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