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

Re: God and the honey bee

Expand Messages
  • David
    Why is it that you posting anti-Christian messages?
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 3 5:17 PM
    • 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 2 of 6 , Oct 4 11:18 AM
      • 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 3 of 6 , Oct 5 9:28 PM
        • 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 4 of 6 , Oct 6 1:07 AM
          • 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.