eating one Eounymus seed
 

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?

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, 24 Oct 2004 03:03:58 -0500, 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.

They jolly well do. It is your unique combination of ignorance and
inertia that keeps you from going to any bookstore or library and
reading more than you would ever care to on the subject.

Euonymus has been used in medicine for many years. Google turned up
many accounts of Euonymus toxicity, including several scholarly works.

Not all ornamentals are as safe. The lethal dose of ricin is approx.
200 micrograms. A single castor bean may contain as much as 1000
micrograms.

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.

Do that in California, where castor bean is a common weed, and you can
wind up dead.

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?

Many have. Because the occurrence of poisonous plants varies from
region to region, and because livestock poisoning is a significant
economic matter, the subject has been extremely well studied. For just
one of thousands of these works, see Fuller and McClintock, "Poisonous
Plants of California". For a very detailed online listing of some
important poisonous plants (from a source highly recommended to
someone who has so little sense as to ingest unknown plants), see
http://www.cookiebabyinc.com/poisonousplants/

--
Chris Green

It is far more likely that Archie would rather smoke them instead!!!

wrote in message
...
Interesting theory. Would you like to volunteer to eat increasing amounts
of
seeds to see if they will kill you?

Ora



On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 03:03:58 -0500, 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?

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

Dear Archimedes,

try some Aconita plant on yourself - the leaves, the potato-like
roots, any part of it if you like.

It is a beautiful decorative plant. It will provide you with a
definitive answer to your questions.



Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message ...

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?

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 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 writes:

But I suspect what they mean by poisonous is if eaten in large quantity
of say a bucket ful would kill you.

Cf Rosary pea, widespread in Florida. One of these pretty beans, well-
chewed, is said to be lethal to a child.

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:


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?

Yes. There are books and books and books on poisonous plants. I
suggest _The AMA Handbook of Poisonous and Injurious Plants_. And
yes, there ARE plants that are so toxic that one seed (e.g., Abrus),
if chewed, can be fatal. Likewise, a small smear of Cicuta sap would
be enough to do you in.

M. Reed

Why should Archie bother doing real research when he can post incredibly
stupid questions in this newsgroup?

For him to do a simple Google search would be too much like doing work.


"Monique Reed" wrote in message
...


Archimedes Plutonium wrote:


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?

Yes. There are books and books and books on poisonous plants. I
suggest _The AMA Handbook of Poisonous and Injurious Plants_. And
yes, there ARE plants that are so toxic that one seed (e.g., Abrus),
if chewed, can be fatal. Likewise, a small smear of Cicuta sap would
be enough to do you in.

M. Reed

In article , Muhammar
writes
Dear Archimedes,

try some Aconita plant on yourself - the leaves, the potato-like
roots, any part of it if you like.

It is a beautiful decorative plant. It will provide you with a
definitive answer to your questions.

Don't try this - Aconitum (sic) is one of the deadlier plants.

Suggesting the consumption of Aconitum (Wolfsbane), even in jest, is at
best irresponsible - not only is it possible that AP might take the
proposal at face value, but so might some innocent browsing a newsgroup
archive in the future. I recommend you cancel the post, and contact
Google to have it removed from their archive.


Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message news:417B61EE.394367
...

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?

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:25:07 +0100, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:

Suggesting the consumption of Aconitum (Wolfsbane), even in jest, is at
best irresponsible - not only is it possible that AP might take the
proposal at face value, but so might some innocent browsing a newsgroup
archive in the future. I recommend you cancel the post, and contact
Google to have it removed from their archive.

Nah, leave it there. If it results in the removal of but one complete
moron from the gene pool, it's worth it.

Steve Turner

Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote in message news:

Don't try this - Aconitum (sic) is one of the deadlier plants.

Suggesting the consumption of Aconitum (Wolfsbane), even in jest, is at
best irresponsible - not only is it possible that AP might take the
proposal at face value, but so might some innocent browsing a newsgroup
archive in the future. I recommend you cancel the post, and contact
Google to have it removed from their archive.


Yeah, but Archimedes is a real annoying ass and since he is doing
Darwin-award experiments on himself already, he might just want to go
all the way. While we are on the subject: chicken marsala made with
few bits of common amanita phalloidum would work just as fine as
wolfbane but slower.

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

Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:25:07 +0100 Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:

In article , Muhammar
writes
Dear Archimedes,

try some Aconita plant on yourself - the leaves, the potato-like
roots, any part of it if you like.

It is a beautiful decorative plant. It will provide you with a
definitive answer to your questions.

Don't try this - Aconitum (sic) is one of the deadlier plants.

Suggesting the consumption of Aconitum (Wolfsbane), even in jest, is at
best irresponsible - not only is it possible that AP might take the
proposal at face value, but so might some innocent browsing a newsgroup
archive in the future. I recommend you cancel the post, and contact
Google to have it removed from their archive.


Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message news:417B61EE.394367
...

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?

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Good post Stewart! I had a hidden agenda in starting this thread. I want to get to
the issue of Plant to Animal Duality which should surface in poisons. So far a
discussion revolves around the poisoning of animals by plants. But the reverse
question of the poisoning of plants by animals is seldom if ever made an issue of.
And if Plant Kingdom is the dual compliment of Animal Kingdom then poisoning would
be part of that larger picture.

And I should also add the warning about my past actions. When I sample something of
a plant that is unknown to me if it tastes at all bitter or acrid or unpallatable I
immediately spit it out and consider it poisonous. Also is something is colorful or
"white" is signs that it is likely poisonous.

I had a motive of posting this thread in the manner in which I did and of sampling
the Eounymus seed in that I wanted to brew up a discussion of poisonous plants to
animals first and then set down the big question. If Plant Kingdom is complimentary
dual to Animal Kingdom then their poisons to one another should be of a pattern that
is far different from the pattern expected of Darwin-Evolution.

I am aware of Darwinian Evolution of poison of animals to animals such as the
salamander to gartersnakes in the Pacific Northwest.

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.

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 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)

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

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.

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

"Peter Jason" wrote in
:

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



I did not!

Sean

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

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

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.

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

In article , wrote:
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

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.

Note. All you needed to know about this post was in the "from" line -
Archimedes Plutonium. This guy is a well known loony from way back.

Suggest a killfile is the easiest way to deal with him :)



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)