On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 01:46:49 -0600, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
13 Nov 2002 19:02:07 GMT Jie-san Laushi wrote:
Almost, but not quite. Plants' intake of CO2 is not really the same as
"breathing," because it is part of the process of manufacturing food
(photosynthesis). When it comes to UTILIZING food (metabolism), both plants
and animals take in O2 and exhale CO2, in the process of respiration. The
takeaway: theoretically, plants could survive in a world without animals,
but not the reverse.

With regards to the CO2 and O2, it is not a strict mathematical relationship
of inverses such as 1/3 is the inverse of 3. But rather a Complimentarity
relationship of Physics that I am emphasizing. Sure plants take in both
CO2 and O2.

Go lookup photorespiration, and C3 and C4-type plants.

And the same emphasis can be registered with the concept of *organ* in
animals compared to plants. Do plants really have organs in the manner that
animals have organs? Is the bark an organ like the skin? Is the cambium layer
an organ? Are the roots an organ?

No, I think the concept of organ is restrictive to animals and that the
associatio of cells to form organs is an animal phenomenon and not
really a plant phenomenon.

From dictionary.com:

organ:

2.Biology. A differentiated part of an organism, such as an eye, wing, or
leaf, that performs a specific function.

If true, that would also entail that the concept of *differentiation* of
cells upon an animal birth after the union of egg and sperm is a concept
not really applicable to plants.

When most animals are born they are already differentiated. Plants have
"egg and sperm" as well. What do you think cross pollination is?

Differentiation would be another animal phenomenon but not really a
plant phenomenon.

Go look up the word meristem.

What I hope to gain out of this many-year discussion on what I call
the Complimentarity between Plants to Animals is the notion that the concept
of Complimentarity in Physics is evident in the differences between plants
and animals. Just as in physics we have the Complimentarity of particle
to wave in QM. I am saying that when all is done and settled in biology,
that the plant kingdom is Complimentarity to the animal kingdom. Not
just the matter of gases of CO2 to O2, but to food, and to framework of
carbon to calcium, and now to organs in animals yet only tissue in
plants.

PLANTS HAVE ORGANS.

I disagree completely with your last sentence because in my view of all of
biology, the bacteria mostly fall into the animal kingdom.

Bacteria are in their own kingdom "Eubacteria". Also consider this:

primary producer (plant) - herbivore - carnivore.
energy from sunlight energy from energy from
plant herbivore

If there are no plants for the herbivore to eat it will die. When the
herbivores die out there is nothing for the carnivore to eat. Basic
biology.

And no plants could survive in any environment that was absent of
bacteria.

Please explain how plant tissue culture is possible then.

All of biology, like physics is divided into two parts (particle-wave)
and biology (plant-animal).

NO. It's 3 (or 4 depending on where you lump viruses):
Eubacteria (the so called "true" bacteria)
Eukaryotes (animals, plants, fungi, protists)
Archaea (extremophile micro-organisms e.g Thermus aquaticus)


--
George Smiley