[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Your post

At 17.00 08/07/98 -0400, you wrote:
Hi there,

>>Trying to
>>carefully control the environment to allow plants to thrive but to prevent
>>growth seems, to me at least, somewhat contradictive.
>I think Mother NAture does exactly the same. Plants won their battles
>against algae BEFORE we even arrived on this planet.
>Genetically, plants may have won the battle but algae will win the war. You
>see single celled, or colonial organisms, will ultimately will everything
>because they have less chances of obtaining mutations in critical genes.
>And mutatgenic situations that wipe out plants will not kill the algae
>because their diversity far exceeds plants statistically.  Sorry, just had
>to clear that one up.
Uhmmm.... I might have not understood correctly what you said here but if I
did, the idea is that simpler organisms have more change to get a mutations
and these will give them the possibily to adapt better at any change of
life condition.

But you might have miserunderstood my thoughts as well. I'm quite ignorant
of genetic but my intuition is this:
algae are sort of C1(nutritional variables) from a mathematical point of
view. C1 means they are continue with continue derivative that's to say
they need a costant supplying of ALL the nutrients, including light and
CO2. Plants are not C1, they are much more sophisticated, differentiated
.... with their leaves, roots etc. That means they are not C1 but can be
more discontinue in their needs than algae.
E.g. 48/72 hours without light can be fatal to most of algae I saw in
aquarium tanks, but won't kill ANY plant. That a dramatical advantage from
the evoluton point of view.

Luca Specchio
                \ |
              .' '.' '.        ___     BYE from Luca
            _.|.--.--.|.___.--'___`-.  and his little Goofy !:-))
          .'.'||  |  ||`----'`   ``'`
        .'.'  ||()|()||
 .__..-'.'    /       \ 
 `---'`      /   .-.   \
              |_|   |_|