A Living Earth

Many different forms of life are dependent upon each other. Examples
include fig trees and the fig gall wasp, the yucca plant and the yucca moth, many parasites and their hosts, and pollen-bearing plants and the honeybee. Creationists argue that if one member of each interdependent group evolved first, the group would not have survived. Since all members of the group have survived, they must have come into existence at the same time, or in other words, were created.But looking at the honey bee, for instance, the selective pressure by a living earth is seen. Interestingly, a bee has nerve tissue and iron ions that enables the bee to feel electrical changes. It turns out that fair weather conditions are associated with positive voltages to ground and storms with strikes and large negative voltages to ground. The nerve tissue tells the bee, inside a humid hive, when to leave or not to forage, thereby avoiding rain. Yet there is a living earth efficiency that stems from this order of greenery without a nervious system and greenery with a symbiotic relationship with the bee, which has the ability to "think" and avoid inefficiencies, while the plant has the ability to make food from sunlight AND water (clouds bring a LACK of sunlight) but not think.The creating god here is actually a THIRD symbiotic relationship with the marine microbial biosphere which feeds back conductivities from the living chemistries washed down the greenery and bee feed hydrology. This conductivity change feeds back rain to a region, and hence impacts the biology of the greenery, and then impacts the ecology of the bees. So what really occurred is the insect and the flowering greenery evolved independently but began to feel the selective pressures of a living earth such that they found that a symbiotic relationship was more competitive in the context of living earth climate feedbacks.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. 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
difficult.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, right here on this bb another poster has describe the improbability problem quite well. He claim 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 like him 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
forming
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
there.With all due respect, IDers aren't just bible thumping right wing
nuts.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
implausible:"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
dynamics.The big Nature paper on topic is "Increases in greenhouse forcing
from outgiong longwave radiation spectra of the Earlth in 1970 and
1997"
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
the
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
(1990).
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.htmDaly 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
http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-abstract...-
0477&volume=082&issue=03&page=0417 for the abstract, and the link
"print version" leads to a PDF of the full article.http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/paper010723.pdfhttp://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/IRIS_BAMS.pdfhttp://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/BAMS_1459_rev.pdfhttp://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/BAMS_1459_Append.pdfhttp://www.atmos.washington.edu/...is/1423Lindzenrevised.pdfI 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
currents:http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/1992/dbs9201.htmlBUT, 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
movements.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
oceans.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. 404 Error | Rochester Institute of Technology 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.+++++++++++++++++++At the risk of making a Rush like foot in mouth slam against
Christians, there are two main "science" discussions that the typical
Christian struggles with--a creation evolution discussion and a
global warming discussion. This is interesting to me in the ethical
silence on ecology today that follows the right wing power in our
culture today. The Christain right and the fascists coalition is just
too scary even to the scientific leaning posters on a bb like this.I am going to switch apolitically and areligiously gears here from
what some of you are used to from me on the electro cirrus climate
forcings, and make a number of biological/Gaia related analytical
comments that tie ecology actually to both missing subjects, and show
why there is a lot of strawmen beat up when many don't understand
what ties these discussions together. I intend to list a huge number
of examples and invite discussion. You may quickly see where I am
going with this, if it isn't clear already.++++++++++++++A number of creationists will argue that there are many examples of
lacking macroevolution which proves a common designer. From there,
it's God is the designer, bible thumping, Humvee humping and Arnold
for Governor. The logic is more or less rationalization of inane
behavior, and like any good set of lies has some basis in science and
truth. Certainly it has worked to the point that there are true
believers, even a majority of them.So here paragraph for the night. Many single-celled forms of life
exist, of course, but there are no forms of life TODAY with 2, 3, 4
or 5 cells. Even the forms of life with 6-20 cells are parasites. The
must have a complex animal as a host to provide such functions as
digestion and respiration. What the creationists argue is that if
macroevolution happened, single celled creatures would have
transitional forms of life to the more complex with 2-20 cells.Enter Gaia into all of this. Should single-celled creatures evolve
with complexity, they evolve AWAY from the conductivity changing role
a living earth requires. Therefore, there are selective pressures on
the microbial level against forms of life that would interfer with
the direct chemical and conductive processes of the microbrial food
chain. More complex life tends to be able to MOVE or exist less
passively, and that would be a problem for a required, mechanical
feedback that regulates climate, temparature, and chemisty of a
living earth.++++++++++++++++++Sexual Reproduction and Gaia.It is my view that sexuality is also symbiotic w/ Gaia, and in particular the "male" gene is more related to cirrus ion movements and the female, ocean based conductivities. It is probably an extension of spores and multi celled complexities that arose with the problem of how would Gaia feedbacks work with more complex forms of life.+++++++++++++Protein complexity is interesting, and probably initially was a way that the nucleotides could "float" on the water top, and thereby become part of the cloud dynamics.[This message has been edited by Mike Doran, 10-06-2003]

Hi Mike,Welcome to EvCforum. Interesting (if a bit lengthy) post. To be honest, I'm having some difficulty separating what you wrote with Lovelock and Margulis' Gaia Hypothesis. There are aspects that are extremely similar. Although they don't focus on ionization/clouds per se, one aspect of their idea does discuss large-scale hypercycles and feedback loops between airborne "plankton" and climate control. Unfortunately, airborne sampling hasn't as yet yielded the quantities of this plankton that would appear to be necessary for such a cycle.Could you please condense the differences in your idea and that of Lovelock/Margulis? Maybe by using bullets to show specific differences?For reference, I'm basing my comparison on Margulis' 2000 "Symbiotic Planet", which although a tad rambling has the benefit of being a short explanation, and Lovelock's larger 1987, "Gaia: a New Look at Life on Earth".

I think that what I am talking about is WAY more specific about the cloud forcings and is PRE CELLULAR in that the nucleotides function to vary the cirrus clouds without anything more. It's only a question of degree. Once you have the selective pressure by climate, the complexities arise and are recorded by the necleotides. I am unfamiliar w/ the exact comments you reference, and KNOW for a fact that my cloud theories are completely new.++++++++++++++++++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 system.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, 2003Rutgers marine scientists say phytoplankton changed color 250 million years agoNEW 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 JerseyComment: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.

Feedback loop systems are used in computer programming as well as to understand the functioning of a biological system. Rules involved here that leads to some of the paradoxes expressed by the religious based skeptics IMHO are climate regulation feedback related. That is what I am discussing here in this living earth thread.Specifically, cirrus cloud behaviors as related to electrophoresis in that the genetic material, pre cellular, will cause cirrus stabilities between the ionozed upper atmosphere and the charge separations and large scale electrical meanings of the clouds below the cirrus. Fair weather conditions are denoted by positive voltages to ground, and convective regions bring negative voltages, to complete the global electrical circuit.Sexual reproduction, for instance, is rooted in the large scale conductivity differences between a more "female" behaving feedback related to the ocean conductivities and a more "male" behaving feedback as related to cirrus cloud behaviors.With the advance of complexity to the cell, simple nucleotide replication would quickly lose out to more efficient chemical reactions that could occur in a cell where materials for reactions could be saved for later use. Pre cellular feedbacks w/ merely genetic material is really interesting with selective pressure from the climate as the only limiting symbiotic relationship. That said, the sexual differences that emerged from a pre cellular state would exist, as well as the differences in Gaia functioning between ocean and cirrus, where a larger creature would impact conductivity in the ocean and have no impact on cirrus due to gravity concerns, whereas a male like entity, largely nucleotides, would have less impact on the conductivity in the oceans but remain effective at regulating the electrical conditions of cirrus RELATIVE particular to the conductivity conditions below in the marine biosphere. The fact that there would be a genetic connection to the states, would match them and be a very effective modulation or dampening biological condition to feedback against whatever chaotic states that are inputed into the global biosphere.

Hi Mike,I'm honestly not ignoring you. I simply don't have much comment - a lot of what you wrote concerning clouds, etc, is outside my field - and I'm already spread a "bit thin" on the forum. Hopefully someone else will provide feedback. If not, try distilling it a bit. That might help.

Atheism and Agnosticism Junk DNA"Among many examples of genetic homologies, the most interesting are in what is frequently termed junk DNA. Junk DNA are basically pieces of DNA that have no function (or in some cases, such as introns, they produce no protein but may be involved in regulation of the gene). When the DNA is transcribed, these pieces of DNA either do not get transcribed at all or are only partially transcribed, with no final result (i.e., a functional protein) being produced. You can cut out or modify most of this junk DNA without affecting the organism.There are several varieties of junk DNA including pseudogenes, introns, transposons and retroposons. In many organisms (such as human beings) the vast majority of their DNA is of the junk variety. As an example, in humans there is one particular family of junk DNA called Alu sequences that are repeated some million times or so, and this one family alone accounts for about 5% of our DNA. There are numerous other examples.What's more, with much of this junk DNA we can make pretty good guesses as to how it came to be. A lot of it (such as pseudogenes) appears to be copies of other pieces of DNA that have mutated such that they are no longer functional. There are a variety of mutations that can result in non-functional genetic code, so junk DNA essentially represents errors in our DNA.Why is junk DNA so interesting? An analogy from the courts may prove useful here. Proving that someone has copied copyrighted material can sometimes be difficult, as in some cases you would expect the material to be similar since it covers the same topic or comes from the same sources. For example, phone number databases would be expected to be very similar since they contain the same basic information.However, one excellent way to determine whether something has been copied is if the errors in the source have been copied as well. While you could argue that, even if highly unlikely, the material is similar because it has similar function, it is very hard to explain why some material would have exactly the same errors as some other material if it were not copied. Companies that sell products such as phone lists or maps routinely insert fake listings to protect themselves from copyright violations.The same can be said of DNA. It is hard enough to explain (if you don't accept evolution) why some functional pieces of DNA show great similarities. It is pretty much impossible to rationally explain why nonfunctional DNA, erroneous DNA, would be very similar between different species. Why would genetic code that doesn't do anything and which clearly appears to be the result of mutations be similar, or in many cases identical, between different organisms? The only explanation that makes any sense is if this DNA was inherited from a common ancestor. Homologies between junk DNA are probably the most powerful of the homology evidence for common descent, as common descent is the only rational explanation for them.There are many examples of homologies between junk DNA, a number of which can be found in Zeus Thibault's Proof of Macroevolution series. We will address but a few of them here.Pseudogene equivalents are genes which are identifiable as some functional gene in another organism but which have a mutation which has rendered them nonfunctional. There are three sets of genes found in many species that have pseudogene equivalents in primates, including humans. They are:several odorant receptor genes,
the RT6 protein gene, and
the galatosyl transferase gene.
The mutations which made these genes inoperable are shared among the primates. It is important to keep firmly in mind that there are numerous mutations that can render a gene nonfunctional. Yet not only do primates have pseudogene versions of these genes that are functional in other creatures, but these pseudogenes have been made nonfunctional by the same mutations - they have the exact same errors in the genes. This makes perfect sense if this genetic material was inherited from a common ancestor. Creationists have yet to come up with a rational alternative explanation.Summary of Biochemical HomologiesThe biochemical homologies offer some of the strongest homology evidence for common descent. This is due the universal existence of some homologies across all life forms, as well as the large number of possible biochemical alternatives that life forms could have used, but didn't. While all homologies support the idea of common descent, some biochemical homologies such as those in junk DNA provide especially strong evidence, since their very nature makes it exceedingly unlikely that they would exist for any functional reason. Common descent offers a meaningful explanation for these homologies."Comments:There are two main aspects of a living earth, the cirrus cloud part, and the ocean part. The cirrus clouds in pre cellular earth would have contained nucleotides in such manner as they would 1) replicate and 2) have an electrcical to mass meaning. IOWs, if rain feedbacks/convection feedbacks caused "nutrients" to be available on the ocean surface below, such that the nucleotides could both reproduce and reproduce with a meaningful mass and charge, you would have a good feedback. Below in the oceans the nucleotides would contain chemistry over chaotic diffusion of chemicals but that containment was probably not all that significant on conductivities like cellular life is today.Junk DNA was anything but junk to cirrus cloud formations in pre cellular earth. The function of the DNA was not to produce proteins or regulate or translate them, but rather the nucleotide function was simply to provide an electrical feedback to convection processes that occur w/ cirrus clouds that can trap heat, compress air and cause rain over ambiant, lifeless winds and climate inputs. The feedback is quite powerful, additionally, because of phase change energies on the DNA particles, forming or not, in cloud nucliation processes bring to cloud dynamics signiicant forcings.+++++++++++++++++++++++=Dielectrics and cloud dynamics.Most are familiar with the fact that thunder clouds tend to bring negative voltages to ground and fair weather, a lower but positive voltage to ground. The whole thing is powered by the charge separations that bring positive voltages to the ionosphere from the thunderstorm clouds and that positive voltage then makes the lower ionsphere positively charged as a whole, and then this positive voltage moves to ground in fair weather. However, what isn't wel understood is how over tropical storms there is a large negative voltage that impact the cirrus cloud behaviors. What isn't understood is that the dielectric constant of water is about 80 times
stronger and with tropical storms, where there is a capacitive coupling between ionosphere and ocean, the "eye" of the storm allows the capacitive coupling to occur whereas over the cirrus disk around the "eye" the high dielectric of water prevents an alternating current to pass by capacitance. The result is few strikes in a tropical storm and a pattern of EMFs and circuitry that favors the formation of cirrus disks and convections that tropical storms are known for.++++++++++++++I won't simplify what I am talking about because it is about as straight forward as I can make it, but as with most great discoveries and truths, they touch many related subjects, and you will see what I am talking about just by trying to track with Gaia and this cloud behavior notion as I write about it.

The largest problem facing self replicating life, of course, is keeping the chemistry (eg pH, nearby strikes and essential chemicals) available. That is because without cell walls any kind of chemistry, pH or temperature condition that would break down the nucleotides would then stop the replications.Gaia turns out to be local in that large scale low frequency ion waves are connected by hydrology to larger water bodies and the action takes place best along the idea that convective activity is going to attract dust particles from fair weather zones nearby. Fair and perhaps dry periods where the water dries up and leaves the nucleotides to blow as dust in the wind, and gather fair weather positive charges, and then be attracted to areas of convection. These functions all have to fit in terms of modulating chemistry and temperature and pH, such that what washes down the hydrology to where the nucleotides are created matches with what happens to the nucleotides in cirrus clouds and convection dynamics.The cirrus cloud dynamic also helps explain how early life could have covered the entire globe, moving quickly to places that had the proper conditions to support replication, drying and reinsertion in the cirrus.Later, as cellular life began to contain chemstries by themselves, a more ocean based conductivity model could emerge and the extremophiles or the archae could emerge with the junk DNA unloaded for metabolic efficiency. Conductivity was then managed by the fact that the cell itself was more conductive and the hydrates from the methanogens was more electrcially insulative. Chemistry was further maintained contained by location because unlike dust which can blow great distances the large scale electricall fields associated with hydrate formations and biogenic increases in conductivies were more localized. Tectonic processes like subduction of an ocean plate underneath a land plate, in so scrapping off sediments and building coastal mountains, would cause further re-erosion by rivers right back into the marine biosphere where the cellular life flourished, and by maintained chemistry, could continue to flourish with minor adjustments and movements. Soon this new, evolved efficiency did not allow for simple nucleotide replication, and a modified cirrus "electropheresis" movement occurred by sexual reproduction, and things like greenery and pollen and so forth would have their climate modulating impact on the clouds and living earth feedbacks.

The IDers argue about implausable macro evolution because of the complexity of proteins, even the folding of the proteins, as unlikely chance occurances. Of course, they assume that cellular life came together like a printing press blowing up and a fully unabridged dictionary arising from the chaos. Sorry. Didn't happen that way.Gaia explains this well.If you look at electrophoresis and the early pre cellular RNA Gaia cloud dynamic, it all makes complete sense. As it turns out, RNA carries a negative ion charge. As charges separate out in a cloud, the cloud top becomes very positively charged, and then attracts electrons down from the ionosphere, first attracting them by capacitance and then taking them by shorting. The ionosphere then, as a whole, becomes relatively positively charged. Enter the RNA, with the negative charge. Inside cirrus, they are attracted to the ionosphere, and bring infra red retaining cloud dynamics and convection feedbacks, rain, to where they exist.Proteins, able to carry charges both ways, positively and negatively, were more flexible at modulating the ongoing electrical dyanmic on early earth. Remember that cosmic ray flux and solar ion particle output variability provided a changing electrical dynamic, and having the ability to adapt both ways was such powerful Gaia advantage.Remember, this is not chance--the die was WEIGHTED.++++++++++++The HUGE evolutionary advance of cellular life ended the main advantage of the cirrus and necleotide/protein electrophoresis like stability, bands of cirrus like bands on a jell strip, bringing exactly the chemistry, EMF and temperatures to bring on the production of nucleotides. A living earth with infra red heat trapped, containing life where the feedbacks occurred, and adjustable to region and chaotic input--working in time and space.But along came the cell. What an interesting thing, not only the source of sexual complexity with the maleness going to the smaller cirrus born nucleotides and the femaleness to the ocean conductivities. Once chemistry could be contained, no need for the "perfect" conditions to be created from above, and moreover, the conductivities from below could make sure that eventually the correct chemistry arrived. But, of course, to match the best of both worlds sexual complexity arose to control or modulate conductivities from marine world AND the cirrus, female and male input respectfully.

ID creationists bring the same tired implausability arguement to the immune systems. They ask how could immune systems of animals and plants have evolved? Each immune system can recognized invading bacteria, viruses and toxins. Each system can quickly mobilize just the right type of defenders to search out and destroy these invaders. Each system has a memory and learns from every attack.If the many instructions that direct an animal's or plant's immune system were not already programmed into the organism's genetic system when it first appeared on the earth, the first of thousands of potential infections would have destroyed the organism. This would have nullified any rare genetic improvements that might have accumulated. In other words, the large amount of genetic information governing the immune system could not have accumulated in a slow, evolutionary sense. IDers then go on to argue that this inforamtion must have been there from the start, and that, therefore, this occurred by Godly creation.Gaia tells us about a climate based pre cellular complexity that would have evolved WAY before there were cells, and in particular, the roots of sexual complexity would had an aspect to differentiate between self and non-self. That, in my view, was the start of the immune system . . .The basic immune system problem is what PURPOSE would a creature have to regulate NON SELF before it became a self contained cell?Pre cellular Gaia provides that purpose.That is, if a particular electrical state (configuration of nucleotides and proteins) dictated by a "self" gave back living feedbacks to a region as a part of a dynamic, sometimes symbiotic state, not only would it be a good idea to have that material be replicated but also incorrect electrical states should be destroyed. Further, the communication, once cellular, between genetic material that regulated the cirrus and that which impacted surface conductivities must match and find itself from HUGE distances carried by wind and rain, and yet recognize friend or foe sorting through the threats. Without understanding the Gaia meaning of early life, you cannot understand the immune systems' basic workings and context.

Daniel Clery and David Brandly wrote in "Underhanded 'Breakthrough Revealed," Science Vol 265, 1 July 1994, p. 21 about the nucleotide handedness problem for macro evolutionary theorists. The Miller experiments on nucleotide formation from crude chemical electrical reactions produce an equal amount of L-amino acids to R-amino acids, and then when any even mixture of the two handed nucleotides are put together to try to reproduce what is seen today in living structures--the reactions are inhibited. It is for this reason many researchers have attempted to find plausible natural conditions under which the left handed nucleotides accumulate over the right handed ones. Since no process until Gaia, as I explain it, has come around, intelligent design creationists have used this problem to support their notion that life was created, not evolved. Against this background, in 1994 in Germany, a doctoral canditate, Guido Sadel, claimed he had solved the problem. Publishing a strong magnetic field will bias a reacton toward either the left-handed or right handed form. He was then granted his Ph.D. This then caused 20 independant groups to attempt to duplicate his results--and they could not. Later Sadel admitted he dishonestly manipulated his data!
See also Missing Link | Answers in Genesis and http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/...son/chemevoupdate.htmEnter Gaia.Now the problem is MUCH different, because the cirrus clouds move and feedback living convection, rain, chemistry, light conditions and electrical fields on the nucleotides. Conditions are cold and dry enough for the RNA to form. Conditions are also proper for the nucleotides to be sorted or destroyed by light energy, literally one at a time, just like banding on an electrophoresis strip. This further allows sorting by additional complexity of combinations or chains of molecules. Larger molecules and chains will have more charge potential and hence can be uniformly distributed in cirrus cloud bands between the cloud tops and the ionosphere.That sorting will cause mechanical, ambiant winds and a pattern of redistribution of the nucleotides to be deposited back down on the ground, sorted by their types. Where deposited, those molecules which cannot reproduce themselves as well will not, and those that can, will, and the process repeats itself with the next ambiant wind that rises the nucleotides from the ground and brings them to the electro-mechanical cirrus cloud dynamic. Since fair weather and cloud cover differ in the manner by which intense nucleotide destroying light can reach the nucleotides, as the ice crystals cirrus fall to the ground and melt and become vulnerable to destruction, under the cloud cover, the rates of light caused destruction will be tied into the cirrus's electrical behavior as well. There is also an electrical feedback, as well. That is, the dielectric of water is 80 times greater than with air, such that cirrus distribution patterns would have impacted not just fair weather positive to ground and convective weather negative to ground balances, but the degree of capactive coupling that existed. IOWs, not just the direct currents involved but the alternating ones as well would have been modulated by existance or not of varying levels of nucleotides structures in the cirrus.So handedness isn't a product just of a straight forward favored chemical energy potential but rather is a product of sorting by charge potential and then after sorting differences in efficiencies in replication will amplify the handedness. It is a much different approach to the problem than the pure chemistry approach, and, really, points to a similar weakness in approach to the climate change problem, by those who think that climate is a chaotic dynamic without consideration of the electrical and biological implications of increases in CO2 from fossil fuels.Interestingly, there are no large deposites of nucleotides on earth, like, for instance, there are coal fields. This also points to a process that selected and used the compounds for the production of the nucleotides, and those produced that were not part of a living earth soon found radiation, temperature or chemistry hostile to further replication or even to be laid to cummulated waste. Indeed, later evolved processes that resulted, for instance, in the immune system showed that gaia would have closely regulated any configuration of feedbacks--that the selective climatological implications and pressures put back on the pre cellular living chemestries caused early forms of life to adapt how they interacted with one another, either on large scale or small.

Mike, may I suggest that you post one critical and fundamental assumption/premise for the Gaia hypothesis. If we agree to that one, then we can move onto something else. As it is, there is just too much to bite into at once. Start at the beginning.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

With all due respect, macro evolutionists who have defended themselfs against IDers, and religious nuts who think that ID is about God and creation are the ones that will need to start over.Cirrus cloud sorting of nucleotides and infra red heat feedbacks by clouds from this activity puts both camps to bed and shows them to the door, for fighting a fake straw man. Early life was global and evolved without cells.

Mike,Maybe you've noticed that only two people have responded to you-- Quetzal and myself. Quetzal and I both asked something very similar of you-- that you explain yourself a bit better. You are talking to yourself, and I am trying to tell you why that is. No need to get defensive. You've dumped so much information and so many concepts into this thread that to form any kind of response worth posting would take a month of steady work. What I am suggesting is that you post one or two key concepts. For evolution, a key concept would be natural selection, for example. Surely, this hypothesis has key concepts? At any rate, if you are not willing to back up and explain this theory is some orderly and bite sized manner, I fear you will continue to talk to yourself.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Diversity and evolution of mitochondrial RNA editing systems. Gray MW. [Abstract] Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 1X5, Canada. M.W.Gray@Dal.Ca'RNA editing' describes the programmed alteration of the nucleotide sequence of an RNA species, relative to the sequence of the encoding DNA. The phenomenon encompasses two generic patterns of nucleotide change, 'insertion/deletion' and 'substitution', defined on the basis of whether the sequence of the edited RNA is colinear with the DNA sequence that encodes it. RNA editing is mediated by a variety of pathways that are mechanistically and evolutionarily unrelated. Messenger, ribosomal, transfer and viral RNAs all undergo editing in different systems, but well-documented cases of this phenomenon have so far been described only in eukaryotes, and most often in mitochondria. Editing of mRNA changes the identity of encoded amino acids and may create translation initiation and termination codons. The existence of RNA editing violates one of the long-accepted tenets of genetic information flow, namely, that the amino acid sequence of a protein can be directly predicted from the corresponding gene sequence. Particular RNA editing systems display a narrow phylogenetic distribution, which argues that such systems are derived within specific eukaryotic lineages, rather than representing traits that ultimately trace to a common ancestor of eukaryotes, or even further back in evolution. The derived nature of RNA editing raises intriguing questions about how and why RNA editing systems arise, and how they become fixed as additional, essential steps in genetic information transfer.Intelligent design creationists claim this kind of paper provides strong arguments for them.They claim that the article properly describes ‘RNA editing’ as a programmed alteration presents a problem that such code can not evolve through small, incremental steps.They claim that the authors note that particular RNA editing systems display a narrow phylogenetic distribution, which argues that such systems are derived within specific eukaryotic lineages, rather than representing traits that ultimately trace to a common ancestor of eukaryotes, or even further back in evolution. since they can’t find a common ancestry thread so they have to rely on the independent evolution of these complex RNA editing systems, which is is called convergence, something that is prevalent in nature and by its very definition is anti-evolutionary. because it is used to describe traits that cannot be attributed to common decent. Intelligent designers argue that convergence is yet another signature God has left in his creation to thwart attempts to explain things via naturalistic processes.However, this article supports a living earth, which is pre cellular. In short, nucleotides in cirrus are sorted by electro mechanical movements between conductive ionosphere and cloud tops. The charge of the nucleotide allows cirrus to be ordered in bands in the atmosphere, just like electrophoresis bands the nucleotides. The banding then provides a biological feedback of temperature and rain back down on a earth, and the nucleotides rain, sorted by electrical and genetic conditio INDEPENDANT OF FUNCTIONING. This sorting was the start of life, and was precellular and would have caused an assortment of like ion behaving sequences. These sequences then converged as they became more efficient at various replicating processes, or became FUNCTIONAL. To make an arguement that this process supports some means that is not naturalistic is absurd and supported by no evidence or science or theory.

Excuse me for asking such a simple question. Maybe you intended only to address scientists. If not, then now that we're at something shorter to begin with, I don't mind listening.Do nucleotides really come down in rain? It rains RNA?I'm understanding you to say that nucleotides were randomly sorted in cirrus clouds due to ionization, and then those randomly sorted nucleotides rained down to earth, where some of them became functional. This provided several, or perhaps many, "starts" to life, rather than just one, and that is why RNA sequences in certain phyla seem very unrelated between the phyla, but much more related within the phyla.Am I understanding that correctly? And if so, to repeat myself, are you saying that RNA used to come down in rain, way back in the Pre-Cambrian period, or that it still happens now.Thanks.