Re: God and the honey bee
> 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.