Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:22:41 +0200 P van Rijckevorsel wrote:

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
* * *

That would be a Darwin Evolution answer by looking for some advantage for
survival.

But the Quantum-Duality answer is far deeper. It would say that every
biological system is symmetrical. And there is a force tendency to compound. In
physics when we view a photo for a particle path that curves leftward then the
antiparticle takes a rightward path which in toto is symmetrical. The same idea
applies to biological systems that when plants create single leafs they are
symmetrical but there is this underlying Quantum duality force seeking compound
leaves.

Physics is lacking in understanding of the interconnectedness between Symmetry
and Complimentary duality.

To date the mathematicians have been largely ignorant and their thoughts and
ideas on this subject are so offbase and remote with fractal theory as to be
ludicrous.

Biology however is the best field to pinpoint this basic concept that Quantum
duality and symmetry are driving forces in all of biology.

Every specimen of life that I can think of is overwhelmingly symmetrical, as if
there is a underlying force to produce symmetry and to compound that symmetry.

As if the Ash tree leaflets were some particle photographed with a rightward
path and another leaflet was the antiparticle with leftward path.



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
* * *

I know Darwin did not know about DNA, and evolution cannot contradict the facts
of DNA. But can Darwin Evolution explain the birth of DNA and the rise of DNA?
Some people have seen repeating of clay minerals as a model for the birth of
DNA.

I say DNA was borne on Earth from a neutrino of a cosmic ray with about 10^14
MeV that was stopped and when stopped transformed into a whole creature. In
this sense light-waves are perfect DNA and when stopped the lightwaves convert
to DNA and a whole creature.

Then because of Quantum duality as a force of symmetry such as compounding
these creatures produce new species.



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
* * *

The influence of man should tell the intelligent thinking person that Darwin
Evolution is a poor model at best. Because humanity itself can extinct or
create new species in total violation of the tenets of Darwin Evolution of
geographic isolation, of Natural Selection, of genetic recombination, etc etc.
Humanity itself contradicts Darwin Evolution.


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

a few minutes ago I wrote:



But the Quantum-Duality answer is far deeper. It would say that every
biological system is symmetrical. And there is a force tendency to compound. In
physics when we view a photo for a particle path that curves leftward then the
antiparticle takes a rightward path which in toto is symmetrical. The same idea
applies to biological systems that when plants create single leafs they are
symmetrical but there is this underlying Quantum duality force seeking compound
leaves.

Physics is lacking in understanding of the interconnectedness between Symmetry
and Complimentary duality.

To date the mathematicians have been largely ignorant and their thoughts and
ideas on this subject are so offbase and remote with fractal theory as to be
ludicrous.

Biology however is the best field to pinpoint this basic concept that Quantum
duality and symmetry are driving forces in all of biology.

Every specimen of life that I can think of is overwhelmingly symmetrical, as if
there is a underlying force to produce symmetry and to compound that symmetry.

As if the Ash tree leaflets were some particle photographed with a rightward
path and another leaflet was the antiparticle with leftward path.

In fact if we look at the entire history of life on Earth with its major junctures
such as when one celled organisms became colonies and then became multicellular
and then the juncture were cells specialized into organs and then the juncture of
when ocean organisms first went on to land to live and the juncture when animals
began to fly.

IF we examine every major juncture in the history of life on Earth, it can be said
that each of those junctures was merely a Compounding of past symmetry. In other
words the juncture of single celled to multicelled was driven by this Quantum
force of compounding. The juncture when land animals first began to fly in the air
was another moment in history of Compounding of old form where hair becomes
feathers on wings.

So what I am saying is that the driving force of animal and plant and
microorganism morphology and change is this Quantum duality of compounding old
form to make new form.

No-one in physics or biology would say that a pion path on a screen that curls
leftwards and its antiparticle on that screen which curves rightward that the Pion
is a living organism. No-one in physics or biology would say the Pion was a living
creature. But all would agree that the Pion and its antiparticle form a completed
symmetry. So what I am saying is that every major juncture in the History of Life
on Earth is like a elaborate and complex Pion and its antiparticle.

When Earth was young some 5 billion years ago the first life was formed and then
it compounded tens and hundreds and thousands of times to form more complex single
celled creatures and then after some millions of acts of Compounding a multicelled
creature was borne on Earth.

Darwin Evolution would say new species are formed from adaption to environment,
survival of fittest, mutations that give rise to new form for Natural Selection to
work on, etc etc

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.

So if we look back at the entire history of life on Earth we see these junctures
of major turns of new forms. Those forms are of increased symmetry and of
compounding of old forms.


Archimedes Plutonium
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
:


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?

Sean

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

(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

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

(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

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

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

Sun, 24 Oct 2004 02:48:22 -0500 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(most snipped)


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.

Now this may get even more interesting, in that the relationship is not
only a dual complimentary relationship but that it is a *inverse
relationship*.

So let us say the average animal and average plant is the following
content:

Animal-- 70% water with 20% protein and 10% other

Plant-- 70% cellulose with 20% water and 10% other

The inverse is that plants inverse water for cellulose.

But I need some accurate numbers for the above is mostly my own guesswork.

Archimedes Plutonium
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
:

Every specimen of life that I can think of is overwhelmingly
symmetrical, as if there is a underlying force to produce symmetry
and to compound that symmetry.


There are a whole lot of sponges, and most polyps that don't have
any sort of structural symmetry. You could argue that no plants have
pure structural symmetry, but there are many algae and liverworts
that don't have any at all.

In animals, the force that tends to produce bilateral symmetry is
the fact that if you are going to control various body parts, it is
much easier to do so if they are the same on each side. In plants,
it is just convenient that to make another leaf, you make one like
the last one, and put it on the other side, or rotated around a bit.

Sean

In plants, it is just convenient that to make another leaf, you make one
like the last one, and put it on the other side, or rotated around a bit.

The fascinating part of this is that, unless there is some other compelling
force, the leaves and other parts are always put on according to the Fibonacci
principle.
Iris,
Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." Yogi Berra