Sean Houtman wrote in message news:1098410858.UahHx36i/p9QIjm4VkcFxg@teranews...
Archimedes Plutonium wrote in
:


Quantum Duality would say that every molecule of life present on
Earth has an intrinsic root force of compounding. It wants to
change into a new form of more symmetry. It wants to compound the
already compound Ash leaves into a greater compounding. It wants
to compound the head and brain capacity of humans. It wants to
compound the vital organs of humans so that a new species can live
longer, smarter and better. It wants to compound viruses so that
new viral transmissions arise.


Symmetry doesn't occur much on the molecular level though, most
proteins are just amorphous-looking blobs. Fats and sugars are
generally not symmetrical either. Many sugars have their mirror
image counterparts, but those mirror images often have no biological
activity or importance. If there was some sort of root force driving
compounding, wouldn't there be more molecules that were symmetrical,
or compounded on themselves?

But, as fate would have it. Proteins are the most symmetrical
of all known molecules. Hemoglobin is one of few known
molecules that you can transfuse. An it's all because
all sugars, are in fact extracts of allergens. Not because
sugars are sweet.

It's not done with mirrors, it all done with
the universes most symmetric know objects:
logic tables, chairs, and, lasers.









Sean

I have a theory that birds are descended from insects, because:
1/ Insects knew how to fly already (being small, these creatures could take
advantage of the slightest breeze to become and remain airborne.)
2/ The avian lung is more like the insect's system, and remote from those of
dinosaurs/reptiles.
3/ Insects have wings already.
4/ Insects have been around longer.
5/ Insects have shorter generations allowing faster natural selection.



"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message
...
Archimedes Plutonium schreef
So that is a nice compounding for animals. The compounding of hair into
that of multi-hair which ends up as becoming feathers.

*****
Right, birds and plants with compound leafs are birds of a feather
* * *

So then, since compounding is a ongoing phenomenon for both the Plant
Kingdom as well as the Animal Kingdom that we must ask the question as
to what is the source of this tendency to compound within biological
kingdoms.

*****
Energy efficiency
* * *

Darwin Evolution would spring in to say that the source for the tendency
or proclivity to compound in Nature is due to the fact that DNA is
itself a compound symmetry for it is not a single helix but a double
helix.

*****
Darwin did not know about DNA and certainly had nothing to say about it
* * *

So life on Earth in a million years hence in the future, if it survives
will have compounded in ways hardly imagineable to us today.

*****
Evolution moves slowly, but who knows how the influence of Man wiil work
out
* * *

Oh no, Peter has been smoking Archie's stash again.

When you're tripping, can you smell colors and see sounds? Just curious,
would never do that nasty stuff myself.


"Peter Jason" wrote in message
...
I have a theory that birds are descended from insects, because:
1/ Insects knew how to fly already (being small, these creatures could
take
advantage of the slightest breeze to become and remain airborne.)
2/ The avian lung is more like the insect's system, and remote from those
of
dinosaurs/reptiles.
3/ Insects have wings already.
4/ Insects have been around longer.
5/ Insects have shorter generations allowing faster natural selection.



"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message
...
Archimedes Plutonium schreef
So that is a nice compounding for animals. The compounding of hair
into
that of multi-hair which ends up as becoming feathers.

*****
Right, birds and plants with compound leafs are birds of a feather
* * *

So then, since compounding is a ongoing phenomenon for both the Plant
Kingdom as well as the Animal Kingdom that we must ask the question as
to what is the source of this tendency to compound within biological
kingdoms.

*****
Energy efficiency
* * *

Darwin Evolution would spring in to say that the source for the
tendency
or proclivity to compound in Nature is due to the fact that DNA is
itself a compound symmetry for it is not a single helix but a double
helix.

*****
Darwin did not know about DNA and certainly had nothing to say about it
* * *

So life on Earth in a million years hence in the future, if it
survives
will have compounded in ways hardly imagineable to us today.

*****
Evolution moves slowly, but who knows how the influence of Man wiil work
out
* * *

(ZZBunker) wrote in
om:


But, as fate would have it. Proteins are the most symmetrical
of all known molecules. Hemoglobin is one of few known
molecules that you can transfuse. An it's all because
all sugars, are in fact extracts of allergens. Not because
sugars are sweet.

It's not done with mirrors, it all done with
the universes most symmetric know objects:
logic tables, chairs, and, lasers.



Dude, don't you know that the protein folding project is much less
important to society on earth than SETI@home?

Sean

"Peter Jason" wrote in
:

I have a theory that birds are descended from insects, because:
1/ Insects knew how to fly already (being small, these creatures
could take advantage of the slightest breeze to become and remain
airborne.) 2/ The avian lung is more like the insect's system, and
remote from those of dinosaurs/reptiles.
3/ Insects have wings already.
4/ Insects have been around longer.
5/ Insects have shorter generations allowing faster natural
selection.



This is a botanical group. If you want to have a theory like that,
at least make it botany related.

Birds are descended from maple seeds.
1) Maple seeds fly.
2) Things always develop into better things, so birds fly better
than maple seeds.
3) Maple seeds have a wing, birds have two wings, insects have 4
wings, insects are descended from birds.
4) Birds can often be seen sitting in maple trees, which is where
you generally find maple seeds.

Sean

Fri, 22 Oct 2004 02:07:38 GMT Sean Houtman wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in
:

Quantum Duality would say that every molecule of life present on
Earth has an intrinsic root force of compounding. It wants to
change into a new form of more symmetry. It wants to compound the
already compound Ash leaves into a greater compounding. It wants
to compound the head and brain capacity of humans. It wants to
compound the vital organs of humans so that a new species can live
longer, smarter and better. It wants to compound viruses so that
new viral transmissions arise.


Symmetry doesn't occur much on the molecular level though, most
proteins are just amorphous-looking blobs. Fats and sugars are

Well I wonder if DNA drives proteins or proteins drive DNA and so that
would answer that DNA drives proteins and that proteins are secondary to
DNA.

But I wonder about some other facts, perhaps you could enlighten me
upon. I know animals are primarily protein bodies. So if a average
animal is 70% water
and then say 20% protein. But plants have little protein. So an average
plant is say 70% water then what is the 20% analog of protein?

Sean, if average animal is 70-20-10 and average plant is 70-20-10 but
where the 20% for animals is protein and for plants something else would
make a fine argument in favor of quantum duality.


generally not symmetrical either. Many sugars have their mirror
image counterparts, but those mirror images often have no biological
activity or importance. If there was some sort of root force driving
compounding, wouldn't there be more molecules that were symmetrical,
or compounded on themselves?

Sean

Well I would only remark on the diversity of life itself suggests that
some underlying root force is propelling the diversity and that the
tenets of Darwin Evolution are just so weak and time consuming to get
such huge biological diversity. In Darwin evolution they speak of
accelerated and explosive jumps of new forms.

In compounding there would always be increasing new forms with time.

Darwin Evolution is happenstance and circumstance.

Quantum Duality of Kingdoms with compounding as a force of change has
change built into the DNA molecule of life itself. So it is the DNA that
has a force of change built into its structure as is and is wanting to
compound some features of its A,C,T,G code. Much like the cosmic-ray
that packs 10^14 MeV in that when it stops by hitting into something it
compounds into symmetrical left and right particles.

Some may say that planet Earth in the last 1 million years due to human
actions has lost biological diversity in that many species have become
extinct. But no-one has really tabulated how many new species of
bacteria and viruses have come into existence. We maybe surprized that
in all of Earth history that diversity has steadily increased with time
and even in the past 1 million years.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Peter has been smoking Archie's stash again.

Just what we need, another psychiatry patient.
Iris,
Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." Yogi Berra

Sean Houtman wrote in message news:1098501488.uZSIZNOh2QTOaxpX7HDxKA@teranews. ..
(ZZBunker) wrote in
om:


But, as fate would have it. Proteins are the most symmetrical
of all known molecules. Hemoglobin is one of few known
molecules that you can transfuse. An it's all because
all sugars, are in fact extracts of allergens. Not because
sugars are sweet.

It's not done with mirrors, it all done with
the universes most symmetric know objects:
logic tables, chairs, and, lasers.



Dude, don't you know that the protein folding project is much less
important to society on earth than SETI@home?

SETI@home is the most worthless science project
since science funded Carl Sagan to be a
chemo-theauphutic Ralph Nader wannabee MORON.

It is most overprced and stupid thing in
mathematics, since Bill Gates bought
the asccii symobol "@".

It is more even idiotic that isiotic astronomer on Mars.
Since Mars is already ireserved for
Nuclear Weapons testing by the Chinese-Indian-Sri Lanka
druid astrologers for the Sing Sing Dynasty
of Feynmann-psycho-tart fame.



Sean

I'ts called "thinking ouside of the box" Cereus Brutus. Can't you take any
idea not in the text books?
'Ol Serious Invalidated becomes disphasic and disoriented when presented
with some new idea.
At least I don't smoke old cigarette butts.

"Cereus-validus." wrote in message
om...
Oh no, Peter has been smoking Archie's stash again.

When you're tripping, can you smell colors and see sounds? Just curious,
would never do that nasty stuff myself.


"Peter Jason" wrote in message
...
I have a theory that birds are descended from insects, because:
1/ Insects knew how to fly already (being small, these creatures could
take
advantage of the slightest breeze to become and remain airborne.)
2/ The avian lung is more like the insect's system, and remote from
those
of
dinosaurs/reptiles.
3/ Insects have wings already.
4/ Insects have been around longer.
5/ Insects have shorter generations allowing faster natural selection.



"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message
...
Archimedes Plutonium schreef
So that is a nice compounding for animals. The compounding of hair
into
that of multi-hair which ends up as becoming feathers.

*****
Right, birds and plants with compound leafs are birds of a feather
* * *

So then, since compounding is a ongoing phenomenon for both the
Plant
Kingdom as well as the Animal Kingdom that we must ask the question as
to what is the source of this tendency to compound within biological
kingdoms.

*****
Energy efficiency
* * *

Darwin Evolution would spring in to say that the source for the
tendency
or proclivity to compound in Nature is due to the fact that DNA is
itself a compound symmetry for it is not a single helix but a double
helix.

*****
Darwin did not know about DNA and certainly had nothing to say about
it
* * *

So life on Earth in a million years hence in the future, if it
survives
will have compounded in ways hardly imagineable to us today.

*****
Evolution moves slowly, but who knows how the influence of Man wiil
work
out
* * *

"Sean Houtman" wrote in message
news:1098501878.r3maFUhnRsEITDGakBjiCQ@teranews...
"Peter Jason" wrote in
:

I have a theory that birds are descended from insects, because:
1/ Insects knew how to fly already (being small, these creatures
could take advantage of the slightest breeze to become and remain
airborne.) 2/ The avian lung is more like the insect's system, and
remote from those of dinosaurs/reptiles.
3/ Insects have wings already.
4/ Insects have been around longer.
5/ Insects have shorter generations allowing faster natural
selection.



This is a botanical group. If you want to have a theory like that,
at least make it botany related.

Birds are descended from maple seeds.
1) Maple seeds fly.
2) Things always develop into better things, so birds fly better
than maple seeds.
3) Maple seeds have a wing, birds have two wings, insects have 4
wings, insects are descended from birds.
4) Birds can often be seen sitting in maple trees, which is where
you generally find maple seeds.

Sean



Oh dear! It's just like an important new idea to attract disciples of the
wrong sort i.e. those who extrapolate to an unrealistic extent.
Maple seeds do not have lungs, my poor young fellow.
In fact plants don't have lungs at all.
Plants breath with their leaves!
Just think for a minute; how on earth did dinosaurs become airborne??
Did they:
1. Hurl themselves off high cliffs until a spontaneous instantaneous
mutation occurred?
2. Breath in a lot of hot air until like balloons they floated upwards?
3. Cleverly attach spiders' webs to hordes of insects, and like Boudicca
ride the clouds while affecting a Leo Di Caprio at-the-bow-of-the-Titanic
pose?
4. Drag themselves along the ground until their epidermal cells, stung and
annoyed by such treatment, spontaneously turned to feathers?
5. Lie on their backs and pedal ferociously until they rose into the air?
6. Set fire to each other's tails, thereby inspiring rapid headlong rush to
the horizon at such a rate as to aerodynamically levitate?

You need to know what the box really is before you can think outside it.
Otherwise, all you are saying is pointless nonsense of no value whatsoever
in the real world. You come across just as deranged and clueless as brain
damaged Archie. Sure he uses a lot of jargon but he really doesn't know what
he is talking about.

What if Darwin got into the wayback machine and screwed Eve when Adam was
out looking for fig leaves? What if pigs could fly? So what?


"Peter Jason" wrote in message
...
I'ts called "thinking ouside of the box" Cereus Brutus. Can't you take
any
idea not in the text books?
'Ol Serious Invalidated becomes disphasic and disoriented when presented
with some new idea.
At least I don't smoke old cigarette butts.

"Cereus-validus." wrote in message
om...
Oh no, Peter has been smoking Archie's stash again.

When you're tripping, can you smell colors and see sounds? Just curious,
would never do that nasty stuff myself.


"Peter Jason" wrote in message
...
I have a theory that birds are descended from insects, because:
1/ Insects knew how to fly already (being small, these creatures could
take
advantage of the slightest breeze to become and remain airborne.)
2/ The avian lung is more like the insect's system, and remote from
those
of
dinosaurs/reptiles.
3/ Insects have wings already.
4/ Insects have been around longer.
5/ Insects have shorter generations allowing faster natural selection.



"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message
...
Archimedes Plutonium schreef
So that is a nice compounding for animals. The compounding of hair
into
that of multi-hair which ends up as becoming feathers.

*****
Right, birds and plants with compound leafs are birds of a feather
* * *

So then, since compounding is a ongoing phenomenon for both the
Plant
Kingdom as well as the Animal Kingdom that we must ask the question
as
to what is the source of this tendency to compound within biological
kingdoms.

*****
Energy efficiency
* * *

Darwin Evolution would spring in to say that the source for the
tendency
or proclivity to compound in Nature is due to the fact that DNA is
itself a compound symmetry for it is not a single helix but a
double
helix.

*****
Darwin did not know about DNA and certainly had nothing to say about
it
* * *

So life on Earth in a million years hence in the future, if it
survives
will have compounded in ways hardly imagineable to us today.

*****
Evolution moves slowly, but who knows how the influence of Man wiil
work
out

(ZZBunker) wrote in
om:

Sean Houtman wrote in message
news:1098501488.uZSIZNOh2QTOaxpX7HDxKA@teranews. ..
(ZZBunker) wrote in
om:


But, as fate would have it. Proteins are the most symmetrical
of all known molecules. Hemoglobin is one of few known
molecules that you can transfuse. An it's all because
all sugars, are in fact extracts of allergens. Not because
sugars are sweet.

It's not done with mirrors, it all done with
the universes most symmetric know objects:
logic tables, chairs, and, lasers.



Dude, don't you know that the protein folding project is much
less important to society on earth than SETI@home?

SETI@home is the most worthless science project
since science funded Carl Sagan to be a
chemo-theauphutic Ralph Nader wannabee MORON.

It is most overprced and stupid thing in
mathematics, since Bill Gates bought
the asccii symobol "@".

If you look in the right VV@R3Z sites, you can get SETI free! Then
you can hack it to point Aresibo at your house and fine there isn't
any intelligentce there!


It is more even idiotic that isiotic astronomer on Mars.
Since Mars is already ireserved for
Nuclear Weapons testing by the Chinese-Indian-Sri Lanka
druid astrologers for the Sing Sing Dynasty
of Feynmann-psycho-tart fame.


Oh, so you want to bring politics into this, huh? You,
you...Moderate!

Sean

"Peter Jason" wrote in
:


"Sean Houtman" wrote in message
news:1098501878.r3maFUhnRsEITDGakBjiCQ@teranews...
"Peter Jason" wrote in
:

I have a theory that birds are descended from insects, because:
1/ Insects knew how to fly already (being small, these
creatures could take advantage of the slightest breeze to
become and remain airborne.) 2/ The avian lung is more like the
insect's system, and remote from those of dinosaurs/reptiles.
3/ Insects have wings already.
4/ Insects have been around longer.
5/ Insects have shorter generations allowing faster natural
selection.



This is a botanical group. If you want to have a theory like
that, at least make it botany related.

Birds are descended from maple seeds.
1) Maple seeds fly.
2) Things always develop into better things, so birds fly better
than maple seeds.
3) Maple seeds have a wing, birds have two wings, insects have 4
wings, insects are descended from birds.
4) Birds can often be seen sitting in maple trees, which is where
you generally find maple seeds.

Sean



Oh dear! It's just like an important new idea to attract disciples
of the wrong sort i.e. those who extrapolate to an unrealistic
extent. Maple seeds do not have lungs, my poor young fellow.
In fact plants don't have lungs at all.
Plants breath with their leaves!
Just think for a minute; how on earth did dinosaurs become
airborne?? Did they:
1. Hurl themselves off high cliffs until a spontaneous
instantaneous mutation occurred?
2. Breath in a lot of hot air until like balloons they floated
upwards? 3. Cleverly attach spiders' webs to hordes of insects,
and like Boudicca ride the clouds while affecting a Leo Di Caprio
at-the-bow-of-the-Titanic pose?
4. Drag themselves along the ground until their epidermal cells,
stung and annoyed by such treatment, spontaneously turned to
feathers? 5. Lie on their backs and pedal ferociously until they
rose into the air? 6. Set fire to each other's tails, thereby
inspiring rapid headlong rush to the horizon at such a rate as to
aerodynamically levitate?



7. They used their time machine to land at Kitty Hawk in 1903, and
bought the plans from one of the Wright brothers.

Sean

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in
:




Symmetry doesn't occur much on the molecular level though, most
proteins are just amorphous-looking blobs. Fats and sugars are

Well I wonder if DNA drives proteins or proteins drive DNA and so
that would answer that DNA drives proteins and that proteins are
secondary to DNA.

DNA holds the codes that make the proteins, if you change the code,
the proteins change. If you change the proteins that DNA uses to
make proteins, or to replicate into new copies of DNA, you either
get nothing, or the same thing, so the DNA drives the proteins.


But I wonder about some other facts, perhaps you could enlighten
me upon. I know animals are primarily protein bodies. So if a
average animal is 70% water
and then say 20% protein. But plants have little protein. So an
average plant is say 70% water then what is the 20% analog of
protein?

Your experiments with Ash, Oak, and Hickory should tell you the
answer to that question.

snips

Well I would only remark on the diversity of life itself suggests
that some underlying root force is propelling the diversity and
that the tenets of Darwin Evolution are just so weak and time
consuming to get such huge biological diversity. In Darwin
evolution they speak of accelerated and explosive jumps of new
forms.

In compounding there would always be increasing new forms with
time.

The world is huge, and the layer of life is tiny, with Evolution,
there are plenty of ways to get new forms.


Darwin Evolution is happenstance and circumstance.

With happenstance and circumstance, great beauty arises.


Sean

Sun, 24 Oct 2004 03:23:27 GMT Sean Houtman wrote:
(most snipped)



But I wonder about some other facts, perhaps you could enlighten
me upon. I know animals are primarily protein bodies. So if a
average animal is 70% water
and then say 20% protein. But plants have little protein. So an
average plant is say 70% water then what is the 20% analog of
protein?

Your experiments with Ash, Oak, and Hickory should tell you the
answer to that question.


Yes plants have cellulose which has glucose in contrast with starch.

But I need a firm data sheet as to how much proteins the average animal
consists of. Does the average animal contain 20% proteins. Then does the
average plant consist of roughly the same 20% of cellulose?

Then, can we say that cellulose is just sugar and can we thence say that
the dual of protein is sugar? I am not sure.

Can we say that photosynthesis end goal is to create sugar. And since
animals live indirectly off of photosynthesis, not directly as plants
do, that their bulk 20% is proteins whose end goal is to create food.

So in this light, can we say that sugars are the dual of proteins and
that plants consist on average 70% water, 20% cellulose and 10% other
whereas animals on average consist 70% water, 20% proteins and 10%
other.

So that the numbers match and leaves us with the undeniable insight that
plants are dual to animals where one has sugar and the other has
proteins, and both driven by DNA.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies