Is this wording reasonable ?

[Externet]

Hi.

 

Is this a diarrheical collection of scientific terms meant to confuse or makes reasonable sense to an expert ?

 

In other words, was it written by a clown or an educated scientist ?

Where was this copied from is irrelevant. My question is only about the interaction/interrelation of the terminology along the paragraphs.

 

 

===========================================================

 

... As a matter of REQUIRED reference,

 

*

 

the origins of life in the form of bacterial cells (publicly) currently dates to a little prior to 3.9 Billion Years Ago (BYA), quite an event for the early Archaean Eon

*

 

with promitochondrial endosymbionts seemingly entrenching to become mitochondria (proper) by 2 BYA

*

 

terrestrial cyanobacteria appearing near 1.4 BYA

*

 

and a significant taxa diversification of photosynthetic protoctists close to 1.3 BYA (correlated to the acquisition of symbiotic photosynthetic plastids)

 

(Annotation from Reference, and used to follow: See - Margulis, Lynn, "Symbiotic Planet" [2000] and "Five Kingdoms-..." [1988]).

 

 

 

Is it not interesting that the issue of the possible polyphyletic origins of those plastids remains open, yet dogma is pronouncing near certainty for the predecessor of mitochondria, or is it, really? Let’s take a close look at the contentions of Dr. Margulis. In the search for mitochondrial origins, the varieties to look toward for guidance (according to Margulis, "Symbiotic...") would be either bdellovibrio (a small 0.3 micrometer pseudomonad that is aggressive to larger bacteria and even burrows into them, which respires its food sources and releases carbon dioxide) or paracoccus (an oxygen respiring micrococcus of diameter 1 micrometer [individual sphere]). The problem, here, is this:

 

As late as 1981, citations of Margulis’ work carried statements that a likely category of mitochondrial precursor was an anaerobic phototrophic bacterium (purple nonsulfur bacteria, that synthesize organic compounds by direct incorporation of carbon dioxide). A big difference? You bet your life! A crack in her theory? It is certainly a problem. The crack is not found in the relevance of the new biochemical findings, alone. In the time from 1981 (really somewhere before and it was then cited in texts such as by Wallace, King, and Sanders in "Biology: the Science of Life", before fourth edition) until now, research has been progressing on the contents of mitochondria, and a striking resemblance has been found between those contents and those of bdellovibrio.

 

So, it appears that Margulis has moved her "chip of support" from the basic biochemistry of the purple nonsulfurs to the pseudomonads. This is the mistake! (Not that the purple nonsulfurs were the end-all in the debate! You will soon see, quite the contrary!) Under the current line of thinking, as the mutualistic symbiosis progressed between endosymbiont and host, redundancy was screened out of the endosymbiont.

 

 

 

The endosymbiont no longer used a large portion of its biochemistry (and conversely its genomic components), as independent existence allegedly became a thing of the past.

 

*

 

Does this mean, necessarily, that the remaining "left over" biochemistry correlations (no matter how integral to the functioning of both the mitochondrion and that of the counterpart under question) must posit a singular direct taxonomic linkage between the two? Nope, not under serial endosymbiotic theory.

*

 

Can this be akin to "cell apoptosis" for the theory? No. Not just yet.

*

 

Is the correlation between the two (that is diminution of redundancy) correct? Probably so.

*

 

The complementary behavior between mitochondrion and nucleus would infer as much. Is the origin of the relationship, a macroevolution from a pair of independent organisms necessitated for us to now see the refinement from redundancy? No.

*

 

What say you of evolution?

*

 

Are the first acts of progressing organismic metabolism (a shared dance of catabolism and anabolism) one imbued with a negotiated hyperbolic peace between predator and prey (see: Margulis, Lynn, "Microcosmos", 1997) or does life follow the apparent path of the Universe, a series of transparently stoic acts of Cosmos from Chaos? (Pick up a text of a creation myth.)

 

In defense of one or the other, I would reference to

 

"http//unisci.com/stories/19992/0621995.htm” for hierarchy through "productivity" (Drossel, Barbara, University of Manchester in England), conservation of gene clusters (Andersson, Siv G.E. and Eriksson, Kimmo "Dynamics of Gene Order Structures and Genomic Architectures", Department of Molecular Evolution, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Sweden; as published on the internet, and a refutation to the Dawkin’s "Selfish Gene Theory" as published by Unisci "Daily University Science News" Efros, David R., [New England Complex Systems Institute], with an opinion defense by Dr. Bar-Yam, Yaneer, 04/25/2000).

 

 

 

I remain prepared (and would encourage) to debate the issuance of my opinions, relative the relevance between the aforementioned orders of magnitude."

 

A little further on, he has further reflections on the endosymbiotic theory proposed by Margulis...

 

"I believe that the scientists, including Margulis (but no mistake I have great admiration for her work), are too busy focusing on the newer biochemistry, then jumping from one foot to another in the search for the closest present biochemical counterpart, all the while praying that Gregor Mendel will justify their beliefs with results of Polymerase Chain Reaction. I have been guilty of the same.

 

Photomicrographs taken by Dan of Ganesh particle

 

 

Neo-Darwinism is an attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics, which says that organisms do not change with time, with Darwinism, which claims they do.

 

— Lynn Margulis

 

*

 

Artificial selection never produces wholly new characteristics. There is no evidence that natural selection without the input of new genes does either.

 

*

 

The notion that mutation and recombination can compose new genes is implausible.

 

*

 

There is scant evidence that mutation and recombination can compose functional new genes that differ from any known predecessor by more than, say, a dozen essential nucleotides.

 

*

 

The evolution of antifreeze glycoproteins in Antarctic cod presents problems for both programs.

 

*

 

Evolution does not appear to be gradual, contrary to Darwin’s firm prediction.

 

*

 

The standard theory cannot explain why the coordinating genes that control the development of embryos and major features are often very similar across totally different species.

 

*

 

Convergent evolution is a surprise not well-explained by neo-Darwinism.

 

*

 

Macroevolutionary progress is not accounted for by neo-Darwinian microevolution.(3)

 

In accordance with new ideas on evolutionary biology beyond the neo-Darwinistic approach Dan finds that,

 

1) life comes from space

 

2) the genesis seed has evidence of intelligent design and operation (not alien intelligence, but a cosmic creator intelligence).

 

Here is what he has to say about it:

 

“ Since my beginning within M_-# I have had the distinct honor of having been assigned to some of the most interesting projects known to humankind. From the work of Project Aquarius to the sands of the Iraq desert, I have attempted to (Com1: Block text set...) ...serve my country with the greatest effort and efficiency. I deeply hope that my latest assignment, in Africa, has served the interests of the United States of America. For the past decade, I have been slowly formulating a thesis, bringing together the research of the greatest minds of humanity to attempt an answer to the ages old question of our origins. That formulation culminated in the L Project, later named Project S Fl.

 

 

 

In a nutshell, we have found the key elements to put together an ancient virus that not only once seeded our beautiful planet, but whose integral parts still play an act of continuous creation within the intricate web of life. That play, we believe, pushes forward the complexity found within the biosphere, to perfectly match species diversity to the other elements of our living world.

 

 

 

This sounds wonderful, however, just as there exists subtle behavioral cues within child’s play, so to we believe that such also resides, hidden within the conjoined L. Being armed with the most ancient DNA codes, having the power to manipulate the dance of the L; does not give us sufficient knowledge, the authority of its maker, or the right itself to conjoin, synthesize, or otherwise taunt it or its awesome powers. Our span of control exists within the narrow range of careful study. To do more, we risk humanity..."

 

Much of what Dan describes is very technical and deals with protocols and procedures. I am currently contacting friendly scientists to help decipher some of this. There is more to all of this which has been added from other confidential sources. It is always easy to dismiss these extraordinary claims, but I believe in going beyond skepticism and investigating every nuance. There is much going on here that will finally make sense to those with keen intuition.

 

We discussed DNA, but it is not just the structure of the molecules in DNA, but the resonances and vibrations that relate to extraordinary mathematical harmonies. If DNA is seeded on planets, as Dan believes through a virus that split into two components, then cosmic seeding of planets is the norm and those planets which have developed the right conditions (geological intelligent design or the gaia hypothesis) where atmosphere, lithosphere, and magnetic field parameters are all fine-tuned for the development and flourishing of life by life itself.

 

Gaia Hypothesis

’...the physical and chemical condition of the surface of the Earth, of the atmosphere, and of the oceans has been and is actively made fit and comfortable by the presence of life itself. This is in contrast to the conventional wisdom which held that life adapted to the planetary conditions as it and they evolved their separate ways.’’

 

Elsewhere, in relation to the definition of Gaia we find the following:

 

"The entire range of living matter on Earth from whales to viruses and from oaks to algae could be regarded as constituting a single living entity capable of maintaining the Earth’s atmosphere to suit its overall needs and endowed with faculties and powers far beyond those of its constituent parts...[Gaia can be defined] as a complex entity involving the Earth’s biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil; the totality constituting a feedback of cybernetic systems which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet."

 

And in another section we find speculative thoughts concerning Gaia, and one’s which probably appealed to many of the readers who supported the various environmental groups, but at the same time provoked the hard-lined scientific critics of the Gaia Hypothesis:

 

"To what extent is our collective intelligence also a part of Gaia? Do we as a species constitute a Gaian nervous system and a brain which can consciously anticipate environmental changes?" [p147]

 

The Gaia Hypothesis has often been described by commentators as one of the most provoking singular ideas to have been put forward in the second half of this century, and while it struggled to be formally accepted in the fields of the traditional sciences in the 1970’s and early 1980’s, it certainly managed to provoke its share of debate. During this period, Lovelock prepared for a second publication.

 

Another theory discussed by Dan is that of endosymbiosis. This theory is propounded by Lynn Margulis and goes hand-in-hand with the Gaia Hypothesis.

 

“Effectively, Lynn Margulis contended that symbiosis, not chance mutation, was the driving force behind evolution and that the cooperation between organisms and the environment are the chief agents of natural selection -- not competition among individuals. She says that,

 

"Darwin’s grand vision was not wrong, only incomplete. This was a little much to handle for some of her critics, and at first her theory was not accepted, especially in its original appearance alongside that of the Gaia Hypothesis: There were two fundamental components of Lovelock and Margulis’s Gaia theory:

 

*

 

The planet is, in Margulis’s words, a "super organismic system"

*

 

Evolution is the result of cooperative not competitive processes.

 

At that time in 1969, her paper was rejected by over a dozen scientific journals because no one knew how to evaluate it. Finally, after a long and hard struggle against peer-reviewed resistance, she prevailed. The extent of vision and perseverance with her emerging theory is often measured by the reviews of critics. It is therefore quite rewarding to find that one of the leading critics of the Gaia Hypothesis, Richard Dawkins, in reference to the separately contrived theory by Margulis states the following:

 

"I greatly admire Lynn Margulis’ sheer courage and stamina in sticking by the endosymbiosis theory, and carrying it through from being an unorthodoxy to an orthodoxy. This is one of the great achievements of twentieth-century evolutionary biology, and I greatly admire her for it."

 

At the present time in contemporary scientific circles, what was once regarded as an absurd speculation is now taken as self-evident truth. Most recent biology textbooks include reference to Lynn Margulis’ theory of endosymbiosis, the majority of them put it forward as the most likely explanation of the origin and evolution of life on the planet we know as Earth.”

 

=========================================================

 

This post can be moved to another proper sub-forum if considered necessary. Or deleted.

[pantheory]

You need to summarize what you are arguing for or against, and what your contentions or proposal to the contrary is. Very few will enjoy reading through this material without a simple comprehensive teaser to start with IMO.

Edited August 23, 2011 by pantheory

[Essay]

Hi.

 

Is this a diarrheical collection of scientific terms meant to confuse or makes reasonable sense to an expert ?

 

In other words, was it written by a clown or an educated scientist ?

Where was this copied from is irrelevant. My question is only about the interaction/interrelation of the terminology along the paragraphs.

 

 

 

http://www.amazon.co...h/dp/3540385770

 

I enjoyed this book [Predatory Prokaryotes] recently, and the terminology in the first part of "your post" [their postings] sounds similar. They are not making up funny names or silly words.

 

In the middle of "your post," it sounds a bit flakey. Some things sound wrong (or a bit pseudosciencey), but they still make sense in relation to the topic and other terminology.

 

At the end of "your post," things sound like a different discussion (with a unique perspective), but it is still based on real science.

===

 

They may be wrong (or overselling a perspective) occasionally, but they aren't clowns spouting gibberish. I'm sure this is very interesting and enlightening for those involved. I'm intrigued, but it won't change where we are now and i'm too busy to follow up.

It was nice to hear of bdellovibrio and the purple nonsulfurs again, though; thanks!

 

[re: their comments or general direction....]

I'd suggest that "cooperative evolution" may have been more prevalent during the earliest stages of evolution--even as early as between the first cell and the last universal ancestor; however "competitive evolution" would become more prevalent after the basic biochemistry was settled.

See: Koch, "Bacterial Growth & Form"

http://www.amazon.co...h/dp/0412028719

 

...or google, "between the first cell and the last universal ancestor" to read:

http://books.google....id=7lLQeFRgIgUC

 

...or: http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/1402032056

The Bacteria: Their Origin, Structure, Function and Antibiosis By Arthur L. Koch

===

 

...It's like having your own time machine.

 

~

Edited August 23, 2011 by Essay

[Externet]

Thanks a million, Essay.

You let there be light. Deep educated terminology can be overwhelming to someone who knows peanuts about biology. :)

The document/author can now be believed as truthful.