Tue, 4 May 2004 22:28:24 +0200 P van Rijckevorsel wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium schreef
I wonder if the difference of a species of trees can come so close as
to be a small visual difference of between whether a leaf has convex shape
or concave shape.

Tue, 4 May 2004 09:56:13 +0200 P van Rijckevorsel wrote:
You are confusing identification with species delimitation.
+ + +

Archimedes Plutonium schreef
Not really. I was leading into the concept of linking A,C,T,G with form
and function and body morphology.

+ + +
In that case you were confusing a genuine question with a retorical device.
+ + +

What I am getting at is whether scientists have yet quantified as to
how much at minimum must the A,C,T,G vary in order for there to be 2
different species.

+ + +
Easy: 1. Theoretically a single base pair should do it.
On the other hand hundreds of base pairs could vary without any effect
+ + +

That is false. False as per the recent Neanderthal DNA comparison to
humans. Under that rigor it took at least 3 base pair differences to
demarkate species.

+ + +
Probably a few hundred more?
+ + +

This ties in nicely with my theory that Stonethrowing created humans out
of apelike creatures. The first apes to throw rocks and stones some 10
million years ago would have been able to breed with non-stonethrowers. But
as selection for stonethrowers increase to the point where the DNA of
A,C,T,G changed in at least 3 base pairs (Neanderthal example) that would
create a better Rotator Cuff so that the individual could throw better. That
this morphology change would eventually lead to a different species.

I have another theory about the Quantum Duality of the plant kingdom to
the animal kingdom. If that theory has a band of truth to it, then the
species separation for plants should be different than for animals. In other
words, like the Neanderthal case where it takes at least 3 base pair
differences for animals. Then perhaps for plants it may take only 1 base
pair difference.

+ + +
So now it is no longer false?
+ + +

And perhaps a hidden surprize in that no animal species exists that can
have less than 3 base pair differences but that plants can have 1 or 2 or 3
or more base pair differences and be different species.

So the whole question of Speciation is a quantum question. And that Plants
can be quantified at 1 base pair difference but that animals require at
least 3 base pair differences.

+ + +
Actually you have not quantified anything, you just speculated about
theoretical minima.
PvR

Yes, minimum base pairs for species generating is what I am looking for.

As for animals it may hinge on bone structure and that a new species is not
created unless significant bone structure is changed whereas soft tissue is
plastic enough for cross breeding such as horses and mules or tigers and lions.

But I have another problem on my hands tonight in that if the conventional
accepted theory is true that plant kingdom existed long before the animal
kingdom was established then the minimum base pairs for plants is lower due to
the chain of evolution. But if the Quantum Duality theory is true with almost a
simultaneous appearance of the plant kingdom alongside the animal kingdom would
suggest the minimum to be almost the same. But not necessarily in that the
chemistry of being an animal versus a plant requires more base pair differences
to show up in the morphology.

Has anyone charted how many plant species exist versus animal species? I know
the beetles species and insect species are numerous. But how numerous are the
plant species relative to the animals? If the total number of plant species is
about equal to the total number of animal species suggests the Quantum Duality
theory is probably the true theory and that plants and animals arose on Earth
almost simultaneously from say stopped neutrinos of high energy that they
transformed into tiny living plant and animal species.

Time to have your meds changed again, Archie.

You almost had a valid question but you went completely goofy again.

Do the world a favor and have youself bombarded by high energy neutrinos so
we can be spared the potential threat of your reproducing.


"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
...
Tue, 4 May 2004 22:28:24 +0200 P van Rijckevorsel wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium schreef
I wonder if the difference of a species of trees can come so close
as
to be a small visual difference of between whether a leaf has convex
shape
or concave shape.

Tue, 4 May 2004 09:56:13 +0200 P van Rijckevorsel wrote:
You are confusing identification with species delimitation.
+ + +

Archimedes Plutonium schreef
Not really. I was leading into the concept of linking A,C,T,G with
form
and function and body morphology.

+ + +
In that case you were confusing a genuine question with a retorical
device.
+ + +

What I am getting at is whether scientists have yet quantified as
to
how much at minimum must the A,C,T,G vary in order for there to be 2
different species.

+ + +
Easy: 1. Theoretically a single base pair should do it.
On the other hand hundreds of base pairs could vary without any
effect
+ + +

That is false. False as per the recent Neanderthal DNA comparison to
humans. Under that rigor it took at least 3 base pair differences to
demarkate species.

+ + +
Probably a few hundred more?
+ + +

This ties in nicely with my theory that Stonethrowing created humans
out
of apelike creatures. The first apes to throw rocks and stones some 10
million years ago would have been able to breed with non-stonethrowers.
But
as selection for stonethrowers increase to the point where the DNA of
A,C,T,G changed in at least 3 base pairs (Neanderthal example) that
would
create a better Rotator Cuff so that the individual could throw better.
That
this morphology change would eventually lead to a different species.

I have another theory about the Quantum Duality of the plant kingdom
to
the animal kingdom. If that theory has a band of truth to it, then the
species separation for plants should be different than for animals. In
other
words, like the Neanderthal case where it takes at least 3 base pair
differences for animals. Then perhaps for plants it may take only 1 base
pair difference.

+ + +
So now it is no longer false?
+ + +

And perhaps a hidden surprize in that no animal species exists that
can
have less than 3 base pair differences but that plants can have 1 or 2
or 3
or more base pair differences and be different species.

So the whole question of Speciation is a quantum question. And that
Plants
can be quantified at 1 base pair difference but that animals require at
least 3 base pair differences.

+ + +
Actually you have not quantified anything, you just speculated about
theoretical minima.
PvR

Yes, minimum base pairs for species generating is what I am looking for.

As for animals it may hinge on bone structure and that a new species is
not
created unless significant bone structure is changed whereas soft tissue
is
plastic enough for cross breeding such as horses and mules or tigers and
lions.

But I have another problem on my hands tonight in that if the conventional
accepted theory is true that plant kingdom existed long before the animal
kingdom was established then the minimum base pairs for plants is lower
due to
the chain of evolution. But if the Quantum Duality theory is true with
almost a
simultaneous appearance of the plant kingdom alongside the animal kingdom
would
suggest the minimum to be almost the same. But not necessarily in that the
chemistry of being an animal versus a plant requires more base pair
differences
to show up in the morphology.

Has anyone charted how many plant species exist versus animal species? I
know
the beetles species and insect species are numerous. But how numerous are
the
plant species relative to the animals? If the total number of plant
species is
about equal to the total number of animal species suggests the Quantum
Duality
theory is probably the true theory and that plants and animals arose on
Earth
almost simultaneously from say stopped neutrinos of high energy that they
transformed into tiny living plant and animal species.