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?)

bob

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)

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.

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.


(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?)

Animals make great fertiliser.


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

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.

Bruce

later
bliss -- C O C O A Powered ...

--
bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco
bliss at california dot com

"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

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)

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)

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?

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)

"Peter Jason" wrote in
:

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



I did not!

Sean

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

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