Note, I tried posting this earlier in the day but could not get through; perhaps
the spate of tornadoes in previous nights have knocked out the lines.

Sean Houtman wrote:

Many plants have silica in their cell walls, and very few animals have
calcium
based skeletons, most animals have sclerotin exoskeletons.

Sean

This is going to be a long ongoing future thread. To give some of the
history,
it started in the late 1990s when I was trying to think ahead of the day
when
humans created a human that has carbonfibre skeleton system instead of
the
calcium based. Into that research I never really asked the question of
whether it is possible or impossible but then in the late 1990s I
suspected
it was impossible. Mind you, difficult is different from impossibility.
For I
suspected that the lines between being a plant in the Plant Kingdom and
being
a animal in the Animal Kingdom of biology means there are several lines
of
impossibility of having plant traits for an animal and vice versa. The
skeleton
of plants is carbon based but in animals is calcium based. One of the
reasons
I suspect impossible is because motion is key to being an animal and
that to
link a skeleton with motion requires body-electricity and that carbon
cannot
handle electric flow in body for motion that calcium can handle.

So in the late 1990s I have been putting together other INVERSE
relationships
between animals and plants besides the inverse relationship of carbon
for
plant skeleton and calcium for animal skeleton. The Inverse relationship
that
animal waste and body are plant food and plants give animals food. The
relationship of oxygen vital to animals yet nitrogen for plants. The
relationship
of oxygen expell from plants and carbon dioxide intake and vice versa
for
animals.

Perhaps there is another relationship that I neglected to explore and
that of
Photosynthesis and chlorophyll to what in animals? Can we say that the
nourishment of animals is hemoglobin and that hemoglobin is the inverse
of photosynthesis for plants?

One of the clear distinctions between Physics and Biology is that there
seems
to be sharp lines and clear lines in physics but not in biology where
the moment
you pen some law of biology and before the ink drys someone is talking
about
exceptions to your latest law or rule. Not to say that these lines or
laws or
rules do not exist but that it is much more difficult to find these
lines in
biology even though it is murky physics. That is what I believe all of
biology
is. That biology is a harder physics but a total physics and that
someday
in the future biology will have been so subsumed by physics just as
chemistry
was subsumed by physics in the 20th century.

And I believe the subsummation of biology under physics will have these
quantum-duals or inverses. And I am confident that when it is over with
that
the Linneaus classification of plantkingdom and animalkingdom will have
been strenghtened.

If we can say to some degree that Photosynthesis in plant kingdom is the

inverse of hemoglobin mechanism in animal kingdom, then the interesting
question with Leghemoglobin of plants such as locust trees, seems to
come
pretty close to being outright hemoglobin. So if plants can someday in
the
future actually have biotech engineered to have hemoglobin flowing into
their roots, trunck and stems then that would be proof that the animal
and
plant kingdom are never fundamentally separated with Quantum Lines of
impossibility. And that some far future date we can expect to have a
human
body whose skeleton is carbonfibre.

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