This thread is effectively muddled up, though, and somewhere farmerman must be pleased...
patiodog wrote:nah, you're a riot, rex. a blustery nor'easter. (and there's no reason to be impressed by a bad (truly (truly (truly bad))) poet. i'm just an ass like the next guy.)
I seriously doubt that, you stand out as being a bit more with it than most... and yes, you have me pegged I am a riot... hehe
patiodog wrote:This thread is effectively muddled up, though, and somewhere farmerman must be pleased...
strangely I got that... oh I thought you said muddied up...
I meant that as a pun farmerman as in the soil and not that you muddy up things... Hehe I anticipate your highly educated and insightful replies FM. You are certainly the ballast that keeps this whole discussion from tipping over...
patiodog wrote:v. strange, that.
So why couldn't the plant cell wall have changed to suit humans/animals?
Why should it? Plants have been remarkably well-adapted to any environment they've moved into. There is absolutely no reason to think that animals are biologically superior to plants. Plants can survive without animals (ignoring, for a second, the symbioses that have developed between many insect and plant species); animals (and all other oxidative metabolizers) die without plants.
(Not a very good argument I've made up there...)
patiodog wrote:(Not a very good argument I've made up there...)
Actually that was very nice...
Keep going...
I think that both plants and humans together make the atmosphere and if one or the other should be lost the atmosphere would fry the earth...
I also think that the planets move toward the sun and the next planet out from the earth will become an earth...
Nah, not so good. What i really want to hint at is the high degree of durability and adaptability in the plant way of doing things. There are only three tissues, but these tissues perform a dazzling array of biological functions (from sex to moving water columns 300 feet in the air to trapping and eating insects!). They are not locked into any body plan -- like the spine, two arms, two legs, one head, one stomach, one brain, etc. of vertebrates -- so they can let some bits die off and grow new bits to capitalize on changing conditions. They reproduce in staggering numbers and relatively rapidly (for the most part) that they can evolve to fit new sequences much faster than animals. They are remarkably capable of hybridization with other populations. All we animals get is mobility and behavioral adaptation -- and behavioral adaptation has come on the scene pretty recently in evolutionary terms.
But that's just babble, none of it readily supportable, and all of distracting me from the drugs I should be a-studyin'...
patiodog wrote:Nah, not so good. What i really want to hint at is the high degree of durability and adaptability in the plant way of doing things. There are only three tissues, but these tissues perform a dazzling array of biological functions (from sex to moving water columns 300 feet in the air to trapping and eating insects!). They are not locked into any body plan -- like the spine, two arms, two legs, one head, one stomach, one brain, etc. of vertebrates -- so they can let some bits die off and grow new bits to capitalize on changing conditions. They reproduce in staggering numbers and relatively rapidly (for the most part) that they can evolve to fit new sequences much faster than animals. They are remarkably capable of hybridization with other populations. All we animals get is mobility and behavioral adaptation -- and behavioral adaptation has come on the scene pretty recently in evolutionary terms.
But that's just babble, none of it readily supportable, and all of distracting me from the drugs I should be a-studyin'...
Oh I get it you are saying that plants are higher evolved or more suitably adapted to life than humans...
Again that was poetry... You need to be a more active part of this post...
This is way out there...
So if plants eat insects they could "become" insects DNA in ways... They could exist long after animals and take with them the animals traits but bring with them also the lasting plant traits that toward a greater evolution possibly than humans/animals...
Quote:Oh I get it you are saying that plants are higher evolved
No, arbitrary. By such distinctions, the louse has evolved backward, from a complex free-living, flying ancestor to a simple obligate ectoparasite. Clearly, though, it's been a successful move for the louse.
Quote:or more suitably adapted to life than humans...
Perhaps. I don't know that we've been around long enough to count ourselves a staggering success yet. Ferns, on the other hand...
patiodog wrote:Quote:Oh I get it you are saying that plants are higher evolved
No, arbitrary. By such distinctions, the louse has evolved backward, from a complex free-living, flying ancestor to a simple obligate ectoparasite. Clearly, though, it's been a successful move for the louse.
Quote:or more suitably adapted to life than humans...
Perhaps. I don't know that we've been around long enough to count ourselves a staggering success yet. Ferns, on the other hand...
thx, for that too your insight is a benefit to all here... and myself I am greedy I must admit for learning... but I love to share too...
I am not sure the plant is the louse but more the victor of form...
Like, hehe, a little shop of horrors
Then I'd recommend a basic biology reader. Ground-up. You wouldn't read Revelations without any knowledge of what happened in Genesis, would you? (Or would you?...)
At any rate, I've gotta get down to work. 9 hours to test time. Good night, Gracie.
patiodog wrote:Then I'd recommend a basic biology reader. Ground-up. You wouldn't read Revelations without any knowledge of what happened in Genesis, would you? (Or would you?...)
At any rate, I've gotta get down to work. 9 hours to test time. Good night, Gracie.
Hmmm, that sounds interesting (basic biology reader). I do have a good basic knowledge of biology, but... I wonder if I would like to live in my fantasy for a while longer... then again a good teacher is the best way to get involved... dialogue and desire to know... love for numbers and desire to find intelligence that supersedes our own station in life...
thank you
I think I still am of the opinion we came from plants and plants came from rocks...
Here is a new question about evolution...
Did the precise position and place of the "stars" have something to do with how evolution happened? Magnetism and perfect chance?
You crack me up. Let me give you an answer through analogy. According to the astrologers, my "birth sign" is ruled, in part, by the star Antares. Antares, a very noticeable "red" star (the name means "not-Mars" because it is sufficiently prominent to be mistaken for Mars), is about ten thousand light years from us. The speed of light is just shy of 300 million meters per second. That's 18 billion meters per minute. We better make the scale more manageable--that's 18 million kilometers per minute. Which makes just over one billion kilometers per hour. At about 25 billion kilometers per day (a little more, actually), this is just over nine trillion kilometers per year . . . time ten thousand (ten thousand light years, remember?).
So, i would like to remind you of your little piqued remark about what contentions are or are not believable. In consideration of interstellar distances, just how likely do you think it is that any effect of a star--light, magnetic field, gravitational field, etc.--has a significant and proximate effect upon creatures of the earth?
Setanta, what if the star itself had no relevance, but rather the influence was caused by something seemingly unconnected, yet locked to the facts of the solar system and it's dynamics?
For example, that the position of the stars during the season you were born may effect the kind of person you are. Winter babies may be more in need of closeness and warmth than summer babies?
I don't believe in astrology, I'm a skeptic of the first order. But that doesn't make your point correct.
