Plants and Animals?

[lemur]

And that was, with gravity being so strong at the earths surface, how do animal and plant matter manage to go against the grain, so to speak?

Gravity has to be strong enough to condense water into liquid. If gravity was lower and thus atmospheric pressure, so would the boiling temperature of water. Would life have formed in the mist?

[rigney]

Gravity has to be strong enough to condense water into liquid. If gravity was lower and thus atmospheric pressure, so would the boiling temperature of water. Would life have formed in the mist?

 

You tell me?

 

http://www.microbe.org/index.html)

 

Microbes determine how all of the bio-geochemical processes work, (nitrogen fixation decomposition, photosynthesis), and produce most of the oxygen we breathe, and inhabit every environment our planet has to offer. Microbes are a term for tiny creatures that are individually are too small to be seen with the unaided eye. The term applied to prokaryotes (Bacteria and Archaea), fungi and protists. Archaea are bacteria-like creatures that have traits not found in any true bacteria. Protists include primitive algae, amoebas, slime molds and protozoa. We can also include viruses as a major type of microbe, though there is a debate as to whether viruses can be considered as living creatures. Bacteria consist of a single cell, and their seeming simplicity keep you off guard. They're an amazingly complex and fascinating group of creatures. Bacteria have been found that can live at temperatures above the boiling point of water and in cold that would freeze your blood. They could probably be centrifuged to a speed that would turn a human to mush and still survive. They "eat" everything from sugar and starch to sunlight, sulfur and iron. There's even a species of bacteria—Deinococcus radiodurans—that can withstand blasts of radiation 1,000 times greater than would kill a human being. Bacteria are among the earliest forms of life that appeared on Earth billions of years ago. Scientists think that they helped shape and change the young planet's environment, eventually creating atmospheric oxygen that enabled other, more complex life forms to develop. Many believe that more complex cells developed as once free-living bacteria took up residence in other cells, eventually becoming the organelles in modern complex cells. The mitochondria that make energy for your body cells are one example of such an organelle. The bacterial photo gallery includes Escherichia coli (lab rat of the microbial world, found in our large intestines helping us digest food and producing vitamin K which is essential for blood clotting), Staphylococcus aureu (lives on skin and nose and can get into the skin to cause boils or more severe illness such as blood infections or pneumonia. Over 90% of the strains of Staph are now resistant to most or all existing antibiotics), Streptococcus (also live on your skin and mucous membranes. Strep is responsible for strep throat and for certain skin diseases like impetigo) and Cyanobacteria (found in water and produces oxygen, they are the progenitors of algae and plants. The chloroplasts with which plants convert sunlight into energy derived from cyanobacteria that took up residence in eukaryotic cells millions of years ago.)

 

Do I remotely understand everything I read? No! But I keep on reading, and things gradually seep in, so there's no need for a pity party. The steam temperature and radiation things was why I sent this. Animal life is really natures weakest link. The little critters that defy why, how and when, don't need our support. But we must have theirs.

Edited December 27, 2010 by rigney

[lemur]

Animal life is really natures weakest link. The little critters that defy why, how and when, don't need our support. But we must have theirs.

As far as I know, the only organisms higher on the food chain than humans, besides the occasional shark or lion, are microbial parasites, bacteria, etc. If you count viruses, what is the main cause of death for humans except cancer? Cancer is caused by viruses, isn't it? Humans seem to be able to dominate large organisms pretty well but when it comes to infiltration from within, we're still working on it.

Edited December 27, 2010 by lemur

[jackson33]

Can you respect ignorance even when it is either willful, loved/enjoyed, or both? [/Quote]

 

lemur; Those are signs of arrogance, not ignorance and most around here are aware of rigney's sincere desire to learn new things.

 

Some people are in love with their own ignorance because of the benefits it brings. "I can't understand" is like a magic mantra for some people to avoid trying and still expect to be respected for what they think.[/Quote]

 

I suppose some folks, have ideas they put out there in ignorance of the facts, but then if the facts are not known, is that really wrong to actually take the time to inquire.

 

Would life have formed in the mist? [/Quote]

 

IMO, YES and it certainly formed on earth under some very harsh conditions and still exist today under conditions humans could not survive.

 

In the distant past, when life first formed on Earth, conditions on the planet were not the same as now. By looking at organisms living in tough conditions, scientists can explore possible adaptations that organisms made when conditions on Earth were much harsher than today. Places like underneath Antarctic ice and inside dry desert rocks mimic conditions from early Earth, and the organisms they house have adaptations that all other life on the planet has lost.[/Quote]

 

http://www.suite101.com/content/the-importance-of-extremophiles-a157797

 

 

rigney; Life that formed or evolves anyplace does so from the natural (gravity) and environmental conditions of that place. If planet earth was half or twice the size it is with the same density (half or twice the gravity) any life would likely have evolved differently under those conditions.

 

One subject I've not seen in awhile here is terriforming mars or the moon, which would mean human adaptation to half gravity, not to mention the long journey involved with no gravity or another thousand or so problems, but I just don't believe humans could adapt in a short enough time period to make practical. This might be of interest to you...

 

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/terraforming.html

[lemur]

lemur; Those are signs of arrogance, not ignorance and most around here are aware of rigney's sincere desire to learn new things.

Ignorance and arrogance are often bedfellows, I think. From the responses I've gotten to this comment, it seems like you don't come in contact with people who are not only uninterested in gaining knowledge, they believe that they are entitled to the perks of modern life in its absence. They stand on the shoulders of giants in their economic-technological privileges but they resent the idea that they should have to know more than how to make a popular power-point presentation. They consider it rude when you ask them questions whose answers aren't readily transposable from their dogma.

 

I suppose some folks, have ideas they put out there in ignorance of the facts, but then if the facts are not known, is that really wrong to actually take the time to inquire.

Ignorance has less to do with not knowing facts or other information as it is rooted in the word, "ignore." Ignorance is about the will to ignore everything except what suits you - and what often suits people is to be validated without challenge. They're not interested in the challenge of progressing - only the rewards of social conformity.

 

Cynical as it sounds, it is the dark side of modern culture - that modernity has more passive consumers than active contributors/producers.

Edited December 27, 2010 by lemur

[needimprovement]

It seems people confuse "arrogance" with "ignorant" or "unteachable."

[Moontanman]

I don't think Rigney is coming from the arrogance type of ignorance, i know where rigney is coming from in broad strokes, there are two possibilities, either you embrace the darkness or you rail against it, rigney rails against it.

 

Jackson start a thread about terra forming, i would be glad to discuss it, i think it will not happen in the way most seem to think but I have some thoughts on the subject.

 

Rigney, I'm not completly sure I understand your OP question, are you asking why the earth and everything resists gravity or how this resistance affects the way life evolves? ?

[rigney]

lemur; Those are signs of arrogance, not ignorance and most around here are aware of rigney's sincere desire to learn new things.

 

 

 

I suppose some folks, have ideas they put out there in ignorance of the facts, but then if the facts are not known, is that really wrong to actually take the time to inquire.

 

 

 

IMO, YES and it certainly formed on earth under some very harsh conditions and still exist today under conditions humans could not survive.

 

 

 

http://www.suite101.com/content/the-importance-of-extremophiles-a157797

 

 

rigney; Life that formed or evolves anyplace does so from the natural (gravity) and environmental conditions of that place. If planet earth was half or twice the size it is with the same density (half or twice the gravity) any life would likely have evolved differently under those conditions.

 

One subject I've not seen in awhile here is terriforming mars or the moon, which would mean human adaptation to half gravity, not to mention the long journey involved with no gravity or another thousand or so problems, but I just don't believe humans could adapt in a short enough time period to make practical. This might be of interest to you...

 

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/terraforming.html

 

Jackson, it's really amazing what humans have accompalished after only four billion years of preparation. We are blessed to be the new kids on the block, but many of the newbies want to be Cock Robin. I suppose that's normal, but just how long do they think they have to bring this good fortune of ours to fruition? The dinasours had to find out the hard way. Yes, had earth been of a different density, size and atmosphere, I'm sure things would have probably evolved quite differently, if at all. Thanks for the boot up, but some guys jut don't get the overall.

 

I don't think Rigney is coming from the arrogance type of ignorance, i know where rigney is coming from in broad strokes, there are two possibilities, either you embrace the darkness or you rail against it, rigney rails against it.

 

Jackson start a thread about terra forming, i would be glad to discuss it, i think it will not happen in the way most seem to think but I have some thoughts on the subject.

 

Rigney, I'm not completly sure I understand your OP question, are you asking why the earth and everything resists gravity or how this resistance affects the way life evolves?

 

No, only out of "ignorance" did I ask how plant and animal life could have survived as they have done, with gravity being the controlling factor in everything that happens. I knew there had to be a drawnout assimilation to arrive at where we are today. But after tons and tons of information, I simply find it hard to rationalize how things function as they do.[ Edited December 27, 2010 by rigney

[needimprovement]

I would have to disagree with you that the belief that jesus was god incarnate is fundamental Christian philosophy. Some sects of Christianity believe that Jesus was the son of god but not himself god incarnated.

Whilst I understand what you are saying from a Catholic standpoint these would not be considered Christian sects. They might be considered to have laudable points and even to teach some truth but they would not be seen as Christian.

Edited December 27, 2010 by needimprovement

[rigney]

Quote] jackson33: One subject I've not seen in awhile here is terriforming mars or the moon, which would mean human adaptation to half gravity, not to mention the long journey involved with no gravity or another thousand or so problems, but I just don't believe humans could adapt in a short enough time period to make practical.

 

You're probably right on both accounts jackson. As moontan said, you should post the topic, I would like to listen in. Like you, I believe it could be done to some extent, but not to colonize for farming or mining. The expense would be overwhelming. Until we can come up with a more efficient type of travel, reinventing the Sahara seems more practical.

Edited December 27, 2010 by rigney

[Athena]

I will quote from "A Beginners Guide to Constructing the Universe" by Michael S. Schneider. First I will say, we can observe cats are different but cats are cats and dogs are dogs, and an oak tree is not a rose bush. "If it were not so, if animals and plants simply inherited their progenitor' characteristics, the order of nature would soon dissolve into an infinite variety of creatures, undifferentiated by species and kinships.

 

This observation, of one type with innumerable products gives rise to the old philosophical problem of the One and the Many. The problem is that, whereas the Many are visible and tangible and can be examined at leisure, the One is never seen or sensed, and its very existence is only inferred through the evident effect it has upon its products, the Many. Yet paradoxically, the One is more truly real than the Many. In the visible world of nature all is flux. Everything is either being born or dying or moving between the two processes. Nothing ever achieves the goal of perfection or the state of equilibrium that would allow it to be described in eccense . The phenomena of nature, said Plato, are always "becoming" never actually 'are'. Our five senses tell us that they are real, but the intellect judges differently, reasoning that the One, which is constant, creative, and ever the same, is more entitled to be called real than its ever fluctuating products."

 

By the way Christmas is the time of the winter equinox. It is right that we reconginze the cycles of nature.

 

Arguments about Jesus would be theology not philosophy. The difference is huge. Theology attempts to tell us what to think. Philosophy attempts to tell us how to think. And as far as I am concerned, if someone worships Jesus as God or the son of God, the person is a Christian. Who gets to make the rules about who is a Christian and who is not? Isn't it really offensive to tell someone who believes s/he is a Christian, that s/he is not a Christian? Who has the God given right to judge who is or is not a Christian?

 

If we determine if someone is Christian or not, like we determine if someone is a Jew or not, there would be no atheist. Only if someone had atheist parents could s/he be athiest. That's it, no mixing. Everyone must marry their kind, so we can be sure what they are. Perhaps by law, everyone should have to identify what they are with a band on their arm, to avoid unwanted mixing and confusion?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited January 17, 2011 by Athena