Are there "Identical Twin" plants?
CEREOID at prodigy.net
Mon Dec 25 11:20:57 EST 2000
Your intuitive and insightful analysis of the paradigm is indicative on
massive correlation of neurological synapses mimsy quantitative analytical
borogove of fundamental qualitatative conundrum paradox heterogenomic on the
Tuesday outward momraths.
Keep up the good work and always keep a thesaurus handy!
May you have a Happy Festivus!!
"George Hammond" <ghammond at mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3A476610.3DDD51D2 at mediaone.net...
> 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
> > to generalization beyond an individual plant. I am not being picky here
> > trying to get your thought clear in my mind. When you measure
> > between clones of a stock or parent plant, the usual assumption is that
> > measuring a single plant genome.(The 10 or 20 thousand year old Huon
> > in Tasmania comes to mind in this context). If you measure across a
> > of sexually produced plants, you are not measuring the exact same
> > Therefore, there cannot be a predetermined adult genetic size for more
> > individual plant (ignoring for the argument any identicality thrown up
> > chance)
> 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
> > that no plant has reached its' genetic size limit. In fact, it strikes
> > the larger the population sample used, the greater the probability of
> > being at the genetic maximum. But I confess to less understanding of
> > than the mean population.
> 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
> > It seems I have missed some of your reasoning because the connection
> > growth deficit and the phenomenon of god is not clear to me.
> 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
> > belief on the part of others.
> 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
> > I would personally be most likely to ascribe that limitation to whatever
> > mechanisms and rules are eventually understood to govern the universe.
> 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.
> 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