Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
differences between plant mitochondrial DNA and animal Plants the
Today I was wondering about whether a plant clone such as say aspen trees
or locust tree root cutting have the same mitochondrial DNA. That is, is a plant clone identical to parent whereas in animals, any clone is say 60% or 80% identical to parent because the mitochrondrial DNA is not able to be transferred as exact duplicate. And so, in my thoughts I realized I may have another Bifurcation of Physics upon Biology. Another dualism in biology or inverse relationship. That only plants of the plant kingdom can reproduce 100% copies whereas animals a fraction due to nontransferrability of mitochondrial DNA. If that is the case, then that would imply another inverse relationship in that plants have a high percentage of copy-ability whereas animals have a low percentage. Perhaps this percentage numbers comes out to be an inverse relationship of say plants 60% and animals 40% where some plant species is 98% and some animal species 2%. The Mitochrondia deals with motion and animals need motion which sets them apart from plants and the plant kingdom. Recently I was talking about the inverse relationship between calcium skeleton of animals compared to carbon for plants (trunk or stem etc) And a poster pointed out that most animals are insects and they have a carbon exoskeleton. My rejoinder to that is that the Linnaeus Classification needs revamping in that animals need be classified by "size". For it is well known in Quantum Mechanics that we classify particles as to size and speed. Fastmoving and small masses to slow and large masses. Likewise the Animal kingdom needs revision where the insects are Animal kingdom #1 and larger animals as Animal kingdom #2. Now the question of Mitochrondial DNA may further impose lines in the Linnaeus Classification sheme in that the larger the animal the less percentage of exact copy clone but as you get to the small animals such as insects and smaller then the copy percentage rises. More in the future,,, I hope... for this topic has been on my mind for about 5 years now and the posts to the Internet evinces that. For me, it is not a question of can or cannot Quantum Mechanics redo the Linnaeus Classification scheme of life, not a question of can but a question of when physics will subsume biology in its broadest forms and trashcan the Linnaeus system. Archimedes Plutonium, whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|