George Smiley wrote:

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.

Go look up physics and complimentarity. Or is physics too hard for you.

Physics has a mix and mixture of particle and wave in every experiment
and so your silly attitude of looking for examples of where a plant is animal
like or a animal is plantlike is irregardless of the theory I am offering.



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:

Do you understand that a dictionary is not a science tablet or science
understanding. A dictionary is merely a conventional and convenient
arrival by more than 3 people.



organ:

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

Funny how any animal organ when cut or severed, the animal dies but with
plants, you can cut 1/2 of it off and it regenerates. So, would not that
fact persuade a smart person, unlike George, to think that concepts of
differentiation, organ, plant, animal need refinement.



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.

Do you even know the history of Quantum Mechanics with its Complimentarity.
Nay, from the way you write, you are too stupid.



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.

Not really. Because when you apply Complimentarity and Least Energy, the
concept of "organ" is different from what science called organs prior to my
elucidations. What we think of as organs is purely a higher-animal phenomenon.
The association of cells into an organ is almost purely a phenomenon of
higher animals. That association of cells does not exist to any degree in plants.
If it exists in plants is minor in extent.



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.

The Linnaeus Classification scheme. What, you think a Classification
scheme is set into rock for all times in science. You should realize that
whenever a science rests on Classification and not on physics laws and
physics principles then it is only a matter of time that someone sets the
science up properly. Classification is pre-science.

If biology has Complimentarity and Least Energy, then there exists only
2 kingdoms just as Physics has the 2 kingdoms of particle and wave.



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

Please explain how plant tissue culture is possible then.

The only sentence in all of your reply that shows a bit of intelligence.
Physics Complimentarity allied with Least Energy will re-do these
concepts of biology -- kingdom, tissue, organ, differentiation

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)

Please do yourself and me a favor. Please read Quantum Physics history
paying careful attention to Complimentarity Principle and to Least Energy
Principle. Until you have read them, do not reply to any of my posts.

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