Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

God and the honey bee

Expand Messages
  • mike
    Many different forms of life are dependent upon each other. Examples include fig trees and the fig gall wasp, the yucca plant and the yucca moth, many
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Many different forms of life are dependent upon each other. Examples
      include fig trees and the fig gall wasp, the yucca plant and the yucca
      moth, many parasites and their hosts, and pollen-bearing plants and the
      honeybee. Creationists argue that if one member of each interdependent
      group evolved first, the group would not have survived. Since all
      members of the group have survived, they must have come into existence at
      the same time, or in other words, were created.

      But looking at the honey bee, for instance, the selective pressure by a
      living earth is seen. Interestingly, a bee has nerve tissue and iron
      ions that enables the bee to feel electrical changes. It turns out that
      fair weather conditions are associated with positive voltages to ground
      and storms with strikes and large negative voltages to ground. The nerve
      tissue tells the bee, inside a humid hive, when to leave or not to
      forage, thereby avoiding rain. Yet there is a living earth efficiency
      that stems from this order of greenery without a nervious system and
      greenery with a symbiotic relationship with the bee, which has the
      ability to "think" and avoid inefficiencies, while the plant has the
      ability to make food from sunlight AND water (clouds bring a LACK of
      sunlight) but not think.

      The creating god here is actually a THIRD symbiotic relationship with the
      marine microbial biosphere which feeds back conductivities from the
      living chemistries washed down the greenery and bee feed hydrology. This
      conductivity change feeds back rain to a region, and hence impacts the
      biology of the greenery, and then impacts the ecology of the bees. So
      what really occurred is the insect and the flowering greenery evolved
      independently but began to feel the selective pressures of a living earth
      such that they found that a symbiotic relationship was more competitive
      in the context of living earth climate feedbacks.
    • David
      Why is it that you posting anti-Christian messages?
      Message 2 of 6 , Oct 3, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Why is it that you posting anti-Christian messages?
      • Mike Doran
        ... Do you think it is fair for me to be critical of you? Of so, is it fair for you to defend your, say, typo, based on your faith? God knows I can t spell or
        Message 3 of 6 , Oct 4, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In methanehydrateclub@yahoogroups.com, "David" <b1blancer1@e...>
          > Why is it that you['re] posting anti-Christian messages?

          Do you think it is fair for me to be critical of you? Of so, is it
          fair for you to defend your, say, typo, based on your faith? God
          knows I can't spell or put together a gramatically correct sentence
          twice in a row. Understand Jesus is okay by me, but I am not posting
          about Jesus. Rather, I post about ignorance express rather well, I
          might add, by Christains of a certain bent.

          With considerable research let me see if I can find the perspective
          for which I am critical and try to frame it well, and then show what
          it is that I am talking about and how it relates to this group
          discussing a physical/biological model of climate and weather. I
          will assume, perhaps with some arrogance, that what I am writing
          about is novel and groundbreaking and that there are a number of
          readers and posters here who hold a similar set of incorrect
          assumptions about what I am writing about (assuming there are more
          than just you and me posting here, David). Without further ado, to
          the heart of the matter.

          There is considerable controversy remaining in a debate about the
          origins of life. This controversy centers around a word--
          abiogenesis. Scientists tend to want to REDUCE the causes, the
          causal chain between chemistry that is lifeless and that which we
          think of as life. A large number of scholars, however, have a theory
          that there is a "Creator", and that life was begot by this creator.
          Some of these scholars argue that there was an intelligent design for
          early life, and others will say the earth is young and things just
          magically appeared, poof, the way they are, about 7,000 years ago.
          These are the so called young earthers.

          What the intelligent designer, hereinafter ("ID"), scholars say is
          that with respect to abiogenesis, or causes of the "first life", that
          it is improbable. The way this was described to me by my own mother,
          who is a creationist, reading from a book during a childhood family
          prayer meeting, was that the chance of a first life coming together
          randomly out of the soup of early earth chemistry was the same as a
          printing press blowing up and a fully unabridged dictionary coming
          out of the chaos. While I suppose that I define my own sexuality,
          philosophy, religion and politics around literacy, and
          metaphorically, then, the dictionary is sacred, what is actually
          expressed here, from what my own mother was reading, was a deeper
          scientific problem about complexity and the origin of life. Even 33
          years later, from when my mother read this to me, the problem is

          Today you can go to any number of debate forums and bbs where
          abiogenesis is discussed. There you will find arguements by IDs
          running always to the point about probabilities. They argue that if
          despite the virtually imposible oddes, proteins arose by chance
          processes, there is not the remotest reason to believe that they
          could ever form a membrane-encased, self-reproduicng, metabolizeing,
          living cell. They argue that there is no evidence that there are any
          stable states between the assumed naturalistic formation of proteins
          and the formation of the first living cells. They argue that no
          scientist has ever advanced a testable procedure by which this
          fantastic jump in complexity could have occurred--even if the entire
          universe had been filled with proteins.

          For instance, there is the problem that each amino acid was produced
          in conditions approximating nature bring in equal quantities of
          Dexterorotary (Right handed Molecules)and Laevorotary (Left handed)
          molecules where life is all left handed. The oft cited Miller
          experiment is criticized, too. The IDers claim Miller prepared an
          experiment to observe what complicated molecules' might be produced
          under Oparin-Haldane's proposed ideal pre-biotic atmosphere. They
          argue that in an assumed atmosphere that was DESIGNED,
          imitating "God", to produce amino acids, it was not at all surprising
          that amino acids formed.

          IDers complain that it is often presented that this Miller experiment
          demonstrates that amino acids, necessary for life, form naturally in
          a primitive atmosphere. IDers further complaint that it is usually
          asserted or implied that this Miller experiment demonstrates that
          abiogenesis is highly probable and that this further demonstrates
          that evolution (Darwinian) is indeed a fact. They conclude that the
          Miller experiment actually demonstrates the opposite; it revealed the
          overwhelming difficulties that exists with the view that life can
          form naturally from non-living chemicals.

          The key word above is 'controlled'. Intelligent control is what gets
          one the outcome they are looking for. Using a system of glass flasks,
          Steven Miller attempted to simulate Alexander Oparin's ideal
          atmospheric conditions. He passed a mixture of H2O, ammonia, methane
          and hydrogen through an electrical spark discharge. At the bottom of
          the apparatus was a trap to capture any molecules made by the
          reaction. This trap prevented whatever chemicals formed from being
          destroyed by the energy source used to create them. Eventually,
          Miller was able to produce the above described mixture, containing
          the amino acids described above, the building blocks of proteins.

          IDers argue that to achieve his results, Miller had to use something
          that material evolutionists 'KNOW' did not exist in the pre-biotic
          earth, intelligence, and mental "know-how". He drew on decades of
          knowledge of organic chemistry in setting up his experiment. The
          proportions of the various gases used, the actual apparatus, the
          position of the electrodes, the intensity of the spark, and the
          chemical trap, were all carefully adjusted to create maximum yield
          from the experiment. IDers point out that many attempts by Stanley
          Miller failed to produce any amino acids or other building blocks of
          life. For instance, in an effort to make his Oparin atmosphere to
          mimic actual atmospheric conditions, Miller arranged for his
          electrical discharge to simulate lightning. After a week of these
          lightning type electrical discharges in the reaction chamber, the
          sides of the chamber turned black and the liquid mixture turned a
          cloudy red. The predominant product was a gummy black substance made
          up of billions of carbon atoms strung together in what was
          essentially tar, a common nuisance in organic reactions. The IDers
          will use Miller's own words, arguing that no amino acids used by
          living systems, or other building blocks of life, were produced on
          these first attempts, where Miller stated "An attempt was made to
          simulate lightning discharge by building up a large quantity of
          charge on a condenser until the spark jumped the gap between the
          electrodes. ... Very few organic compounds were produced and this
          discharge was not investigated further." from Robert
          Shapiro: "Origins, A Skeptics Guide ..." P. 103., 1986.

          IDers argue that only by constantly readjusting and fine tuning his
          apparatus and using a continuous electrical charge that Miller
          eventually obtained the amino acids indicated it above. They argue
          that even when using the same gas mixture and a continuous electrical
          discharge, Miller did not obtain any positive results until placing
          the apparatus in a different order. For instance, Shapiro, Ph.D.
          Chemistry, noted that with respect to the use of "Intelligence"
          and "Know How:" on the part of the experimenters to achieve the
          results they desire in "Origin of Life" type experiments:

          (P. 102-103)

          "another significant factor also influences the products being formed
          in an experiment of this type, but is less recognized, selection by
          the experimenter."

          "One clear message should emerge from this discussion. A variety of
          results may be possible from the same general type of experiment. The
          experimenter, by manipulating apparently unimportant variables, can
          affect the outcome profoundly. The data that he reports may be valid,
          but if only these results are communicated, a false impression may
          arise concerning the universality of the process. This situation was
          noticed by Creationist writer, Martin Lubenow, who commented: "I am
          convinced that in every origin of life experiment devised by
          evolutionists, the intelligence of the experimenter is involved in
          such a way as to prejudice the experiment.""

          Typically, IDers finish their improbability arguement by arguing that
          the tar from the Miller experiment tends to fix the amino acids so
          that they are not that free to bond, which must happen if theses
          amino acids are to form any kind of molecular structures leading to a
          replicating life form and that the amino acids formed were racemates.
          That is, each amino acid was produced in equal quantities of
          Dexterorotary (Right handed Molecules)
          and Laevorotary (Left handed) molecules, where all
          of life's proteins are made from left-handed amino acid chains, such
          that if just a single right handed amino acid molecule binds to a
          three dimensional chain of left handed amino acids, that right handed
          amino acid is lethal to the formation of the three dimensional
          chain. The IDers argue that all amino acids that form by natural
          causes alone are racemized. Even those found on comets are racemized.

          IDers will further argue that Oparin's ideal atmosphere of Methane,
          Ammonia, Hydrogen, and without Oxygen as used in the Miller
          experiment never existed! They point to evidence that the pre-biotic
          atmosphere had oxygen that is lethal to the formation of life's
          building blocks, and it had at best, traces of methane, ammonia, and
          hydrogen and naturally occurring ultra-violet let would have
          destroyed amino acids formed in the atmosphere, and the chemicals of
          the ocean would have destroyed life's building blocks that ended up

          With all due respect, IDers aren't just bible thumping right wing

          Nobel Prize laureate Harold C. Urey once stated:

          "All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look
          into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere.
          We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead
          matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it
          is hard for us to imagine that it did."

          Evolutionist A. Cairns-Smith, "Genetic Takeover and the Mineral
          Origins of Life" 1986. Points out that experiments like Miller-Urey
          demonstrate that critical prevital nucleic acids are highly

          "But so powerful has been the effect of Miller's experiment on the
          scientific imagination that to read some of the literature on the
          origin of life (including many elementary texts) you might think that
          it had been well demonstrated that nucleotides were probable
          constituents of a primordial soup and hence the prevital nucleic acid
          replication was a plausible speculation based on the results of the
          experiments. There have indeed been many interesting and detailed
          experiments in this area. But the importance of this work lies, in my
          mind, not in demonstrating how nucleotides could have formed on the
          primitive Earth, but in PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE: these experiments
          allow us to see, in much greater detail than would otherwise been
          possible, just why prevital nucleic acids are highly implausible."
          [emphasis mine].

          R. Shapiro, Ph.D. Chemistry, "The Improbability of Prebiotic Nucleic
          Acid Synthesis" 14 Origin of Life 565, 1984, relates how experiments
          like Miller-Urey have very limited significance because of the
          implausible conditions under which they are conducted:
          "Many accounts of the origin of life assume the spontaneous synthesis
          of a self replicating nucleic acid could take place readily. However,
          these procedures use pure starting materials, afford poor yields, and
          are run under conditions that are not compatible with one another. Any
          nucleic acid components that were formed in the primitive earth would
          tend to hydrolyze by a number of pathways. Their polarization would
          be inhibited by the presence of vast numbers of related substances
          which would react preferentially with them."

          Speaking as an evolutionist, and therefore, aa an apriori believer in
          abiogenesis, Klaus Dose, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 1988, 13
          (4) 348. writes:

          "More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the
          fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better
          perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on
          Earth rather than to it's solution. At present all discussions on
          principal theories and experiments in the field either end in a
          stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."

          "Considerable disagreements between scientists have arisen about
          detailed evolutionary steps. The problem is that the principal
          evolutionary processes from pre-biotic molecules to pregenotes have
          not been proven by experimentation and the environmental conditions
          under which these processes occurred are not known. Moreover, we do
          not actually know where the genetic information of all living cells
          actually originates, how the first replicable polynucleotides
          (necleic acids) evolved, or how the extremely complex structure
          function relationships in modern cells came into existence."

          Leslie Orgel "The Origin of Life on Earth" Scientific American 271,
          October 1994. P 77-83.

          "It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of
          which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place
          at the same time. Yet it seems impossible to have one without the
          other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life
          never could in fact have originated by chemical means."

          "We proposed that RNA might well have come first and established what
          is called the RNA world. ... This scenario could have occurred we
          noted, if prebiotic RNA had two properties not evident today; a
          capacity to replicate without the help of proteins, and an ability to
          catalyze every step of protein synthesis. ..."

          "The precise events giving rise to an RNA world remain unclear. As we
          have seen, investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence
          in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best. ..."


          Enter Gaia.

          What I propose is that the probablilities problem ignores a selective
          pressures by choatic climate inputs and actually crude early earth
          living, global feedbacks. These selections then drove the early RNA
          world toward the complexity that some investigating the Miller
          experiment found improbable, or proving intelligent design. In so
          proposing, I am going to intially draw on a couple of seemingly
          unrelated ideas.

          1. Cirrus clouds, convection, electro mechanical movements and heat

          The big Nature paper on topic is "Increases in greenhouse forcing
          from outgiong longwave radiation spectra of the Earlth in 1970 and
          John E. Harris et a Nature (v.410, p.355, 15 March 2001). From that
          paper I quote:

          " . . . broad-band difference signals could occur of aerosol or
          cloud 'contamination' remains in the notaionally clear fields of
          view. Using availabe aerosol data,24 we have shown that ice cloud,
          particularly if composed of small crystals, does exhibit stronger
          absorption in the 800-1,000cm-1 than the the 1,100-1,200 cm-1
          window. It is quite possible that small residual amounts of ice
          cloud absorption remain in both sets of data. Owing to the larger
          field of view, the IRIS spectra have a much higher probability of
          being contaminated their IMG counterparts. The observed 1 K or so
          enhancement of the 800-1,000 cm-1 difference signal would be
          consistent with this, and could also arise from change in the mean
          cirrus microphysical properties. We cannot separate these two
          effects, but we do conclude that the observed window difference
          spectra strongly indicate an effect involving residual small ice
          crystal effects, incompletely cleared from the data. R.J.B. has
          performed further calculations, following on earlier work26, which
          confirm that the window difference specta of the magnitude observed
          can easily arise from small changes in the amount, size or shape of
          small ice crystals: these studies also indicate that the difference
          spectrum should be larger below 920 cm-1, which is consistent with
          the observed data, especially the global case (Fig.1b). Further work
          on these and other cloud effects in the data will be performed
          separately: for the present, we believe we have demonstrated a
          sufficient understanding of the observations to give confidnece to
          principals finds of this work regarding radiative forcing due to CH4,
          CO2, O3 and chlorofluorocarbons.

          Third, we must also take into account inter-annual variability as a
          possible cause of the observed difference spectra. In the window
          region, the brightness temperature difference is strongly modulated
          by short-term fluxtuations, such as inter-annual variablity (specific
          concern involves the 1997 warm El Nino/Southern Oscilation, ENSO,
          event). Our studies show that, while this could account of an
          uncertainty of 1 K in the position of the zero line in the spatially
          and temporally averaged differecne spectra used, it could not account
          for the sharp spectral features observed, nor the differential window
          signal just discussed."

          24. Shettle, E.P. in Atmospheric Propagation in the UV, Visible, IR
          and MM-wave Region and Related Systems Aspects 15-1-15-12 (AGARD-CP-
          454, Air Force Geophysics lab., Bedford, Massachusetts, 1990).
          25. Ackerman, S., Smith, W., Spinhirne, J. & Revercomb, H. The 27-8
          October 1986 FIR IFO cirrus cloud study: spectral properties of
          cirrus cloud in the 8-12 um windo., Mon. Wealth. Rev 118 2377-2388
          26. Bantges, R., Russell, & Haigh, J. Cirrus cloud top-of-atmosphere
          rediance spectra in the thermal infrared. J. Quant. Sepctroc. Radiat.
          Transfer 63, 487-498 (1999).

          See also http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/smoking.htm

          Daly is partially correct--and the third point of Harris is incorrect
          to NOT attribute the change in cirrus behavior to ENSO. Yet again, it
          isn't really Sea Surface Temperatures, hereinafter ("SSTs"), we are
          talking about--although that is how the change in cirrus distribution
          manefests itself. For it isn't the SSTs that force the cirrus but
          more how the electromagnetic fields, herein after ("EMFs"), force the
          cirrus behaviors--which vary the SSTs--despite the fact that warmer
          SSTs are more conductive.

          The recent MIT's Prof. R. S. Lindzen et al AMS article: "Does the
          Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?" is available online. Lindzen's
          paper on iris is available at
          0477&volume=082&issue=03&page=0417 for the abstract, and the link
          "print version" leads to a PDF of the full article.






          I would mention that these people, who have great CVs but no EMF or
          biology kens, fail to look at the biosphere or EMFs for reasons why
          they are seeing what they are seeing. Therefore, like the CO2 as GHG
          warmers and skeptics (who usually point to clouds), they fight each
          other's strawmen.

          Keep in mind that impedance (Z) considers resistance, inductance, and
          capacitance--and impedance would be impacted by SSTs . . .

          But this is the context that Lindzen had as he SELECTED his data to
          the tropical West Pacific during La Nina.

          Tom Wigley, Dennis Hartman et al, Wielicki, have all fairly countered
          Lindzen's extrapolations. BUT, what hasn't occurred is a square
          addressing of the Lindzen DATA. And the problem as is that cirrus
          were being moved and sorted by EMF, and that induction applied. While
          many have coupled warmer SSTs with cloud behaviors, even this basis
          is electrical in that the warmer the oceans the better they conduct.
          It should be understood that the earth's EMF behavior is oriented so
          that the south pole is actually magnetic north as to application of
          Fleming's right hand rule. The south pole/north pole issue (look at
          how your compass points NORTH--your compass is a true bar magnet with
          magnetic north pointing geographically north and since opposits
          attract--geographical north is a magnetic south pole!). Next was the
          problem of the very very small induction that you would measure just
          based on the earth's EMF.

          Consider this link to an abstract about measurable induction by ocean


          BUT, what this fails to to see is that lightening strikes and their
          accompanying transiant fields will present EMFs that are HUGE in
          relation to the energies required to move tiny ice crystals in the
          air--particularly if these crystals carry charge characteristics. How
          is a pattern of Fleming's right hand rule in relation to Lindzen's
          data shown?

          The key to the whole thing is biological modulation of the whole
          pattern--because that is where a FINELY tuned relationship between
          the radiation based oscillations of solar activity can be balanced
          against the EMF character of the suns emissions. The fact that
          conductivity is a measure of MORE than just the temperature of the
          conducter, but its movement and chemical content, spells confusion
          for those not understanding the key forcing on the cirrus, nor even
          understanding the patterns meaning electrically, or what from space
          and from convection the power sources are. In short, SSTs are a poor
          coupling device for understanding long range climate to a
          particular region.

          ENSO was originally defined by fishermen, which therefore gave
          the event not just a SST context but a BIOLOGICAL one. Let's try to
          roughly describe what the La Nina in 1970 meant from an
          EMF standpoint--how EMF impacted cirrus behavior that winter. It
          meant of course relatively cold waters off the tropical coast of Peru
          and warm waters in the tropical West Pacific. But understand
          there are three main ocean currents in the tropical Pacific. The
          North and South Equatorial and the Equatorial. Electro mechanically,
          the North and South Equatorials induct electrical currents FOR cirrus
          and the Equatorial inducts AGAINST cirrus by their mechanical

          From a biological EMF standpoint, containment of biological material
          makes waters relatively more conductive. So even if waters off the
          coast of Peru are cold, if they contain upwelling of rich nutrients
          that commence a food chain and strong biological material,
          eventually, the conductivity of the waters improves. Indeed,
          fishermen were the first to describe ENSO--which gives the phenomenon
          a biological aspect that in my view has been completely lost by the
          modern and meteorologically educated, who have constructed the so
          called Japanese definition of ENSO. I make my living with words, and
          if a
          definition doesn't work--neither do I. So that is why I feel that
          this Japanese defintion of El Nino has ultimately been a failure to
          the climate and weather community! It has to WORK!

          And, as I have described here before by simple experiment involving a
          glass of salt water, a volt meter and a microwave oven--the warmer
          salt water is, the greater conductivity or less resistance it has.

          La Nina conditions off the coast of Peru tends to prevent rainfall to
          South America--so there isn't any shoreline biologically based
          conductivities enhanced for improving large scale low frequency EMF
          (Doran waves) activity that enhances cirrus locally, either, or
          biological activity that is shore or hydrate related. Along the
          warmest and largest and most connected expanse of oceans in the
          tropical Pacific, then, induction against cirrus dominates. Fair
          weather and positive voltages to ground dominate, and heat escapes to
          space for lack of cirrus.

          THEREFORE, during a La Nina along the Equatorial currents ambiant
          winds are going to overall produce first very conductive induction
          against cirrus because the waters are anomaly warm to the west, even
          if biologically depleted, and then very inductive waters against
          cirrus in the east because even though the waters become colder--they
          are biologically active such that they contain conductive materials
          near the surface that but for the biological activity would have
          remained more diffused to the colder, non-conductive depths of the

          This, again, leads to dry conditions over the warmest and largest
          expanse of ocean in the world. Fair weather voltages, or positive
          voltages at 250 volts per meter begin to dominate the tropics. This
          clears the air of cirrus. The above Harris and Lindzen papers are
          nothing more that data that supports exactly this.

          Now, comparing this electrical condition of the 1970 La Nina with the
          1997 El Nino is OF COURSE going to give different cirrus behavior--we
          have the coldest anomaly central Pacific waters to the west--and the
          warmest near the coast of Peru. To the west, induction against cirrus
          along the Equatorial will be reduced simply by temperature--as colder
          anomaly means less conductive anomaly. But then to the central and
          eastern side of the Equatorial the biological activity fed by
          upwelling is reduced. Those waters become biologically inactive. In
          this situation, the Equatorial is either cold or biologically
          depleted, even if those waters were warm anomaly such that one would
          think that they would induct against cirrus.

          Understand, too, that when you see the warm anomalies off the coast
          of Peru--they are just that--anomalies. The warmest waters overall
          remain in the Western Pacific due to coriolis turning the gyres and
          the warmest surface waters west. This makes induction favoring fair
          weather in the warmest current, the Equatorial, much more difficult
          than during La Nina conditions, simply from a conductivity
          standpoint. There is less fair weather, then, and the voltages of 250
          per meter to ground. The fair weather zone shrinks and places like
          Peru and California are able to produce Doran waves, or low freq
          large scale ion movements that include convective or negative to
          ground voltages. The hydrology varies and further feeds back
          biological EMF conditions of less resistance that enhance the
          condition. Meanwhile, the North and South Equatorials are able to
          enhance large areas of cirrus as they warm. . .

          2. Electrophoresis, Cirrus, and Gaia over Intelligent Design.


          This above link is a typical one on electrophoresis. This is a
          process by which nuceotides are moved by charge potentials. This
          same kind of movement and sorting can occur between the ionosphere,
          which is conductive, and cloud tops, where cirrus clouds are
          created. The cirrus behaviors, then, can feed back heat trapping and
          convective activity, depending on the DNA content in these ice
          crystals. So, as it turns out, early life would have had its
          selective pressure and feedback to it just based on DNA--nothing else
          required. Protiens likewise would have presented electro mechanical
          influence on the cloud particles, and hence modulated or further
          dampened the cloud behaviors, and further caused "intelligent"
          selective pressures on the chemical, thermal and convective behaviors
          caused by what kinds of nucleotides were created. Even the left
          handedness of the nucliotides then is explained simply by the fact
          that the electrical mechanical properties are enhanced by uniformity
          that evolved against this selective pressure. In the true feedback
          sense, then, the earth was "alive" before individual cells, and only
          after time did the complexity of cellular life evolve into what we
          see today. This then explains the problem of origins, IOWs whether
          first life was in volcanic events or in the air or ocean--self
          replicating nuclietides were undoubtly EVERYWHERE on earth and this
          genetic material was SHARED by the global biosphere, as it attempted
          to modulate, dampen, the chaotic inputs to what was forming climate
          in early earth history. As the biosphere became more effective at
          this, nucleotides that were good at this modulation passed on to
          future generations, and the design began to APPEAR intelligent.
        • David
          ... Ok, so I m a lousy typist! That s certainly no secret. ... I am perhaps a bit unusual in that I am a Born-again Christian, but also an old Earther. My
          Message 4 of 6 , Oct 5, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            > Do you think it is fair for me to be critical of you? Of so, is it
            > fair for you to defend your, say, typo, based on your faith?

            Ok, so I'm a lousy typist! That's certainly no secret.

            > There is considerable controversy remaining in a debate about the
            > origins of life. This controversy centers around a word--
            > abiogenesis. Scientists tend to want to REDUCE the causes, the
            > causal chain between chemistry that is lifeless and that which we
            > think of as life. A large number of scholars, however, have a theory
            > that there is a "Creator", and that life was begot by this creator.
            > Some of these scholars argue that there was an intelligent design for
            > early life, and others will say the earth is young and things just
            > magically appeared, poof, the way they are, about 7,000 years ago.
            > These are the so called young earthers.

            I am perhaps a bit unusual in that I am a Born-again Christian, but
            also an "old Earther." My thinking is this. If the universe were
            only 7000 years old, then the universe should appear to us as a sphere
            with a 14,000 light year diameter, since we shouldn't be able to see
            anything further away than 7000 light years. Obviously, that's not
            the case. Either that, or everything we think we know about the time
            and distance scales of the universe if off by a HUGE factor (including
            stars relatively close by whose distance can be directly measured by
            parallax), or light once travelled MUCH faster than it now does.
            Either one would completely invalidate virtually every law of
            cosmology and physics known to man.

            At the same time, however, my Faith is at the very core of my being.
            Without Jesus, I am nothing.

            I will freely admit that if questioned, I could not adequately explain
            how the Biblical account of creation and how the Darwinian theories
            fit together. I do know that Darwin's theories are just that,
            theories, and should not be blindly accepted as fact. There are
            several rather glaring problems with them.

            At any rate, I did not take offense at your statements, but rather
            just curious as to why you were making them. As you said, just
            because somebody is a "religious right wing nut" does not make them
            ignorant of science. I think I would be an example of that.
          • Mike Doran
            and yet I still like writing more on Gaia and sexual reproduction. Is that the devil, God, Holy Ghost, or Jesus in me? I don t know, and does it matter?
            Message 5 of 6 , Oct 6, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              and yet I still like writing more on Gaia and sexual reproduction.
              Is that the devil, God, Holy Ghost, or Jesus in me? I don't know,
              and does it matter?


              If sexual reproduction in plants, animals and humans is a result of
              evolutionary sequences, creationists argue that the series of chance
              events that must have occurred at each stage would be so unlikely as
              to be impossible.

              They claim that an amazingly complex, radically different, yet
              complementary reproductve systems of the male and female must have
              completely and independantly evolved at each stage at about the same
              time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two
              would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would
              become extinct.

              The physical, chemical and behavioral systems of the male and female
              would have to be compatible.

              Millions of complex products of male reproductive system (pollen or
              sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical, and
              ELECTRICAL compatiblity with the eges of the female prepoductive

              The microbiology also must match--the intricate processes occurring
              inside the entity as the nucleotides must mesh.

              How is Gaia involved?

              Part of the concept of gene sharing and symbiotic relationships is
              that conductivity changes to the ocean surface must balance with the
              charge potentials of the cirrus clouds. These are the clouds that are
              sorted by charge, just like DNA is sorted in the process of
              electrophoresis and banding then determines genomes. The sorting then
              leads to modulating the infra red behaviors, the heat and convection
              feedbacks that leads to climate.

              The problem is that size matters in the air and in the oceans much
              differently. In the ocean, a multicellular creature near the surface
              of the ocean may increase conductivity, while that same creature
              would fall out of the sky due to its weight. Yet, it's reproductive
              information can fit on a tiny strand of nucleotides that can move
              like dust in the winds, and be a part of cloud nucleation that
              becomes heat trapping cirrus, be at the right charge along with the
              cirrus to move between the electromagnetic fields in between the
              cloud tops and the ionosphere, depending on what is the state of
              these fields determined by such things as solar lumenousity, solar
              insOlation, cosmic ray flux, and so forth.

              There is a reason male reproductive units which match the relatively
              much larger female eggs are small. It has to do with the evolutionary
              context of a living earth and the specific, original purpose of
              nucleotides--modulating cirrus cloud behaviors.


              Why We See Red When Looking at Ocean Plants September 19, 2003

              Rutgers marine scientists say phytoplankton changed color 250 million
              years ago

              NEW BRUNSWICK/PISCATAWAY, N.J. - Green was the dominant color for
              plants both on land and in the ocean until about 250 million years
              ago when changes in the ocean's oxygen content - possibly sparked by
              a cataclysmic event - helped bring basic ocean plants with a red
              color to prominence - a status they retain today. That's the view of
              a group led by marine scientists from Rutgers, The State University
              of New Jersey, in a paper, "The Evolutionary Inheritance of Elemental
              Stoichiometry in Marine Phytoplankton" in the journal Nature,
              published Thursday (Sept. 18).

              Studying ancient fossils plus current species of microscopic ocean
              plants called phytoplankton, the scientists found evidence that
              a "phytoplankton schism" took place after a global ocean oxygen
              depletion killed 85 percent of the organisms living in the ocean
              about 250 million years ago at the end of the Permian era. "This
              paved the way for the evolution of red phytoplankton," said one of
              the paper's authors, Paul G. Falkowski, professor in the
              Environmental Biophysics and Molecular Ecology Program at Rutgers'
              Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences (IMCS). Falkowski has a
              joint appointment with Rutgers' Department of Geological Sciences.

              The Permian era, prior to the advent of the dinosaurs, ended in a
              global extinction scientists believe may have been linked to
              extraterrestrial collisions or earthly eruptions or explosions.

              "Plants on land are green, and they inherited the cell components
              that gave them a green color about 400 million years ago," Falkowski
              said. "But most of plants or phytoplankton in the ocean are red -
              they inherited their pigments about 250 million years ago. Our paper
              suggests that a global ocean oxygen depletion changed the chemistry
              of the ocean and selected for red phytoplankton. The ocean has been
              dominated by the red line ever since."

              Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey


              The problem of the ever lumenous sun suggested by Carl Sagan is
              addressed, as you all know, by changes to cloud dynamics via
              conductivities. Gas exchange with O2 in an ocean filled with O2 is an
              interesting conductivity issue and hints at a Gaia that struggles to
              LOSE conductivity to maintain the signals noise ratios and other
              aspects of the cosmic and solar electrical input into this system.
              There are biological metabolism issues respecting O2 as well . . .

              I should mention that the original Gaia theory had a sub story called
              daisyland. Carl Sagan himself with his essay on an ever lumenous sun
              and questions of science made popular comes in an interestnig
              spiritual context, in that his first wife was one of the writers who
              wrote about Gaia, and daisyland. The idea is that if the earth is too
              hot it blooms daisies of different colors that retain or reflect
              heat. This daisyland idea was formed in the context of CO2 as a green
              house gas, which now modernly is held properly to good skeptical
              science that questions the place CO2 has as a "daisy" compared to
              clouds, which either trap on earth or release to space almost all
              heat energy from the sun.

              So with the old theory, Carl Sagan's problem was solved by dark
              daisies in the past, and light ones in the present. Interestingly,
              Carl Sagan's daughter is a microbiologist!!!! But I digress, don't I?

              What I am suggesting, from my EMF and biological background, is that
              the forcing is ELECTRICAL and THEN thermal by cloud behavior. Cirrus
              clouds, mostly. It is an entirely different take on Gaia theory and
              daisyland, and more powerful because the feedbacks are instantanious
              at the speed of EMFs globally, and don't rely on the time it takes
              for CO2 levels to change globally, for instance.

              So when biologists discover evidence of red algaes running back about
              250 million years (probably through some of the DNA studies that are
              getting quite good and running down the tree of life) and this is put
              in a Gaia context, the Daisyland approach would be to say that the
              red spectrum is different than the green. BUT what I am saying is
              conductivity matters more, not albedo. Follow?

              Red is a color of iron, BTW, and rust. Oxydized iron. That means that
              in an ocean without oxygen, that we have today, the iron has some
              kind of an important gaia conductivity role, I would speculate . . .
              compared to a past when the oceans contained more oxygen and the sun
              was slightly less lumenous . . . and that importance is more critical
              to a living earth than the slight efficiencies brought to bear to
              photosynthesis by having a green color.

              My view is that upwelling by cold waters would bring higher levels of
              iron, and so would rivers eroding iron, that would otherwise fall by
              gravity to the ocean bottom and get buried. Iron gets retained by
              life--by the algaes, and would help retain increased local
              conductivities that are at the heart of Gaia and modulated cloud
              dynamics. Again, it is the idea that when you are hot you sweat, cold
              you shiver. When ocean SSTs are hot, they are more conductive BUT
              lack upwelled nutrients like iron for increased biological
              conductivities, and hence are prone to a feedback of modulation.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.