Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
acer platanoides and Rootenone; sunburst locust and blue spruce
At the moment I have 3 groups of cuttings that I am experimenting with.
I have the Crimson Red Norway maples and the shiners blue spruce and the Sunburst honeylocust. I have called them "cuttings" all of my life but see another term for this practice as "soil layering" or "tissue layering". I wish someone would devise a nice science name for this method of propagation because cuttings sounds too crude. I was wondering what Rootenone growth hormone is composed of? I remember it in youth as a whitish powder that was expensive but it worked better than without. I did not have any rootenone available when I made the cuttings of maple, honeylocust and spruce. I remember in youth that yew trees are easy to make cuttings of, so will see if maple, honeylocust and spruce are also. I will be happy with a 33% success rate. And I wonder what the success rate would have been if Rootenone was used. Archimedes Plutonium www.archimedesplutonium.com www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
acer platanoides and Rootenone; sunburst locust and blue spruce
It is an auxin specific to root growth and elongation and I forget the name.
Chuck "Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message ... At the moment I have 3 groups of cuttings that I am experimenting with. I have the Crimson Red Norway maples and the shiners blue spruce and the Sunburst honeylocust. I have called them "cuttings" all of my life but see another term for this practice as "soil layering" or "tissue layering". I wish someone would devise a nice science name for this method of propagation because cuttings sounds too crude. I was wondering what Rootenone growth hormone is composed of? I remember it in youth as a whitish powder that was expensive but it worked better than without. I did not have any rootenone available when I made the cuttings of maple, honeylocust and spruce. I remember in youth that yew trees are easy to make cuttings of, so will see if maple, honeylocust and spruce are also. I will be happy with a 33% success rate. And I wonder what the success rate would have been if Rootenone was used. Archimedes Plutonium www.archimedesplutonium.com www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
acer platanoides and Rootenone; sunburst locust and blue spruce
Tue, 18 May 2004 01:32:29 GMT Chuck wrote:
It is an auxin specific to root growth and elongation and I forget the name. Chuck Well, yesterday was a rainy day and I usually reserve rainy days when I cannot get out into the orchard or fields to do work, instead I go shopping. And in my shopping yesterday I picked up two bottles of plant growth hormone. Both have Indole-3-butyric-acid, but one has an added ingredient of 1-Naphthaleneacetic-acid. I am wondering whether these are natural occurring substances in plant roots? They must be if they are hormones. But if they are not hormones then they probably work on the bases of making soil ph to a proper acid environment. I have always wondered why all plants can germinate in peat moss environment where it is acid from the peat moss, regardless of whether the plant likes an alkaline soil for its growth. Anyway, I will put these growth hormones to test experimentally on blue-spruce, crimson-king-norway-maples and sunburst-honeylocust. So far I am having some positive results without the hormone because my spruce, maple and honeylocusts do not all appear dead. Only one honeylocust died and that was because the stem of the cutting was not of a mature stock and so all the leaves came off and the stem shriveled and turned brown. None of the maples have shed their leaves which is a good sign. One of the blue spruce leaves have started to turn brown. But of my 30 cuttings only 1 has clearly died. But I need to get another batch of 30 cuttings and apply the hormone to see if it fares substantially better. By the way, I am very picky about the parent of these cuttings. As I want a tree with a trunk that is straight and one trunk. Which is difficult to find in a honeylocust and Norway maple. I realize that trunk straightness probably has more to do with environmental setting of shade or nonshade than it has of genetics. But to reduce the doubts to a minimum, when seeking cuttings of honeylocust or Norway maples I want leaf color and then I want straightness of trunk. I do not like multi trunks of twisted shapes. Beauty is order and order is straight lines not twisted and gnarled. Archimedes Plutonium www.archimedesplutonium.com www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
acer platanoides and Rootenone; sunburst locust and blue spruce
YOU REFRESHED MY MEMORY. I'm not suffering from ALZHEIMERS. THE SPECIFIC
auxin is Indole-3-Acetic Acid but I-3-B acid woirks the same way. They are natural extracts but can easily be synthesized. I-3-B acid is easier. Next time try removing most of the leaves before transplanting. It works better. Chuck "Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message ... Tue, 18 May 2004 01:32:29 GMT Chuck wrote: It is an auxin specific to root growth and elongation and I forget the name. Chuck Well, yesterday was a rainy day and I usually reserve rainy days when I cannot get out into the orchard or fields to do work, instead I go shopping. And in my shopping yesterday I picked up two bottles of plant growth hormone. Both have Indole-3-butyric-acid, but one has an added ingredient of 1-Naphthaleneacetic-acid. I am wondering whether these are natural occurring substances in plant roots? They must be if they are hormones. But if they are not hormones then they probably work on the bases of making soil ph to a proper acid environment. I have always wondered why all plants can germinate in peat moss environment where it is acid from the peat moss, regardless of whether the plant likes an alkaline soil for its growth. Anyway, I will put these growth hormones to test experimentally on blue-spruce, crimson-king-norway-maples and sunburst-honeylocust. So far I am having some positive results without the hormone because my spruce, maple and honeylocusts do not all appear dead. Only one honeylocust died and that was because the stem of the cutting was not of a mature stock and so all the leaves came off and the stem shriveled and turned brown. None of the maples have shed their leaves which is a good sign. One of the blue spruce leaves have started to turn brown. But of my 30 cuttings only 1 has clearly died. But I need to get another batch of 30 cuttings and apply the hormone to see if it fares substantially better. By the way, I am very picky about the parent of these cuttings. As I want a tree with a trunk that is straight and one trunk. Which is difficult to find in a honeylocust and Norway maple. I realize that trunk straightness probably has more to do with environmental setting of shade or nonshade than it has of genetics. But to reduce the doubts to a minimum, when seeking cuttings of honeylocust or Norway maples I want leaf color and then I want straightness of trunk. I do not like multi trunks of twisted shapes. Beauty is order and order is straight lines not twisted and gnarled. Archimedes Plutonium www.archimedesplutonium.com www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
acer platanoides and Rootenone; sunburst locust and blue spruce
Chuck wrote: YOU REFRESHED MY MEMORY. I'm not suffering from ALZHEIMERS. THE SPECIFIC auxin is Indole-3-Acetic Acid but I-3-B acid woirks the same way. They are natural extracts but can easily be synthesized. I-3-B acid is easier. Next time try removing most of the leaves before transplanting. It works better. Chuck I remove about 50% of the leaves on a stem for a "cutting". I am guessing that the leaves signal the bottom of the stem "hey, throw out some roots so that I can remain alive." It would be interesting research to find out the optimal percent of leaves left on a stem of a cutting in order for successful rooting. I would guess that between 50% to 67% is the optimal range of leaves kept on in order for successful rooting. And the science behind it would be that the leaves signal the cambium layer to thrust out roots. And 100% leaves left on is unable to keep those leaves and so the die back is such a drain on energy and even signalling energy that the whole stem dies. Last night I got a new batch of cuttings and now have about 20 cuttings each of Sunburst honeylocust, Crimson King acer platanoides and shiner blue spruce for a total of 60 cuttings. I would be happy with a 10% success rate. I think the biggest problem is fungal growth in the moist and damp soil conditions. Another problem is that I accidently have aphids in those cuttings. Perhaps the aphids may not kill the cuttings. Seems as though the honeylocust had some on and I just was not careful enough. Maybe I should scout around and introduce some ladybugs. Archimedes Plutonium www.archimedesplutonium.com www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
acer platanoides and Rootenone; sunburst locust and blue spruce
"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message ... Chuck wrote: YOU REFRESHED MY MEMORY. I'm not suffering from ALZHEIMERS. THE SPECIFIC auxin is Indole-3-Acetic Acid but I-3-B acid woirks the same way. They are natural extracts but can easily be synthesized. I-3-B acid is easier. Next time try removing most of the leaves before transplanting. It works better. Chuck I remove about 50% of the leaves on a stem for a "cutting". I am guessing that the leaves signal the bottom of the stem "hey, throw out some roots so that I can remain alive." With fresh cuttings of flowers I've clipped off up to 70% of the foliage and successfully rooted all of my cuttings. Another problem is that I accidently have aphids in those cuttings. Perhaps the aphids may not kill the cuttings. Seems as though the honeylocust had some on and I just was not careful enough. Maybe I should scout around and introduce some ladybugs. There are some soaps that are extremely toxic to aphids. Try one of them too. Chuck Archimedes Plutonium www.archimedesplutonium.com www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
acer platanoides and Rootenone; sunburst locust and blue spruce
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
I remove about 50% of the leaves on a stem for a "cutting". I am guessing that the leaves signal the bottom of the stem "hey, throw out some roots so that I can remain alive." Snip the remaining leaves in half. This reduces transpiration, helping to keep the slips from dessicating. You're using a humidity tent? At the soil end, you're wounding the stem by clipping the leaves at point of insertion. This initiates regeneration, the first step toward rooting. It would be interesting research to find out the optimal percent of leaves left on a stem of a cutting in order for successful rooting. I would guess that between 50% to 67% is the optimal range of leaves kept on in order for successful rooting. And the science behind it would be that the leaves signal the cambium layer to thrust out roots. And 100% leaves left on is unable to keep those leaves and so the die back is such a drain on energy and even signalling energy that the whole stem dies. Leave enough to feed the slips until they root. I believe the roots signal themselves to grow. Rooting compounds work by triggering growth of stem cells, which, as we all know, can convert into any other sort of cell. Those stem cells in an area favorable to root growth turn into, well, roots. Last night I got a new batch of cuttings and now have about 20 cuttings each of Sunburst honeylocust, Crimson King acer platanoides and shiner blue spruce for a total of 60 cuttings. I would be happy with a 10% success rate. I think the biggest problem is fungal growth in the moist and damp soil conditions. Hunt down a jar of Olivia's Cloning Gel, and your success rate will approach 100%. Makes Rootone F look like baby powder. Of the last 3 dozen cuttings treated with Olivia's (and watered initially with a kelp solution, misted twice daily thereafter), I think I've had four fail. In all successful cases, slips with thick, strong root masses were ready for transplant in under three weeks. Can't find the Olivia's, improve your odds by taking more slips. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
acer platanoides and Rootenone; sunburst locust and blue spruce
Wed, 19 May 2004 23:25:46 -0700 Father Haskell wrote:
Archimedes Plutonium wrote: I remove about 50% of the leaves on a stem for a "cutting". I am guessing that the leaves signal the bottom of the stem "hey, throw out some roots so that I can remain alive." Snip the remaining leaves in half. This reduces transpiration, helping to keep the slips from dessicating. You're using a humidity tent? At the soil end, you're wounding the stem by clipping the leaves at point of insertion. This initiates regeneration, the first step toward rooting. It would be interesting research to find out the optimal percent of leaves left on a stem of a cutting in order for successful rooting. I would guess that between 50% to 67% is the optimal range of leaves kept on in order for successful rooting. And the science behind it would be that the leaves signal the cambium layer to thrust out roots. And 100% leaves left on is unable to keep those leaves and so the die back is such a drain on energy and even signalling energy that the whole stem dies. Leave enough to feed the slips until they root. I believe the roots signal themselves to grow. Rooting compounds work by triggering growth of stem cells, which, as we all know, can convert into any other sort of cell. Those stem cells in an area favorable to root growth turn into, well, roots. Last night I got a new batch of cuttings and now have about 20 cuttings each of Sunburst honeylocust, Crimson King acer platanoides and shiner blue spruce for a total of 60 cuttings. I would be happy with a 10% success rate. I think the biggest problem is fungal growth in the moist and damp soil conditions. Hunt down a jar of Olivia's Cloning Gel, and your success rate will approach 100%. Makes Rootone F look like baby powder. Of the last 3 dozen cuttings treated with Olivia's (and watered initially with a kelp solution, misted twice daily thereafter), I think I've had four fail. In all successful cases, slips with thick, strong root masses were ready for transplant in under three weeks. Can't find the Olivia's, improve your odds by taking more slips. I am not sure about your claim of stem cell induction. Even so, if granted true, then there may or must exist a chemical in which animal stem cells can be produced. Also, from a theoretical angle of the question as to whether the plant kingdom existed a long time before the animal kingdom came into existence, or, as to my belief based on QM of biology that the animal and plant kingdom came into existence roughly at the same time would indicate that the cloning of plants and the cloning of animals would be different as per those scenarios. If the animal kingdom evolved out of the plant kingdom then the cloning of animals should be an impossibility. But if the animal kingdom was independently created apart from the plant kingdom and not evolved, then the cloning of plants and the cloning of animals should exist in both kingdoms with some parity even though the cloning of animals is more difficult. If Darwin Evolution were correct that animals evolved from plants with its huge lapse and gap in time, then it would be impossible or near impossible to ever clone animals but evidence shows us amphibians clonable. So the issue of cloning divides the question of Evolution versus QM duality of the two kingdoms. Archimedes Plutonium www.archimedesplutonium.com www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
acer platanoides and Rootenone; sunburst locust and blue spruce
On Fri, 21 May 2004 01:41:45 -0500, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote: Wed, 19 May 2004 23:25:46 -0700 Father Haskell wrote: Archimedes Plutonium wrote: I remove about 50% of the leaves on a stem for a "cutting". I am guessing that the leaves signal the bottom of the stem "hey, throw out some roots so that I can remain alive." Snip the remaining leaves in half. This reduces transpiration, helping to keep the slips from dessicating. You're using a humidity tent? At the soil end, you're wounding the stem by clipping the leaves at point of insertion. This initiates regeneration, the first step toward rooting. It would be interesting research to find out the optimal percent of leaves left on a stem of a cutting in order for successful rooting. I would guess that between 50% to 67% is the optimal range of leaves kept on in order for successful rooting. And the science behind it would be that the leaves signal the cambium layer to thrust out roots. And 100% leaves left on is unable to keep those leaves and so the die back is such a drain on energy and even signalling energy that the whole stem dies. Leave enough to feed the slips until they root. I believe the roots signal themselves to grow. Rooting compounds work by triggering growth of stem cells, which, as we all know, can convert into any other sort of cell. Those stem cells in an area favorable to root growth turn into, well, roots. Last night I got a new batch of cuttings and now have about 20 cuttings each of Sunburst honeylocust, Crimson King acer platanoides and shiner blue spruce for a total of 60 cuttings. I would be happy with a 10% success rate. I think the biggest problem is fungal growth in the moist and damp soil conditions. Hunt down a jar of Olivia's Cloning Gel, and your success rate will approach 100%. Makes Rootone F look like baby powder. Of the last 3 dozen cuttings treated with Olivia's (and watered initially with a kelp solution, misted twice daily thereafter), I think I've had four fail. In all successful cases, slips with thick, strong root masses were ready for transplant in under three weeks. Can't find the Olivia's, improve your odds by taking more slips. I am not sure about your claim of stem cell induction. Even so, if granted true, then there may or must exist a chemical in which animal stem cells can be produced. Also, from a theoretical angle of the question as to whether the plant kingdom existed a long time before the animal kingdom came into existence, or, as to my belief based on QM of biology that the animal and plant kingdom came into existence roughly at the same time would indicate that the cloning of plants and the cloning of animals would be different as per those scenarios. If the animal kingdom evolved out of the plant kingdom then the cloning of animals should be an impossibility. But if the animal kingdom was independently created apart from the plant kingdom and not evolved, then the cloning of plants and the cloning of animals should exist in both kingdoms with some parity even though the cloning of animals is more difficult. If Darwin Evolution were correct that animals evolved from plants with its huge lapse and gap in time, then it would be impossible or near impossible to ever clone animals but evidence shows us amphibians clonable. So the issue of cloning divides the question of Evolution versus QM duality of the two kingdoms. The original statement was "triggering stem cells to grow", not "stem cell induction" which is a very different thing. I must protest your notion of "QM of biology" arguing for some sort of quantal mechanical duality between plants and animals. Both true plants (embryophytes) and true animals (eumetazoa) evolved from single celled eukaryotic precursors in the Kingdom Protista. There are a number of molecular biology and genomic factors relating all the multicellular organisms: plants, animals, and fungi. This probably relates to the development of genes that can regulate and control cell differentiation and that can maintain signaling processes between the distinct cell types to keep the activities of the multicellular organism somewhat coordinated. However, "plant-like" organisms (formerly called algae) and "animal-like" organisms (formerly called protozoa) were in existence long before true plants and animals arose. Plants did not evolve from animals nor did animals evolve from plants. The first several billion years of life on earth occurred without the existence either of animals or of plants. Cloning of plants and of animals share the basic idea of reproduction through asexual reproduction, that is, purely through mitotic cell division. But they differ enormously because plants maintain stocks of meristem (what in animals is called stem cells) and can readily regenerate all organs: roots, stems, and leaves. As a result, you can "easily" clone plants through cuttings or graftings. The original thread relates to the fact that "easy conceptually" does not always translate to "easy in the potting room". Animals usually do not retain totipotent stem cells and most cannot readily regenerate complete organs and body structure and so animal cloning must necessarily pass through an embryonic stage of development. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
acer platanoides and Rootenone; sunburst locust and blue spruce
Fri, 21 May 2004 09:11:05 -0400 r norman wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2004 01:41:45 -0500, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: Wed, 19 May 2004 23:25:46 -0700 Father Haskell wrote: Archimedes Plutonium wrote: I remove about 50% of the leaves on a stem for a "cutting". I am guessing that the leaves signal the bottom of the stem "hey, throw out some roots so that I can remain alive." Snip the remaining leaves in half. This reduces transpiration, helping to keep the slips from dessicating. You're using a humidity tent? At the soil end, you're wounding the stem by clipping the leaves at point of insertion. This initiates regeneration, the first step toward rooting. It would be interesting research to find out the optimal percent of leaves left on a stem of a cutting in order for successful rooting. I would guess that between 50% to 67% is the optimal range of leaves kept on in order for successful rooting. And the science behind it would be that the leaves signal the cambium layer to thrust out roots. And 100% leaves left on is unable to keep those leaves and so the die back is such a drain on energy and even signalling energy that the whole stem dies. Leave enough to feed the slips until they root. I believe the roots signal themselves to grow. Rooting compounds work by triggering growth of stem cells, which, as we all know, can convert into any other sort of cell. Those stem cells in an area favorable to root growth turn into, well, roots. Last night I got a new batch of cuttings and now have about 20 cuttings each of Sunburst honeylocust, Crimson King acer platanoides and shiner blue spruce for a total of 60 cuttings. I would be happy with a 10% success rate. I think the biggest problem is fungal growth in the moist and damp soil conditions. Hunt down a jar of Olivia's Cloning Gel, and your success rate will approach 100%. Makes Rootone F look like baby powder. Of the last 3 dozen cuttings treated with Olivia's (and watered initially with a kelp solution, misted twice daily thereafter), I think I've had four fail. In all successful cases, slips with thick, strong root masses were ready for transplant in under three weeks. Can't find the Olivia's, improve your odds by taking more slips. I am not sure about your claim of stem cell induction. Even so, if granted true, then there may or must exist a chemical in which animal stem cells can be produced. Also, from a theoretical angle of the question as to whether the plant kingdom existed a long time before the animal kingdom came into existence, or, as to my belief based on QM of biology that the animal and plant kingdom came into existence roughly at the same time would indicate that the cloning of plants and the cloning of animals would be different as per those scenarios. If the animal kingdom evolved out of the plant kingdom then the cloning of animals should be an impossibility. But if the animal kingdom was independently created apart from the plant kingdom and not evolved, then the cloning of plants and the cloning of animals should exist in both kingdoms with some parity even though the cloning of animals is more difficult. If Darwin Evolution were correct that animals evolved from plants with its huge lapse and gap in time, then it would be impossible or near impossible to ever clone animals but evidence shows us amphibians clonable. So the issue of cloning divides the question of Evolution versus QM duality of the two kingdoms. The original statement was "triggering stem cells to grow", not "stem cell induction" which is a very different thing. I read too hastily but glad I did. I must protest your notion of "QM of biology" arguing for some sort of quantal mechanical duality between plants and animals. Both true plants (embryophytes) and true animals (eumetazoa) evolved from single celled eukaryotic precursors in the Kingdom Protista. There are a I am foggy over the "accepted biology picture" that applies Darwin Evolution for the creation and arrival of the plant kingdom and animal kingdom. But that picture accepted by the present day biology community is itself a foggy picture and so I am faced with several foggy pictures. However, some fog is lifted when asking for a time period in which "plants" could live on land without dependence on the oceans and seas whether in water or on the shores and banks of water. So the time period in which plants were true land dwellers. And that is where Quantum Duality of the plants to animals presents itself fully. At the interface of where plants are true land dwellers needs there to be animals as true land dwellers. And it is at this time period that Darwin Evolution says or allows for billions of years to transpire where the only true land dwellers were plants. QM duality would say there never was a time period of only plants as true land dwellers. number of molecular biology and genomic factors relating all the multicellular organisms: plants, animals, and fungi. This probably relates to the development of genes that can regulate and control cell differentiation and that can maintain signaling processes between the distinct cell types to keep the activities of the multicellular organism somewhat coordinated. However, "plant-like" organisms QM duality goes deeper than that. Plants body depends on carbon whereas animal body depends on calcium. Calcium in order for physical support but also to get the electrical system of the body functioning so that animals have mobility. This is one of the dualities between animals and plants in that vertebrates could not exist with carbon fiber skeletons but had to be based on calcium. So that when the plants became full land dwellers, they had to have a biological compliment alongside themselves of animals in order to be successful and so when the plant kingdom became land dwellers the animal kingdom existed fully alongside. (formerly called algae) and "animal-like" organisms (formerly called protozoa) were in existence long before true plants and animals arose. Plants did not evolve from animals nor did animals evolve from plants. The first several billion years of life on earth occurred without the existence either of animals or of plants. Okay, maybe I should rephrase what Darwin Evolution hypothesizes about the creation of the animal and plant kingdoms. Darwin Evolution would say that a soup of life of one celled and multicelled creatures lived in the oceans for billions of years and that a group of them ventured out of the oceans onto land and would become the plant kingdom. And separated in vast time a different group of creatures from the oceans ventured out of the water and would become animals. How much of a time separation between plants becoming land dwellers and then animals? QM duality would say the process of invading the land and becoming true land dwellers transpired simultaneously with the plant and animal kingdom and that there was no time gap of where the plants invaded land and millions and billions of years later the animals invaded land. Cloning of plants and of animals share the basic idea of reproduction through asexual reproduction, that is, purely through mitotic cell division. But they differ enormously because plants maintain stocks of meristem (what in animals is called stem cells) and can readily regenerate all organs: roots, stems, and leaves. As a result, you can "easily" clone plants through cuttings or graftings. The original thread relates to the fact that "easy conceptually" does not always translate to "easy in the potting room". Animals usually do not retain totipotent stem cells and most cannot readily regenerate complete organs and body structure and so animal cloning must necessarily pass through an embryonic stage of development. This is perhaps another QM duality compliment between plants and animals. In that plants can maintain a constant supply of stem-cells whereas the body of animals and its need for mobility and thus electrical signaling and thus calcium based bodys is impossible to maintain stem-cells and thus a loss of cloning abilities for 99% of the animals. Can Darwin Evolution pinpoint a time in which Protozoa came into existence as compared to the algae? Can it say whether protozoa evolved from algae? Can it say whether algae and protozoa had a common ancestor? This is where Quantum duality is far different for QM would say that common ancestors stops at some point where you cannot get a common ancestor and that the creation process involves 2 entities that are so different that it is impossible to have a common ancestor. This is where a stopped energetic neutrino creates the Algae which becomes the plant kingdom and a different stopped energetic neutrino of say 10^14 MeV creates a Protozoa which then goes on to become the animal kingdom. Darwin Evolution relies upon commonality of all life from one common ancestor. QM duality allows for the creation of entities so vastly different that they have no common ancestory and thus allows for complimentarity that uses different chemicals and chemistry of life. It is virtually impossible to have a animal human to have stem cells in the way a plant has stem cells and that is because the chemistry of humans and plants has to be so different that they arose originally from 2 different acts of creation and not evolved from one common ancestor. Archimedes Plutonium www.archimedesplutonium.com www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
acer platanoides and Rootenone; sunburst locust and blue spruce
r norman wrote in message . ..
[long snip] You may wish to review the concept of "invincible ignorance" before entering into an argument with AP.... -- Chris Green |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
acer platanoides and Rootenone; sunburst locust and blue spruce
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Golden Sunburst Honey locust Tree | Gardening | |||
Are these 3 Acer platanoides cultivars actually the same tree? | Gardening | |||
Acer Platanoides Red Leafed Norway Maple | Gardening | |||
cuttings report on spruce, locust, maple | Plant Science | |||
Sunburst Locust - When to Prune? | Gardening |