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

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

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

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

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

"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

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.

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

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.

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

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

On 21 May 2004 11:26:00 -0700, (Christopher
Green) wrote:

r norman wrote in message . ..
[long snip]

You may wish to review the concept of "invincible ignorance" before
entering into an argument with AP....

Been there, done that.

It is just, every once and a while, a new twist attracts my attention.
The difference in growth patterns, regeneration, and ability to clone
between plants and animals is an intriguing subject. Archimedes'
latest rejoinder, with the total nonsense about carbon and calcium, is
something I have gone into with him already and I certainly don't
intend to plow that barren field again!