I keep building this pretty theory that the animal kingdom is the dual
of the plant kingdom and that when life was first created on Earth that
almost simultaneously the animals and plants were created at once, or
perhaps days apart and near by one another to start to affect and help
grow one another. Life created on Earth was from a energetic cosmic ray
that was stopped, say in the primeval oceans and a batch of plants and a
few animal microorganisms were created there.

But I have some trouble with the question of whether there are only 2
kingdoms to compose life or whether there are 4 or more where plants and
animals are just one set of duals. Are the bacteria a different kingdom
and is there a dual compliment to the bacteria? So this question has
been troubling me for some time. It is not tidy and neat.

The idea that springs to my mind is that one kingdom-- the plants seek
energy from the outside in that of the Sun whereas animals seek energy
from other living creatures-- the plants. So can I say that there is one
set of duals of only plants to animals and base that set on their source
of energy? Can I say that each bacteria is either a plant bacteria or a
animal bacteria depending on what supplies them with energy?

I kind of think I can. I kind of think that there is just one set of
quantum duals.

Some may say that viruses would be in this picture somewhere. I tend to
look at viruses as part of a existing genome or species. So that the
Homo sapiens species is not just the human DNA but also all the viruses
that affect human DNA. I consider viruses as transposons or mobile DNA.

I suspect that if all humans were eliminated in the world save for the
viruses that affected humans, that the human genome can thence be
reconstructed in large part, but perhaps not all, from those viruses.

I am the author of this Compounding theory that replaces Darwin
Evolution.

So the question arises as to whether bacteria evince compounding. Can
viruses compound into forming bacteria? Can bacteria compound into
forming viruses?

Compounding would then say that you need only one set of Duals of plants
to animals and then everything else is a compound of the initial plant
and animal that started life on Earth.

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 message
...

I suspect that if all humans were eliminated in the world save for the
viruses that affected humans, that the human genome can thence be
reconstructed in large part, but perhaps not all, from those viruses.


Perhaps, but only after another 4 billion years.
Reconstruction here, is via evolution in time.


I am the author of this Compounding theory that replaces Darwin
Evolution.


You need to read the work of Lynn Margulis whose
theory of endosymbiosis already replaces Darwin's
evolution. She deals with Five Kingdoms.




Pete Brown
Falls Creek
z
www.mountainman.com.au

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.

"mountain man" wrote in message ...
"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
...
[...]
I am the author of this Compounding theory that replaces Darwin
Evolution.


You need to read the work of Lynn Margulis whose
theory of endosymbiosis already replaces Darwin's
evolution. She deals with Five Kingdoms.

Lynn Margulis replaces natural selection?

Mike.

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:

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

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

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

Mon, 01 Nov 2004 22:27:47 GMT Sean Houtman wrote:
(snip what I wrote)


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.

I realize the primeval Earth when life began had a far different
environment especially in gases and temperature.

So what I am looking for if we say the blue green algae were the first
plants is some organism that lives off of the blue green algae and
interacts in some manner with blue green algae whether it is alive or
after it dies.

The relationship of plants to animals today is that animals depend on
plants for food but plants depend on animals for fertilizer.

So I need a relationship between blue green algae and some other
organism.

Same thing for RockEaters although they maybe more difficult to analyze.
Are these RockEaters able to live solo and never need the intervention
of any other organism? If they need another organism then that is the
duality.

And it maybe that the blue green algae needs another plant species and
not a species that we would call an animal.

So what I need is merely another species that the bluegreen algae must
have in order to survive and that would prove duality.

If there is a plant that can survive solo without any other lifeform
would disprove this Quantum Duality of Biology. The Rockeaters have the
best chance of disproving it.

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

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).

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

I realize the primeval Earth when life began had a far different
environment especially in gases and temperature.

So what I am looking for if we say the blue green algae were the first
plants is some organism that lives off of the blue green algae and
interacts in some manner with blue green algae whether it is alive or
after it dies.

This still verging on the ridiculous.

As far can be told, the first bacteria did not use light in their
reactions, and were effectively entirely "rockeaters". Then at some
point a strain evolved that could combine elemental sulphur and hydrogen
from the atmosphere to produce energy, albeit inefficiently.

The big breakthrough came when a variant on this strain started to use
light to push the reaction in the other direction: it took the then
fairly abundant hydrogen sulphide and produced elemental sulphur and
hydrogen.

Neither of these bacterial types altered the atmosphere much, however.
That came with a small mutation in the genes that coded for the H2S
splitting enzyme.

The mutant form split water instead of hydrogen sulphide. This produces
oxygen, which was then rather troublesome for the bacteria since
everything alive then was poisoned by oxygen. Gradually a more tolerant
strain evolved, and true plant-like behaviour took over. The oxygen
levels at first stayed low through weathering of rocks and iron
minerals, then eventually took off exponentially.

The relevent point here is, where do you draw the line? What IS a plant?
The hydrogen sulphide reducers are acting like plants, but the compounds
they're reducing are rock-derived.

The relationship of plants to animals today is that animals depend on
plants for food but plants depend on animals for fertilizer.

So I need a relationship between blue green algae and some other
organism.

How's about a relation between photosynthetic predatory protozoa and
other photosynthetic predatory protozoa?

Down at the microscopic level, with bacteria and protozoa, the
plant/animal dividing line is extremely blurred. An organism might one
day be wholly photosynthetic; it might the next be 50/50
photosynthetic/predatory; it might then become a predator for a brief while.

Why bother with the line?



--
Dr Dan Holdsworth
Remedy ARS Administrator, Manchester Computing

0161 275 0606

Wed, 03 Nov 2004 16:50:07 +0000 Dan Holdsworth wrote:



As far can be told, the first bacteria did not use light in their
reactions, and were effectively entirely "rockeaters". Then at some
point a strain evolved that could combine elemental sulphur and hydrogen
from the atmosphere to produce energy, albeit inefficiently.


So tell me, do the Rockeaters and the Strain-Rockeaters mentioned need each
other in order to live, survive and thrive?



The big breakthrough came when a variant on this strain started to use
light to push the reaction in the other direction: it took the then
fairly abundant hydrogen sulphide and produced elemental sulphur and
hydrogen.

Same question, do the light-variant H2, S need the reverse strain co-existing
in the environment?



Neither of these bacterial types altered the atmosphere much, however.
That came with a small mutation in the genes that coded for the H2S
splitting enzyme.

The mutant form split water instead of hydrogen sulphide. This produces

That poses a question as to how much of a interrelation is water to hydrogen
sulphide for the Rockeaters and strains as they produce energy. I guess I am
asking whether you can have Rockeaters in dry rock conditions. So could you
have Rockeaters on the Moon where there is little to no water.

So how much water does any Rockeater need to have interfacing in order to use
hydrogen sulfur?


oxygen, which was then rather troublesome for the bacteria since
everything alive then was poisoned by oxygen. Gradually a more tolerant
strain evolved, and true plant-like behaviour took over. The oxygen

So the question here becomes as a mirror image of the above only instead of
revolving around hydrogen sulphur it revolves around CO2 and O2.

If the Rockeaters of hydrogen-sulfur have variants that go reverse, implies
then that animals to plants is the reverse for carbon-oxygen gas


levels at first stayed low through weathering of rocks and iron
minerals, then eventually took off exponentially.

The relevent point here is, where do you draw the line? What IS a plant?
The hydrogen sulphide reducers are acting like plants, but the compounds
they're reducing are rock-derived.

I was focused on Plant Kingdom to Animal Kingdom but perhaps that should not
have been my focus but rather instead a focus on energy pathways of gases or
elemental compounds and that these special pathways have dual reverses where
one creature species will emerge to use one direction of hydrogen and sulfur
and another creature species will emerge to use the reverse pathway.

And that somehow both creature species needs the other in order to live and
thrive but how they "necessarily need" one another is unclear.



The relationship of plants to animals today is that animals depend on
plants for food but plants depend on animals for fertilizer.

So I need a relationship between blue green algae and some other
organism.

How's about a relation between photosynthetic predatory protozoa and
other photosynthetic predatory protozoa?

Down at the microscopic level, with bacteria and protozoa, the
plant/animal dividing line is extremely blurred. An organism might one
day be wholly photosynthetic; it might the next be 50/50
photosynthetic/predatory; it might then become a predator for a brief while.


Maybe I need to focus more on energy pathways such as hydrogen-sulfur or
carbon-oxygen and see if there are two creature species always present when
such an energy pathway exists and whether both species are vital to one another
for each to live and thrive.

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