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