In article , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:18:37 -0500, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
But if Darwin Evolution theory was correct then the plant kingdom would have
created
a highly toxic poison to alot of animals and the animals would have created
highly
toxic poisons to alot of plants.

That is silly. Plants do not eat animals, and so animals do not need
poisons to defend themselves against plants.

(There are a few exceptions to plants not eating animals. Are there
any poisons involved here? I don't know. Given the way these plants
work, I doubt it. But this would be the place to look. Can any animal
that is trapped by a carnivorous plant kill/inhibit it and escape?)

I suspect there are many more examples of plant/animal cooperation than of
one "trying" to kill the other.


Bruce

------------------------------
Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals
dying of nothing.

-Redd Foxx


Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)

Of course there is the possibility that toxic plants were planted by
Aliens.........


"Bruce Sinclair" wrote in
message ...
In article ,
wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:18:37 -0500, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
But if Darwin Evolution theory was correct then the plant kingdom would
have
created
a highly toxic poison to alot of animals and the animals would have
created
highly
toxic poisons to alot of plants.

That is silly. Plants do not eat animals, and so animals do not need
poisons to defend themselves against plants.

(There are a few exceptions to plants not eating animals. Are there
any poisons involved here? I don't know. Given the way these plants
work, I doubt it. But this would be the place to look. Can any animal
that is trapped by a carnivorous plant kill/inhibit it and escape?)

I suspect there are many more examples of plant/animal cooperation than of
one "trying" to kill the other.


Bruce

------------------------------
Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals
dying of nothing.

-Redd Foxx


Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)

"bobbie sellers" wrote in message ...

Strangely enough some plants do produce deadly toxins to defend
themselves. Castor bean secretes Ricin, jimson weed (and other
daturas) belladona compounds and we have stramonium in potato eyes.

Hemlock didn't grow poisonous with idea the Socrates would make
its draught famous. Aminita Phallodies kills mushroom lovers every
year. Digitalis is very handy with a toxin so mild it can be used
to control heart rate but an overdose will kill a healthy person.

All sorts of plants are out there with toxins and sometimes
animals, usually insects or insect larva can absorb it to poison
their enemies.

Finally the chemicals in certain plants are definity toxic but
so interesting in their effects that mankind goes out of it way to
cultivate them. Tobacco for one and nicotine is a deadly poison
even without its long term use. Coca plants give us cocaine which
is of course what makes the inhabitation of the Alto Plano possible
though the native only chew the leaves and don't extract the
alkaloid. Cocao of course is the basis of chocolate and despite
the name of the dessert the deadly dose is more than anyone can
eat. Willow secretes salicylates and was used for fever before
Bayer synthesized aspirin.

A lot of the poisonous plants are things that people never
consider eating but are used in OTC drugs or were when I was
a lot younger.

You can hardly get past the first page of ANY toxicology textbook
without reading that the dose makes the poison. All of the toxins you
mentioned, digitalis, nicotine,... are not mild poisons, as they have
fairly low LD50's. Butulina toxin is one of the most toxic of all
poisons, but properly diluted is used to take the wrinkles out of John
Kerry's forehead. In the other extreme, water has a very high LD50,
but people have killed themselves by drinking too much of it.

Again, it is the dose that makes the poison.

John

z (Bruce Sinclair) wrote in message ...
In article , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:18:37 -0500, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
But if Darwin Evolution theory was correct then the plant kingdom would have
created
a highly toxic poison to alot of animals and the animals would have created
highly
toxic poisons to alot of plants.

That is silly. Plants do not eat animals, and so animals do not need
poisons to defend themselves against plants.

(There are a few exceptions to plants not eating animals. Are there
any poisons involved here? I don't know. Given the way these plants
work, I doubt it. But this would be the place to look. Can any animal
that is trapped by a carnivorous plant kill/inhibit it and escape?)

I suspect there are many more examples of plant/animal cooperation than of
one "trying" to kill the other.


COMMENT:

Of course. Indeed you only find plants trying to poison animals eating
the wrong parts of them, like roots, stems, leaves. Which is why
herbals medicines come from those things-- herbals are dilute plant
poisons, as are many medicines, at base. The difference between herbs
and spices is which part of the plant they come from-- spices are from
parts the plants are more willing to give up, and thus are generally
less toxic.

Nor is it a coincidence that most medicinal plants come from tropical
climates. In temperature climates, plants get rest from insects when
winter kills them off, and they don't come back in numbers to do
damage until later in the growing season. So some plants get along
without much insect poison at all. In the tropics, it's chemical
warfare ALL the time.

Plants will discourage eating of fruits generally only if at the wrong
time, by making them toxic or at least sour. It's pretty rare you find
toxic fruits, and even then the plant is trying to discourage animals
that don't carry seeds, rather than ones that do.


SBH

In article , "bobbie sellers" wrote:
Bruce Sinclair wrote,
In article ,

wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:18:37 -0500, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
But if Darwin Evolution theory was correct then the plant kingdom would
have
created
a highly toxic poison to alot of animals and the animals would have created
highly
toxic poisons to alot of plants.

That is silly. Plants do not eat animals, and so animals do not need
poisons to defend themselves against plants.

Strangely enough some plants do produce deadly toxins to defend
themselves. Castor bean secretes Ricin, jimson weed (and other
daturas) belladona compounds and we have stramonium in potato eyes.

Aside ... I wrote exactly nothing of what is above That said ...

Indeed ... but this sort of thing is usually defences against insects, are
they not ?

Hemlock didn't grow poisonous with idea the Socrates would make
its draught famous. Aminita Phallodies kills mushroom lovers every
year. Digitalis is very handy with a toxin so mild it can be used
to control heart rate but an overdose will kill a healthy person.

And some species can eat things that will kill others. We have a bird that
eats toxic seeds and copes just fine thank you

All sorts of plants are out there with toxins and sometimes
animals, usually insects or insect larva can absorb it to poison
their enemies.

Yep. Nothing so strange as real life

I suspect there are many more examples of plant/animal cooperation than of
one "trying" to kill the other.

Aside ... this (above) I wrote

There lots of cooperative interactions and plants might have
a hard time existing without the insects and a few other creatures
that carry pollen from male flowers to female. Acorns that squirrels
don't eat have a chance of growing to adulthood.

There are some plants so specialised that if you take their (usually insect)
friends away, they can't breed ... or sometimes survive.



Bruce

------------------------------
Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals
dying of nothing.

-Redd Foxx


Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)

Yes indeed, fungii are notorious here.

"Sean Houtman" wrote in message
3...
Archimedes Plutonium wrote in
:

But I suspect what they mean by poisonous is if eaten in large
quantity of say a bucket ful would kill you. I think scientists
should do a better job on something listed as poisonous. They
should list as to how much of Eounymus if eaten will come close to
killing you.

When in the woods and seeing new plants for the first time with
seeds on them, I usually give them a sample taste test and if
acrid or unpallatable I spit them out and guess they are poisonous
until confirmed. I never sample mushrooms but even there, it is my
understanding that the deadliest mushroom takes a bit of quantity
to do harm.

I suspect there is not a single plant seed or leaf when eaten can
kill a person. I guess that these plant poisons have to be taken
in quantity such as the Yew berry in order to kill a person. So
has any scientist made a precise data sheet on poisons?


There are plenty, you can order one from the USDA. A surprising
number of plants can kill you with only a bite. Datura, Hemlock,
Aconite, the list abounds. As far as mushrooms, some of them can
kill with only a mouthful, but you may feel fine for a week or two
before your liver dissolves. Not all poisonious things are so
courteous to advertise their danger with color or bad taste. I would
suggest that you limit your tasting to things that you know are
edible.

Sean

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in
:


But if Animals are duals to Plants then overall there should be a
different pattern to poisoning of one to another. Because if they
are Complimentary Duals then there should not exist any poison of
one kingdom to the compliment dual kingdom that is a knock them
out and kill with a small quantity.

So what is the worst that animals can do to plants in terms of
poisoning? The worst that I can think of is that some plants
cannot take urination such as dogs. In fact I can not think of
anything else wherein some animal poisons a plant.

So if that is true that a few Plants have a poison that poisons
animals but wherein the poisoning is a rare occurence and the
reverse where there are "no animals" able to poison plants
suggests the Quantum Dual Compliment theory of Plant Kingdom the
dual of Animal Kingdom is more correct than the Darwin Theory.

It makes more sense on the broader scheme in that if these
kingdoms are duals to one another then they do not want to poison
one another.

But if Darwin Evolution theory was correct then the plant kingdom
would have created a highly toxic poison to alot of animals and
the animals would have created highly toxic poisons to alot of
plants.

It is the reverse analysis of animals poisoning plants that has
seldom if ever be given a deep analysis.


There are a number of cases of an animal producing some chemical
substance that is deleterious to a plant. Many galls are formed by
an insect or other arthropod producing some toxin that the plant
deals with by growing tissue around it, thereby protecting and
feeding the buggie. Some plants can inhibit the growth of their
neighbors by a chemical attack, but you are looking for animals that
kill plants by doing something other than eating them.

I have not heard of any substance that an animal produces that tends
to produce death in the plant. Since most plants don't hunt down and
eat animals, there isn't any real advantage for animals to produce a
poison that will kill a plant.

Sean

In article , Sean Houtman wrote:
(snip)
I have not heard of any substance that an animal produces that tends
to produce death in the plant. Since most plants don't hunt down and
eat animals, there isn't any real advantage for animals to produce a
poison that will kill a plant.

Teeth ?


Bruce

------------------------------
Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals
dying of nothing.

-Redd Foxx


Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)

Animals have very complex enzyme systems - monooxygenases, etc. to
detoxify plant compounds; plants and microbes produce a huge diversity
of compounds that are anywhere from mildly toxic to extremely toxic
(e.g., ricin, aflatoxin). However, those compounds are not
necessarily made by the plants or microbes to be toxic to animals.
For example, aflatoxin is one of the most highly toxic and
carcinogenic compounds there is, but it is only toxic to animals that
have certain monooxygenases that "activate" aflatoxin into its toxic
state; it is also hard to see how making aflatoxin would protect a
common fungus that grows in the soil or on peanuts and corn
(Aspergillus flavus) from mammals that make the particular
monooxygenase. Thus, just because a plant or microbe makes something
that happens to be toxic to humans does not mean that it makes that
compound in order to be a toxic defense mechanism.


On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:00:08 GMT,
z (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:

In article , "bobbie sellers" wrote:
Bruce Sinclair wrote,
In article ,

wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:18:37 -0500, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
But if Darwin Evolution theory was correct then the plant kingdom would
have
created
a highly toxic poison to alot of animals and the animals would have created
highly
toxic poisons to alot of plants.

That is silly. Plants do not eat animals, and so animals do not need
poisons to defend themselves against plants.

Strangely enough some plants do produce deadly toxins to defend
themselves. Castor bean secretes Ricin, jimson weed (and other
daturas) belladona compounds and we have stramonium in potato eyes.

Aside ... I wrote exactly nothing of what is above That said ...

Indeed ... but this sort of thing is usually defences against insects, are
they not ?

Hemlock didn't grow poisonous with idea the Socrates would make
its draught famous. Aminita Phallodies kills mushroom lovers every
year. Digitalis is very handy with a toxin so mild it can be used
to control heart rate but an overdose will kill a healthy person.

And some species can eat things that will kill others. We have a bird that
eats toxic seeds and copes just fine thank you

All sorts of plants are out there with toxins and sometimes
animals, usually insects or insect larva can absorb it to poison
their enemies.

Yep. Nothing so strange as real life

I suspect there are many more examples of plant/animal cooperation than of
one "trying" to kill the other.

Aside ... this (above) I wrote

There lots of cooperative interactions and plants might have
a hard time existing without the insects and a few other creatures
that carry pollen from male flowers to female. Acorns that squirrels
don't eat have a chance of growing to adulthood.

There are some plants so specialised that if you take their (usually insect)
friends away, they can't breed ... or sometimes survive.



Bruce

------------------------------
Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals
dying of nothing.

-Redd Foxx


Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)

Sean Houtman wrote:

There are a number of cases of an animal producing some chemical
substance that is deleterious to a plant. Many galls are formed by
an insect or other arthropod producing some toxin that the plant
deals with by growing tissue around it, thereby protecting and
feeding the buggie.

I always wonder that crown-gall formation in certain plants can be
regarded as cancer of the plant. Can this growth be included in the
definition of cancer. There is a local tree which produces edible
fruits (Zizyphus species), almost all tree tend to develop tumour-like
growth having a different color from the stem, I don't know whether
eating fruits of such infected plants is harmless for humans for not?


I have not heard of any substance that an animal produces that tends
to produce death in the plant. Since most plants don't hunt down and
eat animals, there isn't any real advantage for animals to produce a
poison that will kill a plant.

Sean

Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:29:25 GMT Elie Gendloff wrote:

Animals have very complex enzyme systems - monooxygenases, etc. to
detoxify plant compounds; plants and microbes produce a huge diversity
of compounds that are anywhere from mildly toxic to extremely toxic
(e.g., ricin, aflatoxin). However, those compounds are not
necessarily made by the plants or microbes to be toxic to animals.
For example, aflatoxin is one of the most highly toxic and
carcinogenic compounds there is, but it is only toxic to animals that
have certain monooxygenases that "activate" aflatoxin into its toxic
state; it is also hard to see how making aflatoxin would protect a
common fungus that grows in the soil or on peanuts and corn
(Aspergillus flavus) from mammals that make the particular
monooxygenase. Thus, just because a plant or microbe makes something
that happens to be toxic to humans does not mean that it makes that
compound in order to be a toxic defense mechanism.


Thanks for the brief tutorial. And I am at a dead-end here of trying to connect poison with the theory that PlantKingdom
is the quantum compliment dual of AnimalKingdom.

My original reason for embarking on poisons was to try to wring or wrung out the idea that if Quantum Duality and not
Darwin Evolution was at work here that poisons would be in a *gradation spectrum throughout both plant and animal
kingdoms* whereas if Darwin Evolution was correct then there would be no gradation and there would be mostly spikes of
high toxins and concentrated to particular genomes and family genomes.

My original reasoning is that Quantum Duality in Biology is necessary because if only one kingdom existed on Earth without
its dual compliment then many elements of the periodic chart of Chemical Elements would not be used in biology. Animals
use calcium so much more than plants and plants use carbon so much more than animals. So by focusing in on poisons there
should be a more evenly distribution of production of poisons in both animal and plant kingdoms if Quantum Duality is true
and that Darwin Evolution would show less of this even distribution. Because Quantum Duality forces a larger use of the
Chemical Elements and compounds.

Mind you I believe the Darwin Evolution theory is somewhat accurate in many narrow-minded applications for it is a
algorithm at best and not a true theory of science. So Darwin Evolution is a rule-of-thumb just like the old slide rulers
we used in mathematics would give crude first approximate answers but not smack exact answers. So Darwin Evolution is like
slide-rulers are to mathematics.

But it appears as though there is not enough clear evidence in the toxins and poisons to be able to drive a wedge between
Quantum Duality of the Kingdoms of biology and 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

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:54:43 -0500, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:

Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:29:25 GMT Elie Gendloff wrote:

Animals have very complex enzyme systems - monooxygenases, etc. to
detoxify plant compounds; plants and microbes produce a huge diversity
of compounds that are anywhere from mildly toxic to extremely toxic
(e.g., ricin, aflatoxin). However, those compounds are not
necessarily made by the plants or microbes to be toxic to animals.
For example, aflatoxin is one of the most highly toxic and
carcinogenic compounds there is, but it is only toxic to animals that
have certain monooxygenases that "activate" aflatoxin into its toxic
state; it is also hard to see how making aflatoxin would protect a
common fungus that grows in the soil or on peanuts and corn
(Aspergillus flavus) from mammals that make the particular
monooxygenase. Thus, just because a plant or microbe makes something
that happens to be toxic to humans does not mean that it makes that
compound in order to be a toxic defense mechanism.


Thanks for the brief tutorial. And I am at a dead-end here of trying to connect poison with the theory that PlantKingdom
is the quantum compliment dual of AnimalKingdom.

My original reason for embarking on poisons was to try to wring or wrung out the idea that if Quantum Duality and not
Darwin Evolution was at work here that poisons would be in a *gradation spectrum throughout both plant and animal
kingdoms* whereas if Darwin Evolution was correct then there would be no gradation and there would be mostly spikes of
high toxins and concentrated to particular genomes and family genomes.

My original reasoning is that Quantum Duality in Biology is necessary because if only one kingdom existed on Earth without
its dual compliment then many elements of the periodic chart of Chemical Elements would not be used in biology. Animals
use calcium so much more than plants and plants use carbon so much more than animals. So by focusing in on poisons there
should be a more evenly distribution of production of poisons in both animal and plant kingdoms if Quantum Duality is true
and that Darwin Evolution would show less of this even distribution. Because Quantum Duality forces a larger use of the
Chemical Elements and compounds.

Mind you I believe the Darwin Evolution theory is somewhat accurate in many narrow-minded applications for it is a
algorithm at best and not a true theory of science. So Darwin Evolution is a rule-of-thumb just like the old slide rulers
we used in mathematics would give crude first approximate answers but not smack exact answers. So Darwin Evolution is like
slide-rulers are to mathematics.

But it appears as though there is not enough clear evidence in the toxins and poisons to be able to drive a wedge between
Quantum Duality of the Kingdoms of biology and 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
can you explain "quantum compliment" and the Quantum Duality theory,
and how Darwin Evolution is inconsistent with the Q. D. theory?

Sun, 31 Oct 2004 09:55:27 GMT Elie Gendloff wrote:
(snip mine)

can you explain "quantum compliment" and the Quantum Duality theory,
and how Darwin Evolution is inconsistent with the Q. D. theory?

I can do that and if you care for more detail there is my website to browse:

http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/

The story starts with the Bohr versus Einstein debates known as EPR circa mid 20th century. These debates asked where Quantum
Physics begins and ends and how much of the world is Quantum Physics intruding into big objects moving at slow speeds. Are
planets, stars, galaxies quantum driven? Are humans and objects on the surface of Earth and life quantum driven. Einstein
wanted to say "no". Einstein wanted to say that Quantum Physics applies only to the very microscopic and nothing of the
macroscopic. Bohr wanted to say the entire universe is Quantum Physics but he could never marshall the mathematics and
experiment to get him to convince others that the answer is "yes".

So EPR kind of languished for decades until John Bell came along over in England and dreamed up a most beautiful mathematical
inequality that could decide whether Einstein was correct or whether Bohr was correct. This Bell Inequality allows for
experiments to be set up and thereby answering the final question as to where does Quantum Physics start and end and if
Einstein is correct then Quantum World ends with the microscopic level. If Bohr is correct then the Bell Inequality can prove
that the entire Universe from the smallest of micro to the largest of Macro world is all one Quantum domain.

After John Bell along came physics experimenters willing to put the Inequality to a test with such men as Alain Aspect in
France and many others afterwards. What they found testing the Bell Inequality was that Bohr was correct and that Einstein was
wrong.

What the Bell Inequality with the Aspect Experimental Results showed was that Quantum Physics is not only on the small and
tiny scale of the microworld but that Quantum Physics extends into the large distances and the Macroworld.

The discovery created a tempest and furore in the physics community for a brief time and which has been ignored for the past
several decades. The tempest is how do we explain the universe as one big Quantum theater or stage or platform. If you shoot a
beam of light in one direction of the Cosmos and another beam that is twin to the first and then you interfer with the 1st
then what the Bell Inequality with the Aspect Experiment proves is that the 2nd beam of light automatically alters its
kinetics as if out of nowhere because the 1st had been altered.

So John Bell, the sharp intellect that he had, resolved this problem by dreaming up his now famous Superdeterminism. The
logical way of solving this problem facing him was to say that If the Cosmos is one big gigantic Quantum playground then the
way that affecting one beam of light which automatically affects a second beam of light then everything in the Universe is
connected and Fated or what he would call Superdeterminism.

Superdeterminism means there is no free-will. Superdeterminism means that every action that occurs in the universe is like
puppets on strings.

One of the reasons John Bell's Superdeterminism never stirred much interest in the science communities was because there was
only the BigBang theory and you cannot fit the BigBang with Superdeterminism so it lay ignored until 1990 when I published the
Atom Totality theory saying that the entire Universe is one big atom of 231Pu and where stars and galaxies are tiny pieces of
the last six electrons what physicists call the electron-dot-cloud.

Thus in an Atom Totality we can have all objects as puppets on strings moved by a larger hidden force-- the nucleus of the
Atom Totality.

And the AtomTotality theory is really the next step of a John Bell Inequality with Superdeterminism. I say this because to say
that both the large-scale and small-scale Cosmos is Quantum Physics is the same as saying it is one big atom.

Quantum Physics is tantamount to Atomic Physics and to say that the macro along with the micro is Quantum physics is saying
that the Cosmos is one big atom.

Finally, now, Elie, I can get to biology. So, if the Cosmos both large scale and small scale is all Quantum driven with
Superdeterminism and where Free-Will is just a illusion or delusion then can you have Darwin Evolution theory as true?

Obviously not. You cannot have true Superdeterminism and the Darwin Evolution theory.

You can have the Darwin Evolution theory as a algorithm where like in mathematics the old mechanical slide-rulers were
algorithms in getting you a crude first approximation of answers. Slide Rulers were quick at giving you a crude answer but not
exact answers that mathematics requires. Same thing with Darwin Evolution theory in that as a rule-of-thumb it can explain
many things with a crude first approximation but as a theory of science it is a false theory just as no-one would say that
mathematics is a slide-ruler.

Darwin Evolution is a good rule of thumb and has vast application but it is not science for it is not true. It conflicts with
many Quantum issues. Darwin Evolution breaks down completely in the face of Superdeterminism.

And the very important questions of where did life begin and how it began has to be a Quantum Physics answer with
Superdeterminism. The ATomTotality theory is a Quantum Physics answer and it says that life began on Earth as elsewhere in the
Universe from a stopped or halted energetic cosmic-ray. We routinely observe cosmic rays with energies of upward to 10^14 MeV.
That is enough energy to create an entire insect such as a grasshopper from scratch. So, if we say that a photon or neutrino
has internal parts such as say a helix or double helix and we dress that double helix with 10^14 MeV and we halt or stop or
catch that energetic neutrino in a South Dakota old gold mine near Rapid City in a drum of chemical solution and that 10^14
MeV energy goes to putting a covering over its double helix we can imagine the creation of a entire form of life such as an
insect.

Finally, Elie, since Quantum Physics is both macro and micro world means that the Kingdoms of Biology itself have to be
ordered in terms of Quantum Mechanics. Just as you have duality between particle and wave means that the macro world of
biology is arranged between dualities. I do not mean a divide or split between Plant kingdom to Animal kingdom but as
compliments of one another. Where one compliments and aids each other. When life was first created on Earth it did not come in
one package but it came in several of which some were plants and some were animals all about the same time.

This is because since they are compliments that one cannot succeed without the other. And it means that with duality, it
requires the least amount of energy to make it work. It means that the elements of the Periodic Chart of Chemistry is most
easily represented if you have 2 kingdoms complimenting one another such as where plants absorb CO2 and emit O2 and animals
the reverse. The easiest way to use the chemical elements and compounds in living systems is to have 2 kingdoms which are
complimentary duals of one another.

Darwin Evolution would claim that first life had one kingdom which through the environment and circumstances branched out to
form other kingdoms. Quantum Dual theory of Life would say that life was created from stopped cosmic rays and that both Plant
and Animal kingdoms were created almost simultaneously with each other in close proximity.

Details of all of the above have been in my website for more than 10 years now.

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

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 12:46:15 -0600, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:

Sun, 31 Oct 2004 09:55:27 GMT Elie Gendloff wrote:
(snip mine)

can you explain "quantum compliment" and the Quantum Duality theory,
and how Darwin Evolution is inconsistent with the Q. D. theory?

I can do that and if you care for more detail there is my website to browse:

http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/

The story starts with the Bohr versus Einstein debates known as EPR circa mid 20th century. These debates asked where Quantum
Physics begins and ends and how much of the world is Quantum Physics intruding into big objects moving at slow speeds. Are
planets, stars, galaxies quantum driven? Are humans and objects on the surface of Earth and life quantum driven. Einstein
wanted to say "no". Einstein wanted to say that Quantum Physics applies only to the very microscopic and nothing of the
macroscopic. Bohr wanted to say the entire universe is Quantum Physics but he could never marshall the mathematics and
experiment to get him to convince others that the answer is "yes".

So EPR kind of languished for decades until John Bell came along over in England and dreamed up a most beautiful mathematical
inequality that could decide whether Einstein was correct or whether Bohr was correct. This Bell Inequality allows for
experiments to be set up and thereby answering the final question as to where does Quantum Physics start and end and if
Einstein is correct then Quantum World ends with the microscopic level. If Bohr is correct then the Bell Inequality can prove
that the entire Universe from the smallest of micro to the largest of Macro world is all one Quantum domain.

After John Bell along came physics experimenters willing to put the Inequality to a test with such men as Alain Aspect in
France and many others afterwards. What they found testing the Bell Inequality was that Bohr was correct and that Einstein was
wrong.

What the Bell Inequality with the Aspect Experimental Results showed was that Quantum Physics is not only on the small and
tiny scale of the microworld but that Quantum Physics extends into the large distances and the Macroworld.

The discovery created a tempest and furore in the physics community for a brief time and which has been ignored for the past
several decades. The tempest is how do we explain the universe as one big Quantum theater or stage or platform. If you shoot a
beam of light in one direction of the Cosmos and another beam that is twin to the first and then you interfer with the 1st
then what the Bell Inequality with the Aspect Experiment proves is that the 2nd beam of light automatically alters its
kinetics as if out of nowhere because the 1st had been altered.

So John Bell, the sharp intellect that he had, resolved this problem by dreaming up his now famous Superdeterminism. The
logical way of solving this problem facing him was to say that If the Cosmos is one big gigantic Quantum playground then the
way that affecting one beam of light which automatically affects a second beam of light then everything in the Universe is
connected and Fated or what he would call Superdeterminism.

Superdeterminism means there is no free-will. Superdeterminism means that every action that occurs in the universe is like
puppets on strings.

One of the reasons John Bell's Superdeterminism never stirred much interest in the science communities was because there was
only the BigBang theory and you cannot fit the BigBang with Superdeterminism so it lay ignored until 1990 when I published the
Atom Totality theory saying that the entire Universe is one big atom of 231Pu and where stars and galaxies are tiny pieces of
the last six electrons what physicists call the electron-dot-cloud.

Thus in an Atom Totality we can have all objects as puppets on strings moved by a larger hidden force-- the nucleus of the
Atom Totality.

And the AtomTotality theory is really the next step of a John Bell Inequality with Superdeterminism. I say this because to say
that both the large-scale and small-scale Cosmos is Quantum Physics is the same as saying it is one big atom.

Quantum Physics is tantamount to Atomic Physics and to say that the macro along with the micro is Quantum physics is saying
that the Cosmos is one big atom.

Finally, now, Elie, I can get to biology. So, if the Cosmos both large scale and small scale is all Quantum driven with
Superdeterminism and where Free-Will is just a illusion or delusion then can you have Darwin Evolution theory as true?

Obviously not. You cannot have true Superdeterminism and the Darwin Evolution theory.

You can have the Darwin Evolution theory as a algorithm where like in mathematics the old mechanical slide-rulers were
algorithms in getting you a crude first approximation of answers. Slide Rulers were quick at giving you a crude answer but not
exact answers that mathematics requires. Same thing with Darwin Evolution theory in that as a rule-of-thumb it can explain
many things with a crude first approximation but as a theory of science it is a false theory just as no-one would say that
mathematics is a slide-ruler.

Darwin Evolution is a good rule of thumb and has vast application but it is not science for it is not true. It conflicts with
many Quantum issues. Darwin Evolution breaks down completely in the face of Superdeterminism.

And the very important questions of where did life begin and how it began has to be a Quantum Physics answer with
Superdeterminism. The ATomTotality theory is a Quantum Physics answer and it says that life began on Earth as elsewhere in the
Universe from a stopped or halted energetic cosmic-ray. We routinely observe cosmic rays with energies of upward to 10^14 MeV.
That is enough energy to create an entire insect such as a grasshopper from scratch. So, if we say that a photon or neutrino
has internal parts such as say a helix or double helix and we dress that double helix with 10^14 MeV and we halt or stop or
catch that energetic neutrino in a South Dakota old gold mine near Rapid City in a drum of chemical solution and that 10^14
MeV energy goes to putting a covering over its double helix we can imagine the creation of a entire form of life such as an
insect.

Finally, Elie, since Quantum Physics is both macro and micro world means that the Kingdoms of Biology itself have to be
ordered in terms of Quantum Mechanics. Just as you have duality between particle and wave means that the macro world of
biology is arranged between dualities. I do not mean a divide or split between Plant kingdom to Animal kingdom but as
compliments of one another. Where one compliments and aids each other. When life was first created on Earth it did not come in
one package but it came in several of which some were plants and some were animals all about the same time.

This is because since they are compliments that one cannot succeed without the other. And it means that with duality, it
requires the least amount of energy to make it work. It means that the elements of the Periodic Chart of Chemistry is most
easily represented if you have 2 kingdoms complimenting one another such as where plants absorb CO2 and emit O2 and animals
the reverse. The easiest way to use the chemical elements and compounds in living systems is to have 2 kingdoms which are
complimentary duals of one another.

Darwin Evolution would claim that first life had one kingdom which through the environment and circumstances branched out to
form other kingdoms. Quantum Dual theory of Life would say that life was created from stopped cosmic rays and that both Plant
and Animal kingdoms were created almost simultaneously with each other in close proximity.

Details of all of the above have been in my website for more than 10 years now.

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

There is an enormous amount of evidence that the plant and animal
kingdoms developed from a common ancestor - both use DNA, RNA and
protein made up of the same components; at the chemical level, the
primary metabolic pathways are the same; you can put animal DNA in
plants and vice versa and it will work, to name a few.
there are also other kingdoms that don't fit the duality paradigm -
fungi, bacteria (some or which photosynthesize and others that don't),
and archaea.

"There is an enormous amount of evidence that the plant and animal kingdoms
developed from a common ancestor - both use DNA, RNA and protein made up of
the same components; at the chemical level, the primary metabolic pathways
are the same; you can put animal DNA in plants and vice versa and it will
work, to name a few.
there are also other kingdoms that don't fit the duality paradigm - fungi,
bacteria (some or which photosynthesize and others that don't),
and archaea."

The concept for you to wrap your head around, Elie, is that all living
things have a common ancestor and are all run by the same basic genetic
machinery.

Archie's silly theory is absolute nonsense with no basis in anything in
reality. He basic assumptions are completely wrong and reflect his limited
comprehension of the extremely broad range of variation that actually exists
in life forms, especially microbes.

Actually, putting snippets of DNA from plants into animals and visa versa
often do not function because they typically do not integrate into the
normal biological pathways of that organism. Putting DNA coded for producing
a certain protein into a bacteria is a completely different matter.


"Elie Gendloff" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 12:46:15 -0600, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:

Sun, 31 Oct 2004 09:55:27 GMT Elie Gendloff wrote:
(snip mine)

can you explain "quantum compliment" and the Quantum Duality theory,
and how Darwin Evolution is inconsistent with the Q. D. theory?

I can do that and if you care for more detail there is my website to
browse:

http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/

The story starts with the Bohr versus Einstein debates known as EPR circa
mid 20th century. These debates asked where Quantum
Physics begins and ends and how much of the world is Quantum Physics
intruding into big objects moving at slow speeds. Are
planets, stars, galaxies quantum driven? Are humans and objects on the
surface of Earth and life quantum driven. Einstein
wanted to say "no". Einstein wanted to say that Quantum Physics applies
only to the very microscopic and nothing of the
macroscopic. Bohr wanted to say the entire universe is Quantum Physics
but he could never marshall the mathematics and
experiment to get him to convince others that the answer is "yes".

So EPR kind of languished for decades until John Bell came along over in
England and dreamed up a most beautiful mathematical
inequality that could decide whether Einstein was correct or whether Bohr
was correct. This Bell Inequality allows for
experiments to be set up and thereby answering the final question as to
where does Quantum Physics start and end and if
Einstein is correct then Quantum World ends with the microscopic level.
If Bohr is correct then the Bell Inequality can prove
that the entire Universe from the smallest of micro to the largest of
Macro world is all one Quantum domain.

After John Bell along came physics experimenters willing to put the
Inequality to a test with such men as Alain Aspect in
France and many others afterwards. What they found testing the Bell
Inequality was that Bohr was correct and that Einstein was
wrong.

What the Bell Inequality with the Aspect Experimental Results showed was
that Quantum Physics is not only on the small and
tiny scale of the microworld but that Quantum Physics extends into the
large distances and the Macroworld.

The discovery created a tempest and furore in the physics community for a
brief time and which has been ignored for the past
several decades. The tempest is how do we explain the universe as one big
Quantum theater or stage or platform. If you shoot a
beam of light in one direction of the Cosmos and another beam that is
twin to the first and then you interfer with the 1st
then what the Bell Inequality with the Aspect Experiment proves is that
the 2nd beam of light automatically alters its
kinetics as if out of nowhere because the 1st had been altered.

So John Bell, the sharp intellect that he had, resolved this problem by
dreaming up his now famous Superdeterminism. The
logical way of solving this problem facing him was to say that If the
Cosmos is one big gigantic Quantum playground then the
way that affecting one beam of light which automatically affects a second
beam of light then everything in the Universe is
connected and Fated or what he would call Superdeterminism.

Superdeterminism means there is no free-will. Superdeterminism means that
every action that occurs in the universe is like
puppets on strings.

One of the reasons John Bell's Superdeterminism never stirred much
interest in the science communities was because there was
only the BigBang theory and you cannot fit the BigBang with
Superdeterminism so it lay ignored until 1990 when I published the
Atom Totality theory saying that the entire Universe is one big atom of
231Pu and where stars and galaxies are tiny pieces of
the last six electrons what physicists call the electron-dot-cloud.

Thus in an Atom Totality we can have all objects as puppets on strings
moved by a larger hidden force-- the nucleus of the
Atom Totality.

And the AtomTotality theory is really the next step of a John Bell
Inequality with Superdeterminism. I say this because to say
that both the large-scale and small-scale Cosmos is Quantum Physics is
the same as saying it is one big atom.

Quantum Physics is tantamount to Atomic Physics and to say that the macro
along with the micro is Quantum physics is saying
that the Cosmos is one big atom.

Finally, now, Elie, I can get to biology. So, if the Cosmos both large
scale and small scale is all Quantum driven with
Superdeterminism and where Free-Will is just a illusion or delusion then
can you have Darwin Evolution theory as true?

Obviously not. You cannot have true Superdeterminism and the Darwin
Evolution theory.

You can have the Darwin Evolution theory as a algorithm where like in
mathematics the old mechanical slide-rulers were
algorithms in getting you a crude first approximation of answers. Slide
Rulers were quick at giving you a crude answer but not
exact answers that mathematics requires. Same thing with Darwin Evolution
theory in that as a rule-of-thumb it can explain
many things with a crude first approximation but as a theory of science
it is a false theory just as no-one would say that
mathematics is a slide-ruler.

Darwin Evolution is a good rule of thumb and has vast application but it
is not science for it is not true. It conflicts with
many Quantum issues. Darwin Evolution breaks down completely in the face
of Superdeterminism.

And the very important questions of where did life begin and how it began
has to be a Quantum Physics answer with
Superdeterminism. The ATomTotality theory is a Quantum Physics answer and
it says that life began on Earth as elsewhere in the
Universe from a stopped or halted energetic cosmic-ray. We routinely
observe cosmic rays with energies of upward to 10^14 MeV.
That is enough energy to create an entire insect such as a grasshopper
from scratch. So, if we say that a photon or neutrino
has internal parts such as say a helix or double helix and we dress that
double helix with 10^14 MeV and we halt or stop or
catch that energetic neutrino in a South Dakota old gold mine near Rapid
City in a drum of chemical solution and that 10^14
MeV energy goes to putting a covering over its double helix we can
imagine the creation of a entire form of life such as an
insect.

Finally, Elie, since Quantum Physics is both macro and micro world means
that the Kingdoms of Biology itself have to be
ordered in terms of Quantum Mechanics. Just as you have duality between
particle and wave means that the macro world of
biology is arranged between dualities. I do not mean a divide or split
between Plant kingdom to Animal kingdom but as
compliments of one another. Where one compliments and aids each other.
When life was first created on Earth it did not come in
one package but it came in several of which some were plants and some
were animals all about the same time.

This is because since they are compliments that one cannot succeed
without the other. And it means that with duality, it
requires the least amount of energy to make it work. It means that the
elements of the Periodic Chart of Chemistry is most
easily represented if you have 2 kingdoms complimenting one another such
as where plants absorb CO2 and emit O2 and animals
the reverse. The easiest way to use the chemical elements and compounds
in living systems is to have 2 kingdoms which are
complimentary duals of one another.

Darwin Evolution would claim that first life had one kingdom which
through the environment and circumstances branched out to
form other kingdoms. Quantum Dual theory of Life would say that life was
created from stopped cosmic rays and that both Plant
and Animal kingdoms were created almost simultaneously with each other in
close proximity.

Details of all of the above have been in my website for more than 10
years now.

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

There is an enormous amount of evidence that the plant and animal
kingdoms developed from a common ancestor - both use DNA, RNA and
protein made up of the same components; at the chemical level, the
primary metabolic pathways are the same; you can put animal DNA in
plants and vice versa and it will work, to name a few.
there are also other kingdoms that don't fit the duality paradigm -
fungi, bacteria (some or which photosynthesize and others that don't),
and archaea.