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

Re: God and the honey bee

Expand 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 1 of 6 , Oct 4, 2003
      --- 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 2 of 6 , Oct 5, 2003
        > 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 3 of 6 , Oct 6, 2003
          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.