Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31   Report Post  
Old 01-11-2004, 07:38 PM
Archimedes Plutonium
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #33   Report Post  
Old 01-11-2004, 10:37 PM
Sean Houtman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in
oups.com:


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 am going to be brave and opine that there is no homologue to
cancer in plants.

Here are my reasons for my opinion. Animal tissues are plastic, and
in the event of injury, cells from surrounding tissue can either
replace the injured cells, or grow some sort of scar tissue. Animal
cells generally need to be able to divide and grow at any time
during the life of the animal. Plant tissues are not plastic.
Generally, once a tissue differentiates, it stays that way, injury
does not produce healing by the way of replacement. Though plants
can recover from injury, it tends to be through either sequestering
the injury, or sloughing the effected part. There are times where
plants may begin to grow various sorts of undifferentiated tissue,
but the cells of that tissue are unable to invade other parts of the
plant. The source of that growth always seems to be from
meristematic tissue in the first place.

Sean

  #34   Report Post  
Old 01-11-2004, 10:43 PM
Sean Houtman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Peter Jason" wrote in
:

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



I did not!

Sean
  #35   Report Post  
Old 02-11-2004, 04:48 AM
Michael Moroney
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Old 02-11-2004, 08:33 AM
Stewart Robert Hinsley
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Old 04-11-2004, 09:46 PM
Sean Houtman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Old 05-12-2004, 11:48 AM
meirman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Old 20-12-2004, 09:20 AM
wcb
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to Deter Birds from Eating Grass Lawn Seed? coykiesaol Lawns 0 25-04-2011 10:03 AM
boquette of red roses w/ one white one -- meaning? deuedrop Roses 8 22-08-2004 06:07 AM
boquette of red roses w/ one white one -- meaning? deuedrop Roses 0 18-08-2004 01:15 AM
Squirrals, eating plants and bird seed Wendi Roses 9 22-02-2004 08:12 PM
Confrontation during anti-logging operation leaves one dead, one injured P van Rijckevorsel alt.forestry 0 21-11-2002 10:52 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017