On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 14:08:29 +0100, Alan Gould
wrote:

That does not
alter the fact that on this planet non-plant life is wholly dependent
upon plant life,

Bacteria and microbes which feed upon manganese deep underground or
the searingly hot acids emitted from volcanic fissures on the sea bed
might argue with that.

but not vice-versa.

So the loss of pollinating insects, rodents, bats, primates and birds
to which certain plants have adapted specifically will not have any
adverse effects upon those plants then? There are hundreds if not
thousands of plants that have adapted to very specialised pollinators
and if those pollinators disappear, then so do the plants. A widely
known example is the Yucca which flowers prolifically here in the UK,
but cannot set seed since the moths which assist with the flowers'
pollination are not present amongst our fauna and could not exist in
our climate. If those moths disappeared in their native habitat, so
would the Yuccas eventually.

Many valuable tropical species (my favourites the bananas come quickly
to mind, but there are many more) are bat pollinated. Wipe out the
bats (and they are becoming highly endangered in many regions) and the
plants disappear. No, you are wrong, there is a powerful necessity
for co-existence for without one there will not be the other. You
cannot make such sweeping statements that plants can exist without
animals, because ultimately flowering plants are dependent upon animal
life.
Dave Poole
Torquay, Coastal South Devon UK
Winter min -2°C. Summer max 34°C.
Growing season: March - November

In article , Dave Poole
writes
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 14:08:29 +0100, Alan Gould
wrote:

That does not
alter the fact that on this planet non-plant life is wholly dependent
upon plant life,

Bacteria and microbes which feed upon manganese deep underground or
the searingly hot acids emitted from volcanic fissures on the sea bed
might argue with that.

but not vice-versa.

So the loss of pollinating insects, rodents, bats, primates and birds
to which certain plants have adapted specifically will not have any
adverse effects upon those plants then?

Not to mention plants which depend on ingestion of insects for the major
part of their nutrition.

--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

"Martin" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 13:39:45 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Sacha
writes
But was it in that book that the experiment I'm thinking of was
cited? Do
you recall?

Yes, [I still have the book] there are a lot of experiments
quoted
linking plants, their life, their feelings, their growth etc. to
electricity and magnetism. The one you refer to was actually a
test
to
see if plants had extra-sensory perception - between them and/or
to
other beings. I quote a part of the experiment:

'He [Clee Baxter, a lie detector expert]

That does not bode well for starters. Lie detectors have been
shown
in controlled experiments to be totally unreliable, except insofar
as
they intimidate the person being interviewed.

then conceived a worse threat:
he would burn the actual leaf to which the electrodes [of a lie
detector] were attached. The very instant he got the picture of
flame in
his mind, and before he could move for a match, there was a
dramatic
change in the tracing pattern on the graph in the form of a
prolonged
upward sweep of the recording pen.

That is anecdotal. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence obtained
fron
controlled experiments and therefore have exactly zero scientific
value.
Is he implying that the leaf had predictive powers?
And in any case, leaves don't have skins whose surface resistivity
behaves like that of humans.

Bakster had not moved, either towards
the plant or towards the recording machine. Could the plant have
been
reading his mind?' Later Bakster reluctantly concluded that it
had.

That little lot,.I am afraid, can only be described as vintage
crap.
It is on a par with the book I read which gave "evidence" that
Jesus
did not in fact die on the cross, but was rescued by his close
friends, and after he had recovered from the ordeal, escaped to
France
with Mary Magdalen,

as portrayed in Leonardo da Vinci's Last Supper:-)

where they founded the Plantagenet family.

Not the Plantagenet family, but Merovingian family.

You are right. The Plantagenets are fescendants of the Merovingians,
if I remember correctly.

"There are at least a dozen families in Britain and Europe
today-with
numerous collateral branches who are of Merovingian lineage. These
include the houses of Hapsburg-Lorraine (present titular dukes of
Lorraine and kings of Jerusalem), Plantard, Luxembourg, Montpezat,
Montesquiou, and various others. According to the 'Prieure
documents,'
the Sinclair family in Britain is also allied to the bloodline as
are
various branches of the Stuarts. And the Devonshire family, among
others, would seem to have been privy to the secret. All of these
houses could presumably claim a pedigree from Jesus; and if one man,
at some point in the future, is to be put forward as a new
priest-king, we do not know who he is."


Have you been reading the Da Vinci Code or the Holy Blood and the
Holy
Grail?

The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.
Please tell me who the authot of the Da Vinci Code is. I enjoy that
genre more than sci fi.

Franz

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article , Malcolm
writes
Hmm, but that's just not true, is it? What about plants that are
dependent upon insects for fertilisation not to mention those which
depend on birds and animals for seed dispersal?

Those plants have developed or evolved that way to make use of
animals
etc. which are there now, but were not so previously. That does not
alter the fact that on this planet non-plant life is wholly
dependent
upon plant life, but not vice-versa.

I am afraid your concept of what constitutes an ecosystem consisting
of interacting components id fatally flawed.

Franz

Stephen Howard writes:

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 09:39:21 +0100, Kay
wrote:

In article , Peter
writes

Respond to stimuli is one of the six things that all living things
do. I have been trying to remember the other five:-
Eat, breathe, reproduce, grow and ???. Judging by myself the sixth
thing could be forget!

I knew this a year ago when my son was doing GCSEs ;-)

But my mind has gone blank. /goes and searches out Revision Guide

First - it's seven, not six ;-)

Movement
reproduction
sensitivity
nutrition
excretion
respiration
growth

What about death?

It's not a necessary characteristic. An amoeba, for example,
reproduces by dividing itself, so it satisfies reproduction. It's
dubious though if you can say that the parent has died.

Regards,

--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

Alan

--
Alan Williams, Room IT301, Department of Computer Science,
University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, U.K.
Tel: +44 161 275 6270 Fax: +44 161 275 6280

On 16/8/04 19:50, in article , "Alan R Williams"
wrote:

Stephen Howard writes:

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 09:39:21 +0100, Kay
wrote:

In article , Peter
writes

Respond to stimuli is one of the six things that all living things
do. I have been trying to remember the other five:-
Eat, breathe, reproduce, grow and ???. Judging by myself the sixth
thing could be forget!

I knew this a year ago when my son was doing GCSEs ;-)

But my mind has gone blank. /goes and searches out Revision Guide

First - it's seven, not six ;-)

Movement
reproduction
sensitivity
nutrition
excretion
respiration
growth

What about death?

It's not a necessary characteristic. An amoeba, for example,
reproduces by dividing itself, so it satisfies reproduction. It's
dubious though if you can say that the parent has died.

But perhaps it mourns its inner child........... ;-)
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 20:43:15 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

Have you been reading the Da Vinci Code or the Holy Blood and the
Holy
Grail?

The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.
Please tell me who the authot of the Da Vinci Code is. I enjoy
that
genre more than sci fi.

Dan Brown

For a good laugh?


http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...591912-6630049

You will love finding all the stupid mistakes :-)

I shall order it.

Franz

On 17/8/04 18:39, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:54:45 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

What about death?

It's not a necessary characteristic. An amoeba, for example,
reproduces by dividing itself, so it satisfies reproduction. It's
dubious though if you can say that the parent has died.

But perhaps it mourns its inner child........... ;-)

... and is jealous of it's better half?

A fruitless exercise.
--

Sacha

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:43:48 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 14/8/04 12:09, in article ,
"Kay"
wrote:

snip Comes back to definition of 'feelings' doesn't it? Does
someone
whose
nervous system is shot to hell have less 'feelings' than the rest
of us?
Less physical sensation, yes, but their emotions are intact, and
their
capacity for distress.

I'm inclined to think it's something to do with the extent to
which the
control systems are centralised.

Do you remember there was something written about experiments in
this line?
Was it in The Secret Life of Plants? I seem to recall something
about a
scientist burning the leaf of a plant with a cigarette and then the
plant
was hooked up to electrodes to register its 'reactions'. When the
same man
entered the room again there was - apparently - a distinct reaction
from the
plant. I may not be remembering this very clearly but it was along
those
lines.

Is this thread leading to giving up eating food all together? ;-)

Just paint yourself green, do your own photosynthesising act and drink
mineral waters.

Franz

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:54:46 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 14/8/04 13:56, in article
,
"Martin" wrote:

Is this thread leading to giving up eating food all together? ;-)

If taken to its logical conclusion it's going to give vegans and
vegetarians food for nothing but thought. ;-)

ROFLMAO

Very good! I can't wait for Franz to read your post.

This note sent by Martin on the 14th only arrived here today. What on
earth is my ISP doing?
(I bet that surprised you!)

Let them eat cattle cake, as Marie Antoinette really said.

I like that one.

Franz

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 15:16:15 +0200, Martin wrote:

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:54:46 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 14/8/04 13:56, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

Is this thread leading to giving up eating food all together? ;-)

If taken to its logical conclusion it's going to give vegans and
vegetarians food for nothing but thought. ;-)

ROFLMAO

Very good! I can't wait for Franz to read your post.

Let them eat cattle cake, as Marie Antoinette really said.

If God had wanted us to be vegetarians, he wouldn't have made animals out
of meat.

--
Tim C.

In article , Tim Challenger
writes

If God had wanted us to be vegetarians, he wouldn't have made animals out
of meat.

If God didn't want us to be cannibals, he wouldn't have made humans out
of meat
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 09:13:13 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Martin" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:54:46 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 14/8/04 13:56, in article
,
"Martin" wrote:

Is this thread leading to giving up eating food all together?
;-)

If taken to its logical conclusion it's going to give vegans and
vegetarians food for nothing but thought. ;-)

ROFLMAO

Very good! I can't wait for Franz to read your post.

This note sent by Martin on the 14th only arrived here today. What
on
earth is my ISP doing?

Pumping Birthday greetings to the Dales?

Yes. I think it is nearly time to declare the well-wishing season
over. {:-))

Franz

On 19/8/04 21:07, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:47:28 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

Pumping Birthday greetings to the Dales?

Yes. I think it is nearly time to declare the well-wishing season
over. {:-))

It's my turn at the end of this month.

To turn 80?
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 09:39:21 +0100, Kay
wrote:

In article , Peter
writes

Respond to stimuli is one of the six things that all living things
do. I have been trying to remember the other five:-
Eat, breathe, reproduce, grow and ???. Judging by myself the sixth
thing could be forget!

I knew this a year ago when my son was doing GCSEs ;-)

But my mind has gone blank. /goes and searches out Revision Guide

First - it's seven, not six ;-)

Movement
reproduction
sensitivity
nutrition
excretion
respiration
growth

Thank you!

The names for the seven things seem to have changed a bit since I
did school certificate biology some 58 years ago.

Peter