Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Mon, 01 Nov 2004 10:26:16 GMT Elie Gendloff wrote:
(mine snipped) 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. Yes, I catch your complaint, and although it may look as though the evidence is in your favor for Darwin Evolution, it is not a complaint that can decide. My reply back is that suppose first life was created from stopped energetic Neutrinos of 10^9 MeV or higher. Suppose these Neutrinos have internal parts of a double-helix and that the energy of 10^9 to 10^14 MeV once stopped in a primeval Earth ocean then dresses up the double helix as either a plant or animal. So the commonality of plants and animals is due to the commonality of the double helix of Neutrinos or the internal parts of Neutrinos. So, you complaint then evaporates. And then I would rejoinder by asking whether you can have a planet with life that has only plants and never any animals? Because the real Deciding Experiments are not going to be about commonality because Darwin Evolution will cling to the commonality of DNA but that cannot differentiate the commonality of the internal parts of a stopped Neutrino that transforms into life. The real Deciding Experiments will have to look at how much does the Plant Kingdom utilize the Periodic Chart of Chemical Elements and how much does the Animal Kingdom utilize the Chart. So that both combined use as a guess estimate of 67% of the elements from hydrogen to bismuth and that plants alone use only 34% and animals alone use only 33% but both combined use 67%. So, Elie, what I am saying is that the deciding experiment is not the commonality of life but the fact that if you have a planet with only plants alone then that kingdom can only use 34% of the chemistry available whereas if it had 2 kingdoms as dual compliments of one another then that planet can utilize 67% of the available chemistry. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Jason" wrote in
: Of course there is the possibility that toxic plants were planted by Aliens......... I did not! Sean |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Elie Gendloff wrote:
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. I've read somewhere that plants are more closely related to animals than they are to fungi, despite that under the obsolete two-kingdom classification system, fungi were classified as plants. Is this true? If you go by Archie's energy source classification, a mushroom would be an animal, I guess. Even Indian Pipe, which is really a flowering plant, is an animal, apparently. They even have miniature leaves. It's related to the blueberry. -- -Mike |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Michael Moroney moroney@world.
std.spaamtrap.com writes I've read somewhere that plants are more closely related to animals than they are to fungi, despite that under the obsolete two-kingdom classification system, fungi were classified as plants. Is this true? Fungi are closer to animals than either is to plants. http://www.tolweb.org/tree?group=Euk...contgroup=Life -- Stewart Robert Hinsley |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Bob wrote in
: 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?) There are 3 trap systems that carnivorous plants use. Bottles, Sticky Snares, and Closing Boxes. (I made all those terms up for this post) Bottles are passive traps that contain digestive fluids, and generally downward pointing hairs to prevent escape. To escape, an animal must either not sink in the fluid, or be able to chew their way out, Another option would be to be immune to the digestive action of the fluids, which I believe that there are a few mosquitos or other flies that can do that, their larvae eat the plants victims, the adults escape because they float. There is no toxicity toward the plant though, only defense against the digestive action. Pitcher plants such as Sarracenia and Darlingtonia are Bottle traps Sticky Snares are usually hairs that have glands that produce a sticky, digestive substance. The hairs are often, but not always capable of moving to improve the success of the catch. To escape, your victim must be strong enough to pull out of the glue. Using some sort of chemical would be useless, unless it is capable of breaking down the glue. Sundews (Drosera) are common users of Sticky Snares, along with Butterworts (Pinguicula). Closing Boxes are traps that move quickly when they are stimulated by the presence of an animal. They generally have some trigger that sets them off, they trap the unfortunate, and then close more slowly to seal their fate. Venus Fly-trap has long trichomes that prevent escape after the first motion. To escape, you must either be strong enough to open the trap, or be able to chew your way out. To use chemistry, the trapped animal would have to produce some compound that reverses the action of the trap, or fools the trap into thinking that there is nothing there. Bladderworts (Utricularia) and Venus Fly-trap (Dionaea) use a Closing Box type of trap. Sean |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
In sci.chem on Thu, 28 Oct 2004 07:44:05 +1000 "Peter Jason"
posted: Yes indeed, fungii are notorious here. There was a Vietnamese family in California a few years ago who found mushrooms like they ate in VietNam. One meal's worth and two or three had died, iirc. They may have looked alike, but they weren't alike. "Sean Houtman" wrote in message . 53... 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 Meirman If emailing, please let me know whether or not you are posting the same letter. Change domain to erols.com, if necessary. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Today I was admiring some bright red bushes. And I did not know what they were although I had learned a few names in my childhood hanging around a nursery. I remember Lantana and Boxwood and Viburnum and vaguely Eounymus. And I saw some orange seeds on the bushes and decided to collect a few to see if I can propagate next year. I was not sure of what bush it was and had to wait to get home and search the Internet to identify. And is usual of me to eat at least one seed, regardless of whether poisonous or not. I know yew are poisonous. So I ate one of these orange seeds and spit it out later for it was acrid. Later I found out it was Eounymus and the seeds are poisonous. 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? One oleander leaf might do it, 3 or 4 castor beans can kill, precatorius can too, it wouldn't take much hemlock to kill you. Yew fruits are not poisonous when ripe, though the seed very much is. -- Dance, monkeys, dance! Cheerful Charlie |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
How to Deter Birds from Eating Grass Lawn Seed? | Lawns | |||
boquette of red roses w/ one white one -- meaning? | Roses | |||
boquette of red roses w/ one white one -- meaning? | Roses | |||
Squirrals, eating plants and bird seed | Roses | |||
Confrontation during anti-logging operation leaves one dead, one injured | alt.forestry |