And I am also troubled by how to fit the rock-eating microbes into a
PlantKingdom dual to an AnimalKingdom.

This is a challenge because the Plant kingdom is one that lives off the Sun
energy whereas RockEaters live off the chemical energy of rocks and do not
need the Sun.

I prefer to think that Biology is just 2 Kingdoms where one is the dual
compliment of the other and I prefer these two to be just the PlantKingdom
and AnimalKingdom and to fit every species in one or the other.

So RockEaters pose a huge challenge.

Bacteria do not pose a challenge because they are easily classified as
photosynthethic or living off of other biological units as animals, unless
the bacteria are rockeaters.

Viruses do not pose a challenge because they are thought of as transposons
or mobile genes and belong to the same genome which they parasitize.

I suppose the answer to my problem would be to find some way of finding out
which came first on Earth, the Rockeaters or Photosynthetic plants. Which
preceded the other?

Quantum Duality in contrast to Darwin Evolution can create both the
Rockeaters and photosynthetic algae simultaneously and independently as
well as animals. But Darwin Evolution would tend to imply that one came
first and the others were evolved from that one stock.

Perhaps it is just a matter of precisely defining what it means for an
animal to live on other biology already in existence and what it means for
a plant to extract energy from its environment. For both photosynthetic
algae and rockeaters extract energy from their nonliving environment. So
maybe it is just a puzzle because precise definition of extraction of
energy from nonliving environment is not well understood.

Perhaps RockEaters came first and that it is precisely in rocks that
neutrinos are stopped and where their energy content transforms into a
biological living unit of a microbe. And that via Compounding of these
Rockeaters that they gradually became mutated enough that they started to
live not on rock chemistry but on light from the Sun.

Has anyone researched RockEaters to see if they could be compounded to form
a blue-green algae?

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 16:21:23 -0500, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:

And I am also troubled by how to fit the rock-eating microbes into a
PlantKingdom dual to an AnimalKingdom.

This is a challenge because the Plant kingdom is one that lives off the Sun
energy whereas RockEaters live off the chemical energy of rocks and do not
need the Sun.

I prefer to think that Biology is just 2 Kingdoms where one is the dual
compliment of the other and I prefer these two to be just the PlantKingdom
and AnimalKingdom and to fit every species in one or the other.

So RockEaters pose a huge challenge.

"RockEaters" are not the only serious challenge to your notion of
quantum-type complementarity of Plant/Animal. Unfortunately for you,
Biology doesn't care that you prefer to think of just two Kingdoms.
The living world has never paid any attention to humankind's many
diverse attempts to classify and sort it out -- it just goes on living
and evolving. However, humans have paid some attention. There are
very good reasons why we have moved from two to five to six Kingdoms
and probably will move upwards from that. There are very good reasons
why we have moved to the notion of two Domains, neither of which fits
your Plant/Animal duality. No doubt in the future there will be other
very good reasons to reorganize things around different ideas. But
Plant/Animal duality is extremely unlikely to be the new organizing
principle.

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

And I am also troubled by how to fit the rock-eating microbes into a
PlantKingdom dual to an AnimalKingdom.

This is a challenge because the Plant kingdom is one that lives off the Sun
energy whereas RockEaters live off the chemical energy of rocks and do not
need the Sun.

I prefer to think that Biology is just 2 Kingdoms where one is the dual
compliment of the other and I prefer these two to be just the PlantKingdom
and AnimalKingdom and to fit every species in one or the other.

So RockEaters pose a huge challenge.

Only if you insist on clinging on to a frankly very silly theory.

Bacteria do not pose a challenge because they are easily classified as
photosynthethic or living off of other biological units as animals, unless
the bacteria are rockeaters.

Viruses do not pose a challenge because they are thought of as transposons
or mobile genes and belong to the same genome which they parasitize.

I suppose the answer to my problem would be to find some way of finding out
which came first on Earth, the Rockeaters or Photosynthetic plants. Which
preceded the other?

If you think of life as a consequence of the presence of energy being
present along with the correct conditions for life, then the supposed
duality disappears. Life simply uses energy; doesn't matter how it gets it.

Has anyone researched RockEaters to see if they could be compounded to form
a blue-green algae?

Photosynthesis works by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. An
earlier photosynthesis mechanism split hydrogen sulphide into hydrogen
and sulphur; this effectively was both one of your "rockeaters" and
"photosynthetic" bacteria.

I shall be interested to hear how you resolve this unity into a dichotomy.

--
Dr Dan Holdsworth
Remedy ARS Administrator, Manchester Computing

someone wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

And I am also troubled by how to fit the rock-eating microbes into a
PlantKingdom dual to an AnimalKingdom.

This is a challenge because the Plant kingdom is one that lives off the Sun
energy whereas RockEaters live off the chemical energy of rocks and do not
need the Sun.

I prefer to think that Biology is just 2 Kingdoms where one is the dual
compliment of the other and I prefer these two to be just the PlantKingdom
and AnimalKingdom and to fit every species in one or the other.

So RockEaters pose a huge challenge.

Only if you insist on clinging on to a frankly very silly theory.

I would not call the Bohr-Einstein debates to EPR to Bell Inequality to Aspect
Experiments to Superdeterminisn any whole or part thereof as "frankly very silly
theory". The Bohr-Einstein debates ended with John Bell's Superdeterminism. That
implies that Quantum Physics applies to cosmic distances and life itself.



Bacteria do not pose a challenge because they are easily classified as
photosynthethic or living off of other biological units as animals, unless
the bacteria are rockeaters.

Viruses do not pose a challenge because they are thought of as transposons
or mobile genes and belong to the same genome which they parasitize.

I suppose the answer to my problem would be to find some way of finding out
which came first on Earth, the Rockeaters or Photosynthetic plants. Which
preceded the other?

If you think of life as a consequence of the presence of energy being
present along with the correct conditions for life, then the supposed
duality disappears. Life simply uses energy; doesn't matter how it gets it.


Apparently you have not given much thought here. Because a planet with plant
kingdom alone cannot utilize the chemistry available on Earth as efficiently.
The most efficient use of chemistry on any planet ready for life is to have both
animal kingdom and plant kingdom created virtually simultaneously to one
another.

So you flunked on your own logic when you say "life simply uses energy" because
plant kingdom alone cannot efficiently use energy.


Has anyone researched RockEaters to see if they could be compounded to form
a blue-green algae?

Photosynthesis works by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. An
earlier photosynthesis mechanism split hydrogen sulphide into hydrogen
and sulphur; this effectively was both one of your "rockeaters" and
"photosynthetic" bacteria.

I shall be interested to hear how you resolve this unity into a dichotomy.

As I replied to Elie in a different post. The deciding-experiments involve the
greatest use of the periodic chart of chemical elements. If you have a planet
that has life, can it be only plant life? Can it be only rockeaters?

If it can be proven that a planet that has life must be able to make the
*greatest use* of the Periodic Chart of Chemical Elements wherein the Plant
kingdom uses 34% of the chemical elements from hydrogen to bismuth and the
Animal Kingdom uses 33% of the chemical elements for a combined total of 67% of
the chemical elements. That is the Dual Complimentarity of the kingdoms of
biology-- the maximal use of chemistry.

You mistake unity for commonality. Plants and animals have DNA common to both
but that is not unity. Duality implies a Maximum Use of a resource such as
energy.

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

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in
:

someone wrote:

If you think of life as a consequence of the presence of energy
being present along with the correct conditions for life, then
the supposed duality disappears. Life simply uses energy; doesn't
matter how it gets it.


Apparently you have not given much thought here. Because a planet
with plant kingdom alone cannot utilize the chemistry available on
Earth as efficiently. The most efficient use of chemistry on any
planet ready for life is to have both animal kingdom and plant
kingdom created virtually simultaneously to one another.

So you flunked on your own logic when you say "life simply uses
energy" because plant kingdom alone cannot efficiently use energy.


I suspect that you may be assuming that conditions were the same at
the creation of life as they are today. An Oxygen atmosphere on a
young planet is unlikely, as there are too many mineral elements
that tend to react to free O2. There are very few cosmic sources of
O2 as well, there is a considerable quantity of water, carbon
dioxide, and other combined sources that may be used as a source for
an Oxygen atmosphere, but only after some action that would tend to
produce it. Animal life needs a sufficient excess of O2 that nothing
that you would call an "animal" would have appeared until a long
time after things that you might call "plants" had been around and
photosynthesizing. There are anaerobic bacteria that don't need
Oxygen, but on a basic level, they are poisoned by O2, and wouldn't
do well in the company of some plant-thing that was busy making it.
In other words, photosynthesizers, and anaerobes just don't get
along.

Sean

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Viruses do not pose a challenge because they are thought of as transposons
or mobile genes and belong to the same genome which they parasitize.


So is West Nile virus a bird, a horse, a human, or...?

M. Reed

Monique Reed wrote in
:



Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Viruses do not pose a challenge because they are thought of as
transposons or mobile genes and belong to the same genome which
they parasitize.


So is West Nile virus a bird, a horse, a human, or...?


It is the biological equivalent of eBay.

Sean

Monique Reed wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Viruses do not pose a challenge because they are thought of as transposons
or mobile genes and belong to the same genome which they parasitize.


So is West Nile virus a bird, a horse, a human, or...?

M. Reed

The nice and awful thing about biology is that there are never any absolutes.
There is always fuzziness and haze at the edges. In physics we talk of
probability density that a particle is 90% in this region. In biology as soon
as you give a definition there are things that crop up that call the definition
into question.

In answer to your question, a virus that attacks humans is part of the human
genome. A virus is a highly ordered transposon. A virus that attacks humans and
placed into a petri dish is no more a living entity than cutting off a piece of
human skin and placed in a petri dish is a living entity.

So the West Nile virus is not a living organism but a debris particle of birds,
of horses and of humans. Bacteria is a living organism. Viruses are not.

So a complete genome of humans would include the viral transposon of West Nile.
The complete genome of birds would include the West Nile viral transposon.

Viruses are biological hazards and they are not living organisms.

What this Quantum Duality of Biology theory wants to show is that if a entity
is living means it has a dual species. All bacteria have dual species and thus
are living. Viruses do not have dual species and thus are not alive.
###
On second thought I may have the above all turned around. Perhaps retroviruses
live on other viruses.

In this view viruses have dual partners. If that is the case then the first
life on Earth from a stopped neutrino was viruses of all kinds and they just
floated around until they found something to "eat". Once they ate something
they multiplied and changed into other forms.

Thanks, for maybe the first life on Earth were viruses and that stopped
neutrinos even today could transform into brand new viruses that Earth has
never before seen.

So the question I have is whether those Rockeaters have viruses that attack
them?

Anyone know that answer?

P.S. I thought the wine I drank tonight in celebration would affect my thinking
adversely and obviously it has done the opposite in facilitating.

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, 02 Nov 2004 02:09:08 -0600, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:



Monique Reed wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Viruses do not pose a challenge because they are thought of as transposons
or mobile genes and belong to the same genome which they parasitize.


So is West Nile virus a bird, a horse, a human, or...?

M. Reed

The nice and awful thing about biology is that there are never any absolutes.
There is always fuzziness and haze at the edges. In physics we talk of
probability density that a particle is 90% in this region. In biology as soon
as you give a definition there are things that crop up that call the definition
into question.

In answer to your question, a virus that attacks humans is part of the human
genome. A virus is a highly ordered transposon. A virus that attacks humans and
placed into a petri dish is no more a living entity than cutting off a piece of
human skin and placed in a petri dish is a living entity.

So the West Nile virus is not a living organism but a debris particle of birds,
of horses and of humans. Bacteria is a living organism. Viruses are not.

So a complete genome of humans would include the viral transposon of West Nile.
The complete genome of birds would include the West Nile viral transposon.

Viruses are biological hazards and they are not living organisms.

What this Quantum Duality of Biology theory wants to show is that if a entity
is living means it has a dual species. All bacteria have dual species and thus
are living. Viruses do not have dual species and thus are not alive.
###
On second thought I may have the above all turned around. Perhaps retroviruses
live on other viruses.

In this view viruses have dual partners. If that is the case then the first
life on Earth from a stopped neutrino was viruses of all kinds and they just
floated around until they found something to "eat". Once they ate something
they multiplied and changed into other forms.

Thanks, for maybe the first life on Earth were viruses and that stopped
neutrinos even today could transform into brand new viruses that Earth has
never before seen.

So the question I have is whether those Rockeaters have viruses that attack
them?

Anyone know that answer?

P.S. I thought the wine I drank tonight in celebration would affect my thinking
adversely and obviously it has done the opposite in facilitating.

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

Sorry, I don't buy it. Your theory is just a bunch of hand waving.
You have to keep rationalizing that viruses are this and bacteria are
that just to try to keep your theory together.
There is no experiment that you can do to test your theory, and you
cannot make any predictions based on the theory, so it is useless and
it is not even reallly a scientific theory, since it is untestable.
Darwinism has always been consistent with experimental data, and all
of the millions of tests of Darwinism have supported the theory.
Darwinism can be used to predict what the results of an experiment
will be, so it is useful. It also is logical and is the simplest
solution given the data at hand (i.e., it satisfies Occom's razor).

someone wrote:


Sorry, I don't buy it. Your theory is just a bunch of hand waving.
You have to keep rationalizing that viruses are this and bacteria are
that just to try to keep your theory together.

No, I am exploring, initial exploring but you seem too dense to see that.


There is no experiment that you can do to test your theory, and you

No, there is a great experiment of that of taking a 100% sterile life free flask or
drum and have a cosmic ray of 10^14 MeV transit the flask and if there is life
where previously there was none would prove the theory. Another route to proof
would be if Moon rocks or Mars rocks or Mercury rocks contained fossil life but
never had evolved-life.

But I brought up the poison thread because I want a new route to proving the
Quantum Dual theory


cannot make any predictions based on the theory, so it is useless and
it is not even reallly a scientific theory, since it is untestable.
Darwinism has always been consistent with experimental data, and all
of the millions of tests of Darwinism have supported the theory.
Darwinism can be used to predict what the results of an experiment
will be, so it is useful. It also is logical and is the simplest
solution given the data at hand (i.e., it satisfies Occom's razor).

But you seem too dense and opinionated to understand. No reply needed.

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

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

someone wrote:


Sorry, I don't buy it. Your theory is just a bunch of hand waving.
You have to keep rationalizing that viruses are this and bacteria are
that just to try to keep your theory together.

No, I am exploring, initial exploring but you seem too dense to see that.


There is no experiment that you can do to test your theory, and you

No, there is a great experiment of that of taking a 100% sterile life free flask or
drum and have a cosmic ray of 10^14 MeV transit the flask and if there is life
where previously there was none would prove the theory. Another route to proof
would be if Moon rocks or Mars rocks or Mercury rocks contained fossil life but
never had evolved-life.


In fact, the news today has quite a bit of information concerning cosmic rays. And I
am going to quote it in full in order to point out some missing information which will
discovered in the future.

There are too many cosmic rays to be accountable by supernova alone and these
overabundant cosmic rays, I am confident will be attributed as originating from the
Nucleus of the AtomTotality.

The below article also fails to address the twin facts of that cosmic rays are so
uniformily fluxed over the night sky and that there energies seem unlimited in that
they can pack a 10^14 MeV or even go up to a recordholding 10^21 MeV as was reported
sometime not long ago. If a cosmic ray of 10^21 MeV or higher ever was stopped near
our solar system it could extinct life of Earth.

I am not questioning that cosmic rays are produced from Supernova, for that to me is a
given. What I am questioning from this report is that cosmic rays are so much more
abundant than this report wants to admit and so uniform density in the cosmos and that
many pack energies that supernova source is not the full picture. I contend that some
come from supernova but the majority come from the Nucleus of the AtomTotality of
231Pu.

And in context with this thread on Quantum Dual of Biology. An experiment such as the
Fly-Eye conducted in the desert of Utah should be extended to searching for a device
or equipment where a cosmic ray is captured in a container that is 100% absent of life
forms such as even viral DNA. Because I speculate that such a device will find a new
viral or bacterial DNA after a cosmic ray transits the device. I contend that when a
cosmic ray of 10^14 MeV is stopped in a device that a new virus or bacteria will be
found wherein the cosmic ray neutrino has internal parts of *perfect DNA* and by
stopping the ray will dress that internal DNA and become a viral entity or new
bacteria.

Another means of doing this experiment is to find out if viruses and bacteria can be
fossilized and the Moon is lifeless but it has cosmic ray bombardment. So that a
typical pile of Moon rock should contain many viral fossils that were created from
cosmic rays.

--- quoting Reuters on cosmic ray ---

Scientists Close in on Source of Cosmic
Rays

Wed Nov 3, 1:01 PM ET


Science - Reuters



LONDON (Reuters) - An international team of astronomers
believe they have solved a
mystery that has been perplexing scientists for 100 years
-- the origin of cosmic rays.

Scientists first discovered the
energetic particles that
bombard the Earth nearly a
century ago but where they
come from has been one of the
big questions in
astrophysics.

Using an array of four
telescopes in Africa, the
scientists produced the first
image showing that the
source of cosmic rays could be
the remnant of a
supernova, a powerful explosion
of a star at the end of
its life.

"This is the first time we were
able to take an image of
the source," David Berge, an
astrophysicist at the Max
Planck Institute in Heidelberg,
Germany, told Reuters.

Scientists had long thought
that supernova explosions
were indeed the source, but did
not have evidence to
support it, according to Berge,
who reported the
findings in the science journal
Nature.

He and colleagues from Britain, Armenia, France, Ireland,
Namibia, South Africa and the
Czech Republic studied the remnant of a supernova that
exploded about 1,000 years ago
and left a shell of debris.

"Because the energy density in cosmic rays is so large,
they play an important role in the
development of our galaxy," said Berge.

"We are now at a stage where we seem to be able to prove
cosmic rays come from
supernova remnants."

Professor Ian Halliday, head of the Particle Physics and
Astronomy Research Council
(PPARC) which funds research, welcomed the findings.

"These results provide the first unequivocal proof that
supernovae are capable of
producing large quantities of galactic cosmic rays --
something we have long suspected,
but never been able to confirm," he said in a statement.
--- end quoting ---

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

Tue, 02 Nov 2004 02:09:08 -0600 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

On second thought I may have the above all turned around. Perhaps retroviruses
live on other viruses.

In this view viruses have dual partners. If that is the case then the first
life on Earth from a stopped neutrino was viruses of all kinds and they just
floated around until they found something to "eat". Once they ate something
they multiplied and changed into other forms.

Thanks, for maybe the first life on Earth were viruses and that stopped
neutrinos even today could transform into brand new viruses that Earth has
never before seen.

So the question I have is whether those Rockeaters have viruses that attack
them?

Anyone know that answer?


So I wonder that if we set up flasks or containers that were 100% free of living
matter, including viruses and bacteria and the smallest microorganisms and if we
watched and waited as cosmic-rays traversed this container such as the Utah
experiment observatory that catches cosmic rays and analyzed the container, I have
the hunch that life will be found where none had been before.

I also suspect that viruses can be fossilized. And that if our lifeless Moon or
any other lifeless astro body were analyzed for virus fossils that many will be
found because life originates from stopped or halted cosmic rays.

Everyone remember the Mars rock some years back that was said to have fossils of
life and then retracted. I wonder if our best microscopes can detect a virus
fossil. I believe so. And I believe that if Moon rocks and other astro materials
where cosmic rays can be stopped will contain viral and bacterial fossils.

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