oxygen being anything but a waste product
to plants. They derive energy from the sun, not from chemical
oxidation.

they still need to metabolize the products of the chloroplasts in
their own mitochondria via respiration..

probably due to the symbiotic origin of eukaryotic cells

In article ,
Steve Turner wrote:
Steve Turner wrote:

Respiring plants are a new one on me.

I take it back. There must be some mechanism for plants to utilize
oxygen. However, it seems to be a minor process compared with
photosynthesis.

Plants have all the stuff you find in other eukaryotic cells, mitochondria
and all the rest. Obviously, root cells aren't exposed to sunlight, yet
they metabolize and grow, powered by sugars translocated from above ground.
Green cells in plants have chloroplasts, in which photosynthesis takes place.
From there on, it's like animal, fungal, protist (or whatever they are called
now) cells all the way.

All that "how to be a cell and do cell things" DNA is very standardized.
It's really close to the same in barley, yeast and beer drinkers. They
all run on glucose, but they obtain it in different ways.

From: Steve Turner

Respiring plants are a new one on me. Without mitochondria or
oxidative phosphorylation I'm not sure how they'd go about using
oxygen. I've never heard of oxygen being anything but a waste product
to plants. They derive energy from the sun, not from chemical
oxidation.

Turn out the lights, eh? What happens with plants when the sun goes down? They
start respiring, plants use their mitochondria to do that. What happens inside
plant roots where there is generally no light? They use their mitochondria to
get energy from the sugars the leaves made.

Sean



--
Visit my photolog page; http://members.aol.com/grommit383/myhomepage
Last updated 08-04-02 with 15 pictures of the Aztec Ruins.
Address mungled. To email, please spite my face.