NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 09 2016,06:35) | It could be coincidence but:
Baseline (resting potential) was going below zero volts.
Initial voltage kept climbing long after the bee had left the flower.
Peak voltage was way too low to be a static charge.
An indicative secondary trailing peak was in the waveform.
Rate depends on the time constant of the circuit. Specialized cells like neurons have a fast response, but not all cells do. |
You really need to go back to Wesley's remarks and show just where he claims that the similarity is a 'coincidence'.
Your general dysphasia has resulted in a complete non sequitur of a response. Quell surprise.
Your first point is entirely irrelevant, even to your own argument.
Your second point is baseless given your complete ignorance of electrical flows in plant matter.
Your third point is ludicrously incorrect.
Your fourth point is incoherent, relies on your own absurdist (and generally false) assumptions, and addresses claims not being made.
|
