Compound leaves: primitive? or why?
 

Curious idea came up about blackwalnuts and their compound leaves. Many
years back when I first learned that a leaf of blackwalnut was not just
one green blot like a oak leaf or a maple leaf but was some 7 or more
green blots on a stem.

So my question today is how did anyone come to realize that a
blackwalnut leaf was compound with many green blots?

Does compound leaf mean the blackwalnut was a recently evolved tree and
that noncompound leafed trees are geologically older.

And what survival value is it to a tree to have compound leaves rather
than noncompound?

Or is this compound leaf thing just semantics with no biological
difference from say oak leaves or rose leaves or apple leaves.

So what is the biological reasoning behind a compound leaf as compared
to noncompound leaves?

Curious thing this compound leafing is.


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 schreef
Does compound leaf mean the blackwalnut was a recently evolved tree and
that noncompound leafed trees are geologically older.

* * *
Any question of "primitive" is relative to the group you are talking about.
Compared to Gymnosperms compound leaves are advanced.
PvR

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

So my question today is how did anyone come to realize that a
blackwalnut leaf was compound with many green blots?

It is purely a matter of structure. Leaves usually have buds in their
axils (the angle between leaf and stem). These buds will produce
additional shoots, leaves, or flowers. Something with simple leaves
has buds in every axil. Something with compound leaves does NOT have
buds in the axils that the leaflets make with the axis of the compound
leaf. That is how you tell--look for the axillary buds. Whatever is
beyond the axillary bud is all one leaf.

Does compound leaf mean the blackwalnut was a recently evolved tree and
that noncompound leafed trees are geologically older.

It is generally believed that simple leaves are the more primitive
form and that compound leaves represent the derived state. This
character has arisen independently in different groups many, many
times. (That is, one cannot say that all plants with compound leaves
share a common lineage or that all plants with compound leaves are
older than all plants with simple.)

And what survival value is it to a tree to have compound leaves rather than noncompound?

In some cases, having finely divided leaves can break up air flow over
a leaf, reducing transpiration. This can be an advantage in dry
climates. In other cases, there does not seem to be an advantage--or
a drawback. Not every feature of an organism is beneficial or
harmful--many are neutral until some change in environment selects for
one state or another.

Or is this compound leaf thing just semantics with no biological
difference from say oak leaves or rose leaves or apple leaves.

No, not semantics. Morphology. Have a look at a flowering plant
systematics textbook--it will tell you about simple and compound
leaves.

Monique Reed
Texas A&M

Monique Reed wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

So my question today is how did anyone come to realize that a
blackwalnut leaf was compound with many green blots?

It is purely a matter of structure. Leaves usually have buds in their
axils (the angle between leaf and stem). These buds will produce
additional shoots, leaves, or flowers. Something with simple leaves
has buds in every axil. Something with compound leaves does NOT have
buds in the axils that the leaflets make with the axis of the compound
leaf. That is how you tell--look for the axillary buds. Whatever is
beyond the axillary bud is all one leaf.

Does compound leaf mean the blackwalnut was a recently evolved tree and
that noncompound leafed trees are geologically older.

It is generally believed that simple leaves are the more primitive
form and that compound leaves represent the derived state. This
character has arisen independently in different groups many, many
times. (That is, one cannot say that all plants with compound leaves
share a common lineage or that all plants with compound leaves are
older than all plants with simple.)

And what survival value is it to a tree to have compound leaves rather than noncompound?

In some cases, having finely divided leaves can break up air flow over
a leaf, reducing transpiration. This can be an advantage in dry
climates. In other cases, there does not seem to be an advantage--or
a drawback. Not every feature of an organism is beneficial or
harmful--many are neutral until some change in environment selects for
one state or another.

Or is this compound leaf thing just semantics with no biological
difference from say oak leaves or rose leaves or apple leaves.

No, not semantics. Morphology. Have a look at a flowering plant
systematics textbook--it will tell you about simple and compound
leaves.

Monique Reed
Texas A&M

I am trying to think of an analogy for animals in the manner that compound leaves are to trees.

I wonder if any animals were borne with extra hands or extra fingers. I wonder if any animal
was borne with extra eyes.

I wonder if any animal was borne with a compound heart, or extra heart. I believe it was
reported that a horse had two hearts but did not pass that trait on.

I am looking for a analogy in animals that somewhat matches compound leaves in plants.

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

You do that Archie.

How about an analogy of yourself with a compound personality?


"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
...


Monique Reed wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

So my question today is how did anyone come to realize that a
blackwalnut leaf was compound with many green blots?

It is purely a matter of structure. Leaves usually have buds in their
axils (the angle between leaf and stem). These buds will produce
additional shoots, leaves, or flowers. Something with simple leaves
has buds in every axil. Something with compound leaves does NOT have
buds in the axils that the leaflets make with the axis of the compound
leaf. That is how you tell--look for the axillary buds. Whatever is
beyond the axillary bud is all one leaf.

Does compound leaf mean the blackwalnut was a recently evolved tree
and
that noncompound leafed trees are geologically older.

It is generally believed that simple leaves are the more primitive
form and that compound leaves represent the derived state. This
character has arisen independently in different groups many, many
times. (That is, one cannot say that all plants with compound leaves
share a common lineage or that all plants with compound leaves are
older than all plants with simple.)

And what survival value is it to a tree to have compound leaves rather
than noncompound?

In some cases, having finely divided leaves can break up air flow over
a leaf, reducing transpiration. This can be an advantage in dry
climates. In other cases, there does not seem to be an advantage--or
a drawback. Not every feature of an organism is beneficial or
harmful--many are neutral until some change in environment selects for
one state or another.

Or is this compound leaf thing just semantics with no biological
difference from say oak leaves or rose leaves or apple leaves.

No, not semantics. Morphology. Have a look at a flowering plant
systematics textbook--it will tell you about simple and compound
leaves.

Monique Reed
Texas A&M

I am trying to think of an analogy for animals in the manner that compound
leaves are to trees.

I wonder if any animals were borne with extra hands or extra fingers. I
wonder if any animal
was borne with extra eyes.

I wonder if any animal was borne with a compound heart, or extra heart. I
believe it was
reported that a horse had two hearts but did not pass that trait on.

I am looking for a analogy in animals that somewhat matches compound
leaves in plants.

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
:



Monique Reed wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

So my question today is how did anyone come to realize that a
blackwalnut leaf was compound with many green blots?

It is purely a matter of structure. Leaves usually have buds in
their axils (the angle between leaf and stem). These buds will
produce additional shoots, leaves, or flowers. Something with
simple leaves has buds in every axil. Something with compound
leaves does NOT have buds in the axils that the leaflets make
with the axis of the compound leaf. That is how you tell--look
for the axillary buds. Whatever is beyond the axillary bud is all
one leaf.

Does compound leaf mean the blackwalnut was a recently evolved
tree and that noncompound leafed trees are geologically older.

It is generally believed that simple leaves are the more
primitive form and that compound leaves represent the derived
state. This character has arisen independently in different
groups many, many times. (That is, one cannot say that all
plants with compound leaves share a common lineage or that all
plants with compound leaves are older than all plants with
simple.)

And what survival value is it to a tree to have compound leaves
rather than noncompound?

In some cases, having finely divided leaves can break up air flow
over a leaf, reducing transpiration. This can be an advantage in
dry climates. In other cases, there does not seem to be an
advantage--or a drawback. Not every feature of an organism is
beneficial or harmful--many are neutral until some change in
environment selects for one state or another.

Or is this compound leaf thing just semantics with no
biological difference from say oak leaves or rose leaves or
apple leaves.

No, not semantics. Morphology. Have a look at a flowering plant
systematics textbook--it will tell you about simple and compound
leaves.

Monique Reed
Texas A&M

I am trying to think of an analogy for animals in the manner that
compound leaves are to trees.

Fur, feathers, scales on the heat protection side, and multiple
stomachs as cows have on the food obtaining side. These analogies
are kind of forced though. Maybe they are extremely forced. OK, they
are so forced that they are silly.


I wonder if any animals were borne with extra hands or extra
fingers. I wonder if any animal was borne with extra eyes.

Yes, there was an animal born with extra eyes, I am sending it over
to your house, it should arrive in 12 days, right around sunset. Do
not attempt to dissect it, just give it something with sugar and let
it go,


I wonder if any animal was borne with a compound heart, or extra
heart. I believe it was reported that a horse had two hearts but
did not pass that trait on.

I am looking for a analogy in animals that somewhat matches
compound leaves in plants.


Chang and Eng?

Sean

Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:08:16 GMT Sean Houtman wrote:
(huge snip)

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in
:

I am trying to think of an analogy for animals in the manner that
compound leaves are to trees.

Fur, feathers, scales on the heat protection side, and multiple
stomachs as cows have on the food obtaining side. These analogies
are kind of forced though. Maybe they are extremely forced. OK, they
are so forced that they are silly.


So that is a nice compounding for animals. The compounding of hair into
that of multi-hair which ends up as becoming feathers.

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.

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. In other words, Darwin Evolution would claim the source for the
proclivity to compound comes from the molecule of heredity itself-- the
double helix DNA.

However, a far different answer for Compounding tendency or Compounding
proclivity in the kingdoms of biology swells forth from Quantum Dualism
of Quantum Physics in that the kingdoms are complimentary duals of one
another of the plant kingdom dual to the animal kingdom where particles
have their respective reverses. Charge negative versus charge positive,
and matter versus antimatter, and spin up or spin down. Symmetry is
created in the world and in particular the biological-world not because
DNA is symmetrical but because quantum dualism forces there to be
symmetry everywhere and in everything.

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.

But getting back to the past history of life. If Darwin was correct then
the symmetry we see so much in life is caused fundamentally because DNA
is symmetrical. But if I am correct then Darwin is deaf dumb and silent
as to how DNA itself was created and that is where Quantum Duality has
the better answers.

Did the Ash leaves evolve compound leaves or did birds evolve feathers
by compounding hair due to the tendency of DNA to mutate symmetrical
endproducts? Or is it a better explanation to say that all beneficial
mutations possess symmetry not because DNA possess symmetry but because
the forces creating mutations are quantum physics so that when the first
eye mutations occurred in living systems they came as 2 and not 1 or
when the first lungs came they arrived as 2 and not 1 or when the first
heart arrived it came as 2 chambered and not 1. Much as in physics when
a electron appears there is also its proton somewhere else or when a
antimatter appears there is its matter somewhere else.

So symmetry is something that Darwin Evolution is deaf dumb and silent
about. Whereas the theory of Quantum Duality of kingdoms of biology says
that symmetry is forced unto living systems because the creation process
of new things in biology is a result of complimentary dualism.


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 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
* * *

I think you need your medication adjusted.
Iris,
Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." Yogi Berra

Archie should consider getting his drugs from Canada instead of Mexico!!!!


"Iris Cohen" wrote in message
...
I think you need your medication adjusted.
Iris,
Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." Yogi Berra

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
:

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

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

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

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
* * *

"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

"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

Sean Houtman wrote in message news:1098587319.mRoAo2XDeJdzmpxj6i41vQ@teranews. ..
(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!

No, I want to bring botantists into it. Since biologists
are already to have intelligence less than or
equal to both idiot astronomers and chemists.





Sean

Pigs do fly, Cereus. There're air freighted everywhere!
See what I mean?


"Cereus-validus." wrote in message
. com...
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

Why don't you just go skipping off into the sunset hand in hand with Archie.
You know you want to do it.


"Peter Jason" wrote in message
...
Pigs do fly, Cereus. There're air freighted everywhere!
See what I mean?


"Cereus-validus." wrote in message
. com...
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

Nah! You'd only get jealous and create a tawdry scene!



"Cereus-validus." wrote in message
. com...
Why don't you just go skipping off into the sunset hand in hand with
Archie.
You know you want to do it.


"Peter Jason" wrote in message
...
Pigs do fly, Cereus. There're air freighted everywhere!
See what I mean?


"Cereus-validus." wrote in message
. com...
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

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