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.

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

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

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