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

Re: God and the honey bee

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 6 , Oct 5, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      > Do you think it is fair for me to be critical of you? Of so, is it
      > fair for you to defend your, say, typo, based on your faith?

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

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

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

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

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

      At any rate, I did not take offense at your statements, but rather
      just curious as to why you were making them. As you said, just
      because somebody is a "religious right wing nut" does not make them
      ignorant of science. I think I would be an example of that.
    • Mike Doran
      and yet I still like writing more on Gaia and sexual reproduction. Is that the devil, God, Holy Ghost, or Jesus in me? I don t know, and does it matter?
      Message 2 of 6 , Oct 6, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        and yet I still like writing more on Gaia and sexual reproduction.
        Is that the devil, God, Holy Ghost, or Jesus in me? I don't know,
        and does it matter?


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

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

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

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

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

        How is Gaia involved?

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

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

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


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

        Rutgers marine scientists say phytoplankton changed color 250 million
        years ago

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

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

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

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

        Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey


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

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

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

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

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

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

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