Are there "Identical Twin" plants?

George Hammond ghammond at mediaone.net
Mon Dec 25 10:20:52 EST 2000


Dennis G. wrote:
> 
> George Hammond <ghammond at mediaone.net> wrote:
> 
> >
> >            In general plants and animals have a predetermined
> >          adult genetic size, this is referred to as their
> >          NATURE.
> 
> The question is whether the assumption of predetermined adult size is supported
> to generalization beyond an individual plant.  I am not being picky here but
> trying to get your thought clear in my mind. When you measure differences
> between clones of a stock or parent plant, the usual assumption is that you are
> measuring a single plant genome.(The 10 or 20 thousand year old Huon Pine found
> in Tasmania comes to mind in this context). If you measure across a population
> of sexually produced plants, you are not measuring the exact same genome.
> Therefore, there cannot be a predetermined adult genetic size for more than an
> individual plant (ignoring for the argument any  identicality thrown up by
> chance)

[GH]:

  Your analysis is both forensically astute and correct.  Beyond that,
it is of course also intuitively obvious to even a casual observer.
  We ARE in fact talking about a "growth curve deficit" for each and
every individually different genome in the biological realm.  makes
no difference whether we are talking about homopgenomic or heterogenomic
species.... makes no difference.



> 
> >          However, observation leads us to conclude
> >          that in fact, the population MEAN size of any species
> >          in the natural environment always manifests a
> >          significant "asymptotic growth curve decrement" showing
> >          that in effect, no living organism has yet been able to
> >          achieve it's theoretical genetic size. This is referred to
> >          as their NURTURE.
> 
> By granting your observation for this discussion, I still am unable to conclude
> that no plant has reached its' genetic size limit.  In fact, it strikes me that
> the larger the population sample used, the greater the probability of some plant
> being at the genetic maximum. But I confess to less understanding of statistics
> than the mean population.

[GH]:
 Once again your observation and inductive reasoning is scintillating
and meteoric.
  Hammond has proposed that "the higher the organism, the
greater the growth deficit".  In other words, the "growth deficit" in
HUMANS is the most obvious, where indeed, a SECULAR TREND in the
(reduction) of this growth deficit over time has actually been
discovered, proven and documented, beyond question.
  In lower creatures (other mammals), it is SUSPECTED that there is
a SECULAR TREND, but not absolutely proven yet, apparently.
  In still lower organisms, like PLANTS, it may be that the
SECULAR TREND and the growth deficit are in fact too small to
have been detected.  However, since the size of plants is very
much affected by the environment, it is expected that there is
still some residual "growth curve deficit" for every species in
the plant kingdom too.
  In still lower organisms, like a VIRUS for instance, where each
molecule in the structure can actually be counted... there is
some suspicion that there may actually BE NO growth curve deficit.

> 
> >            In fact, in human beings, the long slow historical
> >          reduction of this growth deficit is scientifically known
> >          as the "Secular Trend".  It is posited that there is
> >          in fact, a Secular Trend for ALL living organisms, and
> >          probably more rapid the higher the organism.
> >            Finally, it has been advanced that this growth deficit
> >          as manifested by the human brain, is intimately connected
> >          with the psychological phenomena traditionally known as "God".
> 
> It seems I have missed some of your reasoning because the connection between the
> growth deficit and the phenomenon of god is not clear to me.

[GH]:
It is not expected that you would know anything about that,
since it involves expertise well beyond your training.
That is not the subject of this thread.... merely the
biological question is under discussion here.  Unqualified
people should not be eager to wander into issues in which they
have no credentials or expertise.  This is just a piece of
advice.  Curiosity killed the cat.

> 
> In my earlier post, when I referred to god, I was unjustifiably presuming a
> belief on the part of others.

[GH]:
People believe in many things they can't understand,
Nuclear Weapons for instance.  It is not necessary
to have any understanding of something in order to
believe it.  Maybe the existence of 1-billion Christians
has given them a hint there might be something to it?




> I expect there is some limit to growth of life in the widest possible sense, but
> I would personally be most likely to ascribe that limitation to whatever
> mechanisms and rules are eventually understood to govern the universe.
>

[GH]:
Very sound thinking.  We can only hope and pray that
Stephen Hawking will deliver us from all this backwardness.


 
> I do expect that "God" is a psychological phenomena but patiently await
> confirmation of that belief.
>

[GH]:
You have every right to demand assurances.  After all in this
world one shouldn't expect to be exposed to risk.


 
> Dennis

-- 
BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
Email:    ghammond at mediaone.net
Website:  http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------






More information about the Bioforum mailing list