Re: God and the honey bee
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "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:
"another significant factor also influences the products being formed
in an experiment of this type, but is less recognized, selection by
"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."
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. ..."
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
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
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
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
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
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.
> Do you think it is fair for me to be critical of you? Of so, is itOk, so I'm a lousy typist! That's certainly no secret.
> fair for you to defend your, say, typo, based on your faith?
> There is considerable controversy remaining in a debate about theI am perhaps a bit unusual in that I am a Born-again Christian, but
> 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.
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.
- 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
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
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.