Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:00:06 GMT Steve Turner wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

I am trying to nail-down the inverse or reverse relationship. As to why
plants need animals to reform nitrogen.

Plants lack the biochemical pathways for large scale protein
degradation. That is the specialty of saprophytes (e.g. fungi and

I must find out some details of this biochemical pathways of protein
transformation. I know that plants by an large lack proteins and animals
are chock full of proteins.

Perhaps this is another commensalism relationship between plant and
animal is the proportion of protein to nonprotein involved with the
two kingdoms. I would guess that this proportion is related to the fact
that animals are mobile and plants are not. Which would eventually get
back to the fact that plants are carbon based and animals are calcium
based due to electricity of body.

Question Steve. When plants use nitrogen as fertilizer. Does the plant
use the nitrogen in gaseous form or is the nitrogen bound up in solid form
before it is used by the plant. Or is that a silly question. In respiration
the elements of Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide are in gaseous form. So,
my question is that in plant fertilizer of nitrogen, does that nitrogen when
used by the plant have a gaseous form. I would guess the answer is no
because then, most plants would just take the nitrogen out of the air.

So, I would guess that the nitrogen has to be in solid form and I would
guess in a compound that is not present in the atmosphere. If that is true,
then it seems as though the commensalism relationship I am searching for
involves the idea that plants need animals because animals have the biochemical
pathways to turn nitrogen into a solid-compound for which plants alone and
the atmosphere cannot do.


bacteria). Legumes are able to convert atmospheric nitrogen to usable
form by virtue of rhizobia bacteria in root nodules (it is the
bacteria which do the conversion). Plants can also use inorganic
(mineral) nitrate as a source of nitrogen. Higher animals are a
relatively minor source of nitrogen.

I believe there exists some inverse or reverse relationship between plants and
animals so that both can live on Earth and without the other, both would quickly
die.

There is an important symbiosis between plants and animals, in that
plants use carbon dioxide and emit oxygen, and animals do the
opposite.

Steve Turner


Yes, I am trying to find the symbiosis of nitrogen and something else? between
plants and animals. That something else is plant food-- I guess sugars-- which
I guess in the final analysis is hydrogen-bonds. And so what plants give to
animals is hydrogen bonds and what animals give to plants is nitrogen.

Can I say nitrogen-bonds, as per hydrogen-bonds for sugars?

But I believe these two words of Symbiosis and Commensalism are not adequate
science concepts. I view these two terms as concepts that are "inchoate" or rather
fuzzy terms. I view these two terms as somewhat ill-defined and that these
two terms are really seeking for a physics term to set them straight and more
correct. I believe the term in physics that will eventually replace these two
biological terms of "Commensalism and Symbiosis" . (Actually I would be
hard pressed to be able to differentiate between the term commensalism and
symbiosis). But anyway, I believe the correct term in the future for commensalism
and symbiosis is the physics term and concept of duality.

I believe the carbon-dioxide to oxygen symbiosis is really a form of a Macroscopic
Quantum Physics duality relationship. Microscopically we
have a duality of particle to wave. Macroscopically I hazard to guess that
duality appears in the form of carbon-dioxide to oxygen, and nitrogen to
something else.

Perhaps in 200 years in the future QM duality will permeate biology and they
will have vacated with terms of symbiosis and commensalism in those future
years.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 37
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:03:12 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.87.100.78
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1048032192 12.87.100.78 (Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:03:12 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:03:12 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Path: text-east!propagator-sterling!news-in.nuthinbutnews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!wn14feed !worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: 127.0.0.1 sci.bio.botany:17849 sci.physics:609224 sci.chem:156138

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Question Steve. When plants use nitrogen as fertilizer. Does the plant
use the nitrogen in gaseous form or is the nitrogen bound up in solid form
before it is used by the plant.

Plants use nitrogen in solution -- e.g., nitrates or ammonium ion
dissolved in the soil moisture.

Or is that a silly question. In respiration
the elements of Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide are in gaseous form. So,
my question is that in plant fertilizer of nitrogen, does that nitrogen when
used by the plant have a gaseous form. I would guess the answer is no
because then, most plants would just take the nitrogen out of the air.

Correct. Gaseous (elemental) nitrogen is fairly inert and plants are
unable to use it directly. It is something of a wonder that certain
bacteria are able to "fix" nitrogen (convert elemental nitrogen to
ionic forms usable by plants).

So, I would guess that the nitrogen has to be in solid form and I would
guess in a compound that is not present in the atmosphere. If that is true,
then it seems as though the commensalism relationship I am searching for
involves the idea that plants need animals because animals have the biochemical
pathways to turn nitrogen into a solid-compound for which plants alone and
the atmosphere cannot do.

IMO plants would survive just fine if there were no higher animals on
earth. As I mentioned before, bacteria and fungi do a fine job of
fixing nitrogen from the air and turning complex proteins (many of
which are of plant origin to begin with) back to a form usable by
plants. Similarly, animals are not needed to convert oxygen to carbon
dioxide. Fires do that quite nicely.

Steve Turner

Real address contains worldnet instead of spamnet

NNTP-Posting-Host: pa34.wegliniec.sdi.tpnet.pl
X-Trace: atlantis.news.tpi.pl 1048070154 2016 217.97.127.34 (19 Mar 2003 10:35:54 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:35:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Path: text-east!propagator-sterling!news-in.nuthinbutnews.com!news.csl-gmbh.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.tpinternet.pl!atlantis.news.tpi .pl!news.tpi.pl!not-for-mail
Xref: 127.0.0.1 sci.bio.botany:17858 sci.physics:609366 sci.chem:156184


"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
...
Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:00:06 GMT Steve Turner wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

I am trying to nail-down the inverse or reverse relationship. As to why
plants need animals to reform nitrogen.

Plants lack the biochemical pathways for large scale protein
degradation. That is the specialty of saprophytes (e.g. fungi and

I must find out some details of this biochemical pathways of protein
transformation. I know that plants by an large lack proteins and animals
are chock full of proteins.

Perhaps this is another commensalism relationship between plant and
animal is the proportion of protein to nonprotein involved with the
two kingdoms. I would guess that this proportion is related to the fact
that animals are mobile and plants are not. Which would eventually get
back to the fact that plants are carbon based and animals are calcium
based due to electricity of body.

Question Steve. When plants use nitrogen as fertilizer. Does the plant
use the nitrogen in gaseous form or is the nitrogen bound up in solid form
before it is used by the plant. Or is that a silly question. In
respiration
the elements of Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide are in gaseous form. So,
my question is that in plant fertilizer of nitrogen, does that nitrogen
when
used by the plant have a gaseous form. I would guess the answer is no
because then, most plants would just take the nitrogen out of the air.

So, I would guess that the nitrogen has to be in solid form and I would
guess in a compound that is not present in the atmosphere. If that is
true,
then it seems as though the commensalism relationship I am searching for
involves the idea that plants need animals because animals have the
biochemical
pathways to turn nitrogen into a solid-compound for which plants alone and
the atmosphere cannot do.


bacteria). Legumes are able to convert atmospheric nitrogen to usable
form by virtue of rhizobia bacteria in root nodules (it is the
bacteria which do the conversion). Plants can also use inorganic
(mineral) nitrate as a source of nitrogen. Higher animals are a
relatively minor source of nitrogen.

I believe there exists some inverse or reverse relationship between
plants and
animals so that both can live on Earth and without the other, both
would quickly
die.

There is an important symbiosis between plants and animals, in that
plants use carbon dioxide and emit oxygen, and animals do the
opposite.

Steve Turner


Yes, I am trying to find the symbiosis of nitrogen and something else?
between
plants and animals. That something else is plant food-- I guess sugars--
which
I guess in the final analysis is hydrogen-bonds. And so what plants give
to
animals is hydrogen bonds and what animals give to plants is nitrogen.

Can I say nitrogen-bonds, as per hydrogen-bonds for sugars?

But I believe these two words of Symbiosis and Commensalism are not
adequate
science concepts. I view these two terms as concepts that are "inchoate"
or rather
fuzzy terms. I view these two terms as somewhat ill-defined and that these
two terms are really seeking for a physics term to set them straight and
more
correct. I believe the term in physics that will eventually replace these
two
biological terms of "Commensalism and Symbiosis" . (Actually I would be
hard pressed to be able to differentiate between the term commensalism and
symbiosis). But anyway, I believe the correct term in the future for
commensalism
and symbiosis is the physics term and concept of duality.

I believe the carbon-dioxide to oxygen symbiosis is really a form of a
Macroscopic
Quantum Physics duality relationship. Microscopically we
have a duality of particle to wave. Macroscopically I hazard to guess that
duality appears in the form of carbon-dioxide to oxygen, and nitrogen to
something else.

Perhaps in 200 years in the future QM duality will permeate biology and
they
will have vacated with terms of symbiosis and commensalism in those future
years.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies


Quantum Physics is Sci-Fi!

Mathew Orman

www.ultra-faster-than-light.com

Steve Turner wrote in message . ..
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Question Steve. When plants use nitrogen as fertilizer. Does the plant
use the nitrogen in gaseous form or is the nitrogen bound up in solid form
before it is used by the plant.

Plants use nitrogen in solution -- e.g., nitrates or ammonium ion
dissolved in the soil moisture.

Or is that a silly question. In respiration
the elements of Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide are in gaseous form. So,
my question is that in plant fertilizer of nitrogen, does that nitrogen when
used by the plant have a gaseous form. I would guess the answer is no
because then, most plants would just take the nitrogen out of the air.

Correct. Gaseous (elemental) nitrogen is fairly inert and plants are
unable to use it directly. It is something of a wonder that certain
bacteria are able to "fix" nitrogen (convert elemental nitrogen to
ionic forms usable by plants).

So, I would guess that the nitrogen has to be in solid form and I would
guess in a compound that is not present in the atmosphere. If that is true,
then it seems as though the commensalism relationship I am searching for
involves the idea that plants need animals because animals have the biochemical
pathways to turn nitrogen into a solid-compound for which plants alone and
the atmosphere cannot do.

IMO plants would survive just fine if there were no higher animals on
earth. As I mentioned before, bacteria and fungi do a fine job of
fixing nitrogen from the air and turning complex proteins (many of
which are of plant origin to begin with) back to a form usable by
plants. Similarly, animals are not needed to convert oxygen to carbon
dioxide. Fires do that quite nicely.

Steve Turner

Real address contains worldnet instead of spamnet


Steve, thanks so much for the information and thoughts. I am going to
have to
search deeper to find this answer about nitrogen as a sort of
canonical conjugate
dual to something else for the plant kingdom versus the animal
kingdom.

The ultimate link between biology and physics is that in a universe of
superdeterminism, must exist a direct connection between biology and
physics
and that connection is the *light wave* since it is the only particle
that can
keep Superdeterminism on course and inline. Where the minds and
behaviour of all
plants and animals is controlled from a Universal Nucleus Control
Center. So that
the mind acts like a radio antennae receiving the photons from the
nucleus and thereby commanding the future actions of the biological
life form. Light wave
as a carrier of the Superdeterminism action and behaviour would also
entail that
all first life on any planet throughout the Universe was created from
these
lightwaves. Perhaps neutrinos play a role in creating first life since
they have
a tiny restmass whereas photons do not. Some interplay between photons
and neutrinos to create first life on Earth. So that photons/neutrinos
are *perfect
DNA* but when they come to rest can become imperfect DNA which is a
living
creature.

So the ultimate link between biology and physics is that of
Superdeterminism
with photons/neutrinos as the carrier particle containing perfect DNA.

But I am trying to find these other links between physics and biology
of the
canonical conjugate duals of the Macroscopic scale. For the
microscopic scale there is the duals of position-momentum and
energy-time. For the Macroscopic
scale of life, I believe the Plant kingdom to Animal kingdom also has
duals
of carbondioxide to oxygen and nitrogen to something else (perhaps
hydrogen bonds?)

Hope I did not turn you off, Steve with my above. I have been trying
to nail down these duals for over 2 years now and expect to come back
on this subject time and again. Each time I do I suspect I will be
closer to the final answers I seek.

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

From: Archimedes Plutonium

Yes, I am trying to find the symbiosis of nitrogen and something else?
between
plants and animals. That something else is plant food-- I guess sugars--
which
I guess in the final analysis is hydrogen-bonds. And so what plants give to
animals is hydrogen bonds and what animals give to plants is nitrogen.

Animals get all of their nitrogen from plants. Some animals get their nitrogen
from other animals, but in the end, it all came from plants. Animals cannot
take in nitrogen gas and turn it into protein. Some plants can give certain
bacteria an environment that lets them turn nitrogen gas into a form that the
plant can use.

Sean



--
Visit my photolog page; http://members.aol.com/grommit383/myhomepage
Last updated 08-04-02 with 15 pictures of the Aztec Ruins.
Address mungled. To email, please spite my face.

X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 37
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:03:12 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.87.100.78
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1048032192 12.87.100.78 (Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:03:12 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:03:12 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Path: text-east!text-west.newsgroups.com!propagator3-maxim!propagator2-maxim!news-in.spamkiller.net!tethys.csu.net!arclight.uoregon. edu!wn13feed!wn12feed!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!bg tnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: 127.0.0.1 sci.bio.botany:19050 sci.physics:638372 sci.chem:159115

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Question Steve. When plants use nitrogen as fertilizer. Does the plant
use the nitrogen in gaseous form or is the nitrogen bound up in solid form
before it is used by the plant.

Plants use nitrogen in solution -- e.g., nitrates or ammonium ion
dissolved in the soil moisture.

Or is that a silly question. In respiration
the elements of Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide are in gaseous form. So,
my question is that in plant fertilizer of nitrogen, does that nitrogen when
used by the plant have a gaseous form. I would guess the answer is no
because then, most plants would just take the nitrogen out of the air.

Correct. Gaseous (elemental) nitrogen is fairly inert and plants are
unable to use it directly. It is something of a wonder that certain
bacteria are able to "fix" nitrogen (convert elemental nitrogen to
ionic forms usable by plants).

So, I would guess that the nitrogen has to be in solid form and I would
guess in a compound that is not present in the atmosphere. If that is true,
then it seems as though the commensalism relationship I am searching for
involves the idea that plants need animals because animals have the biochemical
pathways to turn nitrogen into a solid-compound for which plants alone and
the atmosphere cannot do.

IMO plants would survive just fine if there were no higher animals on
earth. As I mentioned before, bacteria and fungi do a fine job of
fixing nitrogen from the air and turning complex proteins (many of
which are of plant origin to begin with) back to a form usable by
plants. Similarly, animals are not needed to convert oxygen to carbon
dioxide. Fires do that quite nicely.

Steve Turner

Real address contains worldnet instead of spamnet

NNTP-Posting-Host: pa34.wegliniec.sdi.tpnet.pl
X-Trace: atlantis.news.tpi.pl 1048070154 2016 217.97.127.34 (19 Mar 2003 10:35:54 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:35:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Path: text-east!text-west.newsgroups.com!propagator3-maxim!news-in.superfeed.net!newspeer1-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.tpinternet.pl!atlantis.news.tpi .pl!news.tpi.pl!not-for-mail
Xref: 127.0.0.1 sci.bio.botany:19058 sci.physics:638380 sci.chem:159121


"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
...
Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:00:06 GMT Steve Turner wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

I am trying to nail-down the inverse or reverse relationship. As to why
plants need animals to reform nitrogen.

Plants lack the biochemical pathways for large scale protein
degradation. That is the specialty of saprophytes (e.g. fungi and

I must find out some details of this biochemical pathways of protein
transformation. I know that plants by an large lack proteins and animals
are chock full of proteins.

Perhaps this is another commensalism relationship between plant and
animal is the proportion of protein to nonprotein involved with the
two kingdoms. I would guess that this proportion is related to the fact
that animals are mobile and plants are not. Which would eventually get
back to the fact that plants are carbon based and animals are calcium
based due to electricity of body.

Question Steve. When plants use nitrogen as fertilizer. Does the plant
use the nitrogen in gaseous form or is the nitrogen bound up in solid form
before it is used by the plant. Or is that a silly question. In
respiration
the elements of Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide are in gaseous form. So,
my question is that in plant fertilizer of nitrogen, does that nitrogen
when
used by the plant have a gaseous form. I would guess the answer is no
because then, most plants would just take the nitrogen out of the air.

So, I would guess that the nitrogen has to be in solid form and I would
guess in a compound that is not present in the atmosphere. If that is
true,
then it seems as though the commensalism relationship I am searching for
involves the idea that plants need animals because animals have the
biochemical
pathways to turn nitrogen into a solid-compound for which plants alone and
the atmosphere cannot do.


bacteria). Legumes are able to convert atmospheric nitrogen to usable
form by virtue of rhizobia bacteria in root nodules (it is the
bacteria which do the conversion). Plants can also use inorganic
(mineral) nitrate as a source of nitrogen. Higher animals are a
relatively minor source of nitrogen.

I believe there exists some inverse or reverse relationship between
plants and
animals so that both can live on Earth and without the other, both
would quickly
die.

There is an important symbiosis between plants and animals, in that
plants use carbon dioxide and emit oxygen, and animals do the
opposite.

Steve Turner


Yes, I am trying to find the symbiosis of nitrogen and something else?
between
plants and animals. That something else is plant food-- I guess sugars--
which
I guess in the final analysis is hydrogen-bonds. And so what plants give
to
animals is hydrogen bonds and what animals give to plants is nitrogen.

Can I say nitrogen-bonds, as per hydrogen-bonds for sugars?

But I believe these two words of Symbiosis and Commensalism are not
adequate
science concepts. I view these two terms as concepts that are "inchoate"
or rather
fuzzy terms. I view these two terms as somewhat ill-defined and that these
two terms are really seeking for a physics term to set them straight and
more
correct. I believe the term in physics that will eventually replace these
two
biological terms of "Commensalism and Symbiosis" . (Actually I would be
hard pressed to be able to differentiate between the term commensalism and
symbiosis). But anyway, I believe the correct term in the future for
commensalism
and symbiosis is the physics term and concept of duality.

I believe the carbon-dioxide to oxygen symbiosis is really a form of a
Macroscopic
Quantum Physics duality relationship. Microscopically we
have a duality of particle to wave. Macroscopically I hazard to guess that
duality appears in the form of carbon-dioxide to oxygen, and nitrogen to
something else.

Perhaps in 200 years in the future QM duality will permeate biology and
they
will have vacated with terms of symbiosis and commensalism in those future
years.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies


Quantum Physics is Sci-Fi!

Mathew Orman

www.ultra-faster-than-light.com

Steve Turner wrote in message . ..
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Question Steve. When plants use nitrogen as fertilizer. Does the plant
use the nitrogen in gaseous form or is the nitrogen bound up in solid form
before it is used by the plant.

Plants use nitrogen in solution -- e.g., nitrates or ammonium ion
dissolved in the soil moisture.

Or is that a silly question. In respiration
the elements of Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide are in gaseous form. So,
my question is that in plant fertilizer of nitrogen, does that nitrogen when
used by the plant have a gaseous form. I would guess the answer is no
because then, most plants would just take the nitrogen out of the air.

Correct. Gaseous (elemental) nitrogen is fairly inert and plants are
unable to use it directly. It is something of a wonder that certain
bacteria are able to "fix" nitrogen (convert elemental nitrogen to
ionic forms usable by plants).

So, I would guess that the nitrogen has to be in solid form and I would
guess in a compound that is not present in the atmosphere. If that is true,
then it seems as though the commensalism relationship I am searching for
involves the idea that plants need animals because animals have the biochemical
pathways to turn nitrogen into a solid-compound for which plants alone and
the atmosphere cannot do.

IMO plants would survive just fine if there were no higher animals on
earth. As I mentioned before, bacteria and fungi do a fine job of
fixing nitrogen from the air and turning complex proteins (many of
which are of plant origin to begin with) back to a form usable by
plants. Similarly, animals are not needed to convert oxygen to carbon
dioxide. Fires do that quite nicely.

Steve Turner

Real address contains worldnet instead of spamnet


Steve, thanks so much for the information and thoughts. I am going to
have to
search deeper to find this answer about nitrogen as a sort of
canonical conjugate
dual to something else for the plant kingdom versus the animal
kingdom.

The ultimate link between biology and physics is that in a universe of
superdeterminism, must exist a direct connection between biology and
physics
and that connection is the *light wave* since it is the only particle
that can
keep Superdeterminism on course and inline. Where the minds and
behaviour of all
plants and animals is controlled from a Universal Nucleus Control
Center. So that
the mind acts like a radio antennae receiving the photons from the
nucleus and thereby commanding the future actions of the biological
life form. Light wave
as a carrier of the Superdeterminism action and behaviour would also
entail that
all first life on any planet throughout the Universe was created from
these
lightwaves. Perhaps neutrinos play a role in creating first life since
they have
a tiny restmass whereas photons do not. Some interplay between photons
and neutrinos to create first life on Earth. So that photons/neutrinos
are *perfect
DNA* but when they come to rest can become imperfect DNA which is a
living
creature.

So the ultimate link between biology and physics is that of
Superdeterminism
with photons/neutrinos as the carrier particle containing perfect DNA.

But I am trying to find these other links between physics and biology
of the
canonical conjugate duals of the Macroscopic scale. For the
microscopic scale there is the duals of position-momentum and
energy-time. For the Macroscopic
scale of life, I believe the Plant kingdom to Animal kingdom also has
duals
of carbondioxide to oxygen and nitrogen to something else (perhaps
hydrogen bonds?)

Hope I did not turn you off, Steve with my above. I have been trying
to nail down these duals for over 2 years now and expect to come back
on this subject time and again. Each time I do I suspect I will be
closer to the final answers I seek.

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

From: Archimedes Plutonium

Yes, I am trying to find the symbiosis of nitrogen and something else?
between
plants and animals. That something else is plant food-- I guess sugars--
which
I guess in the final analysis is hydrogen-bonds. And so what plants give to
animals is hydrogen bonds and what animals give to plants is nitrogen.

Animals get all of their nitrogen from plants. Some animals get their nitrogen
from other animals, but in the end, it all came from plants. Animals cannot
take in nitrogen gas and turn it into protein. Some plants can give certain
bacteria an environment that lets them turn nitrogen gas into a form that the
plant can use.

Sean



--
Visit my photolog page; http://members.aol.com/grommit383/myhomepage
Last updated 08-04-02 with 15 pictures of the Aztec Ruins.
Address mungled. To email, please spite my face.