Ok I looked it up. This is exactly what I'm talking about. And you see it in nature.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypic_plasticity


I'd like to point out that I have no science background whatsoever and yet I am thinking about concepts and ideas that have been studied and proven for years.

So cut me some slack. Obviously I'm not entirely off base.

Your original comment to me was that there was NOTHING to back this up. These ants definitely back up what I am saying. Its flat out evidence that the same genetic code can develop in different ways based on the environment and conditions is it not?

Cut you some slack? I'm helping you out.

I didn't say that there was nothing to back it up, I said that you had presented nothing to back it up.

What you're proposing would require that every single species could exhibit vast phenotypic differences, but they don't. How can that be explained? So for example, if we bring a camel half way round the world to a temperate climate, we should see a preferable change.

That's not what I'm saying. That's surface. I'm saying that the EARTH has triggers for this to keep a balance. Its inherent in the creature.

Human interference in nature is generally not good. I would say perhaps that domesticating cats and dogs might be an example of how it benefits the creature. But in general what we do when we mess around with nature is cause problems.


But cut back to their being NO human intervention and we might see a more specific example of what the ant situation means.

The ant situation means that there are different instructions that are activated by the environment.

Perhaps this is what causes the animal to change rather than simply adaption. Perhaps there are whales that can go into the sea and whales that remain on land. So rather than there being a loooooooooooooong drawn out baby steps evolution process there can be leaps.

Hold on, one of the tenets of deductive logic is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so the fact that we don't see phenotypic plasticity in other species is not proof that it's not there. Maybe given the proper stimuli we would see these changes just like with the pigs conversion to wild hogs.

OK, so are you saying humans are not part of nature or is this support for the idea that life is an infestation on the planet?

So to make sure I'm understanding you properly, a species needs to adapt and so the planet itself will somehow (consciously?) trigger the change? Okay, that's well beyond the realm of our scientific understand, but okay. Now ruling out phenotypic plasticity accordingly...

He said the dream implied that the planets themselves are using lightning for communication - like morse code. I theorized maybe someone ON the planets could communicate with lightning, but the dream didn't imply that anywhere.

He had these repeated dreams where a voice told him about the formation of the solar system and human evolution and the like. Some of the things you'd hear at school, and some things not many people know about

OK, true, back to your idea of the planet being alive, I have a question: "Have you any idea how life forms would be generated (notice, staying away from loaded words like "evolved" or "created" (not like Raptor )? "

Snakes camoflauge themselves and lie still. How are the mice hearing and seeing them? Can you please send me a link to a scientific article about this special "mouse radar" they've developed?

Sand dunes are created by wind. Mountains are created by tectonic movement. I'm not letting a religion steal a word from me, alright?





Now for some extra info:

Mouse Biology

The average lifespan of a wild mouse is typically one to two years, while mice kept as pets usually live about three years and have survived up to six years. Mice reach sexual maturity at between five and six weeks of age and have tremendous reproductive potential. They breed throughout the year and may produce as many as eight litters in a single year, with the average litter consisting of four to seven pups. Female mice care for young pups who are fully furred at ten days old and weaned at about three weeks. After this time, young mice venture out of the nest and leave their mother's territory, although female mice frequently remain nearby.

The mouse's sense of smell is perhaps the most important of the five senses. A wide range of pheromones, or olfactory social signals, and other smells are key in communication regarding social dominance and family composition. Through territorial marking, mice are able to speed up or r****** sexual maturation in juvenile females, synchronize reproductive cycles in mature females, and terminate pregnancies. Smell is also critical for survival, alerting mice to food and predators.

Hearing is also an important sense in mice and helps compensate for their poor eyesight, which is particularly true of the albino mice used in research. Mice are highly sensitive to sound, detecting frequencies from 10-70 kHz and possibly up to 100 kHz. (The human range is from 200 Hz to 16 kHz, with the most important range below 6 kHz.) Sounds with frequencies over 20 kHz are considered ultrasonic or beyond the range of human hearing. Mice are able to hear ultrasonic sound and even use it for communication in a variety of circumstances, including parent-pup relations, sexual encounters and stressful situations.


http://www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/sp...arch/mouse.html


Edit: whoops forgot to add link

That's not a straw man. You were making the postive claim of special mouse senses. Also, the article did not mention anything about detecting snakes. It just said "predators" which is pretty generic, because there are obviously animals that hunt mice that make more noise than snakes. Snakes generally lie perfectly still and make little to no sound.

They use their sense of smell.

Can they smell snakes?

I use my sense of smell too, but that doesn't mean I can smell everything.

Maybe I made a mistake and really they aren't able to detect snakes with absolute precision, but it was a brief discussion about a hypothetical scenario. Jesus tapdancing Christ. The principle of my claim still stands.

The rodents use their hearing, it's why their ears are normally proportionate to their heads. Snakes are always flat on the ground, so any scent they have will be mixed up in the pollen and anything else surrounding them and their prey.

The rodents ears are normally more effective against predator-mammals. As they're more full of scent due to it catching on their hairs. Only real way to catch a snake is if you see it before it bites.


Humans also used to have acute sense of smell, albeit a very long time ago. We haven't had any need for the acute-smell since we began herding and farming - no sense in hunting for game when you can raise them yourself, and as such we eventually lost it.

Our large sinuses are the left overs of the times our sense of smell was more acute. Now they're just prone to infections. As they're pretty much unused for what they first evolved for, as with wisdom teeth.

OK.

SaRuMaN has already tried to get you on topic. HE specifically refered to you when doing so WalkingWithFire.

So I would like to reiterate, this is a discussion of the Gaia Hypothesis and how it relates to our current ideas. It is NOT the place to discuss Evolution or adaption or any other similar ideas, there are a myriad of threads for that purpose.

Please keep to the topic of this thread as set out by the OP.

Sorry, I posted my view on this topic earlier today.

And since then you and several others have digressed from the topic into a discussion of Evolution and the processes inherent in the theory. This is not the place for it.

Truethat

In regards to the first post:

If I am not mistaken, your initial speculation revolves around an assumption that, to my admittedly limited knowledge, has neither been proven nor disproved - that is, that all life on Earth originated on this planet. While geogenisis is the most widely accepted hypothesis, the exogenisis (panspermia) hypothesis has not been entirely ruled out. The seeds of life may have originated elsewhere and were planted here while the Earth was in it's early formative stages (I'm referring to the more plausible theory that it was brought here through impacts with asteroids and meteors, and not the silly notion that ETs dropped it off from their space ships). If that were the case, then the Earth couldn't be considered "alive" and would simply be a nourishing piece of real estate, if you will, where life took hold and grew.

You also mentioned that perhaps life on Earth could be an infestation (my word), or possibly the result of a dying planet's decay. If you do feel that this is a possibility then I don't understand why you bring up the genetic code.

For instance, one of your speculations is that (assuming geogenisis is the correct hypothesis) life sprang forth with every possible permutation of existence written in it's code from the start (if I am in error, please let me know). This seems highly unlikely. The life that first sprang forth did so because conditions were favorable to it. The conditions in which that life arose were immensely different than they are today and have gone through extremely radical changes throughout the billions of years that life has existed here.

My question to you is, why would life emerge with a pre-written code which would allow it to simply mutate into a new form to exist in a new environment when that new environment did not yet exist? You speculate that the first lifeforms already had the capacity to become humans, when in fact, back then the Earth didn't even have a breathable atmosphere. Isn't it more likely that the code was added to and modified while life evolved on Earth?

Also, what does that have to do with Earth being a living organism? Are you in a round about way saying that Earth is in a literal sense our mother? Just asking.

The more I think about what you've said the more confused I get, and I'm really trying to have an open mind.

If, again as you've speculated, a planet lives and dies, then what about the idea of terraforming? Hypothetically, it could be possible to transform the surface of another planet into an hospitable environment to human life. Now, if that planet were dead in the strictest sense of the word, then terraforming it would be akin to resurrection. Aside from religious beliefs, it's never been possible to bring back anything from the dead.

These are not meant as counter arguments, but simply thoughts/questions of my own.

Being a Druid I truly believe that the earth is alive. Look around you the plants flowers trees all form some kind of function on the planet, how many humans can you say that about? Look at the sea & everything in it thats alive why else would it be called the living sea? Of course this me one of the things I base my fatih on.

mhm. As to the Earth being alive, personally I can't really see that, at least not in anyway that we could ever comprehend.

As has been said life is characterized as being Carbon Based, Able to Reproduce etc and the Earth as far as we can tell does not do this.

Is it possible that our interpretation of life is to narrow... yes of course, science is always open to the idea that it is wrong, this is part of what makes it science, however I truly doubt that this is a n area in which it will be changed.

In truth I don't know that a living earth would be particularly relevant to us anyhow.

I don't think the Earth is living entity. It has the resources to support life but it is not a living creature in my Opinion.

AtlantisRises

I agree that the Earth (or any other planet/moon for that matter) does not fit the current understanding of what constitutes a living organism.

I also feel that it would bare little or no relevance to our existence. If it were alive it could practically be considered immortal compared to our life span.

The reason I played devil's advocate against my own logic (if that makes any sense) is because I once wrote a novella in which the Earth was a living organism. In my story I simply side stepped any explanations as to how this could be possible and wrote it as a horror story.

Looking back on it I've often wondered just how plausible the scenario I created just might be. To date, however, I've never been able to come up with a compelling and plausible explanation.

Still, it's been a fun exercising my imagination.

If I knew that for a fact I'd be a rich person...
We can actually view, at the cellular level, new life being formed by cells uniting, creating another life form in a petrie dish. If we know it can happen in a petrie dish - why can't it happen out of that petrie dish? Maybe this planet is one magnificent petrie dish...

No, it isn't. That plant in the pot couldn't grow unless something is feeding it... There is absolutely no comparison to a potted plant and how the earth recycles and replenishes...
How long do you think the earth could sustain growth without insects and worms? Are they essential to growth, or just good bait for trout?
The *earth*, as in soil, is always renewing, via insects, old growth dying and recycling back into the soil, and worms feeding and leaving waste that is fundamental to the soil. We don't live in a pot...we live on a living organism.

You contradict yourself in your own comment. In other words, the Earth is a pot (so to speak) filled with living organisms.

The earth IS VERY alive, I have witnessed it live. enough said from me

It's debatable, imo, whether or not humanity is natural to this planet. This is because we're the only species that is destroying it's life support and, seemingly, completely oblivious to our destructive ways. Anything "natural" to an environment will do what ever it takes to sustain that environment, not destroy it.
Edit: Qualifying anything "natural" - as a living species, not necessarily a volcano... : )

Volcanoes, even though their immediate destructive force seems more decimating than propogating...the end result is usually a positive for the environment.



Exactly. How can we say the earth isn't alive when it teems with life? Even on levels we cannot see...

And has the ability to COMPLETELY wipe out all life on it with 100% efficiency? Even though we've basically been raping it since we invented sex!?!!?!?

REALLY OMGZ!?!?! NO WAY!!! AND ALL THIS TIME I THOUGHT ALL THESE TREES AND BIRDS WERE FAKE!!! I'M A SARCASTIC a******!!!

But the Earth doesn't grow (discounting the accumulation of space debris). All you're describing is an ecosystem.

Oh please...don't put words in my mouth. They're your words, your contradiction. A plant confined to a pot needs to be sustained. The earth sustains itself... there is no comparison.

lol yes you are, but what i was saying is seeing the trees move, the plants slither, the earth is very alive. some people will understand what I'm saying others won't, it only natural. you sarcastic a******!!!!

First I was like then I was like We are to the pot what the worms are to the earth. You get an F, for FAIL!

??? What do you think an eco system is - it's a living system which sustains itself if not poisoned or interfered with. An ecosystem teems with life... This planet is an ecosystem...a living one.

You get an A+!



The organisms on the planet make up the ecosystem. Trees, fungus, animals etc. are all organisms! Not the Earth itself.

The only people that are gonna understand you are people who do lots of drugs, and me. I understand you because I see lots of people make themselves sound stupid, by trying to say something deep. Ever hear of wind?

And you get a D for delusional... there is NO pot...except in your mind.

you guys are entertaining ..... though i will stay out of this one lol

Clearly the only person here who has a large foreign object in their cranium is you!

Without them there wouldn't be a planet earth...no trees, no fungus, no animals... I can't believe this has to be spelled out... we'd be just another Mars or Venus...
A potted plant cannot sustain itself. It needs tending to by someone. The earth can sustain itself. It doesn't need a human to sustain it. The earth will continue to live without us on it...the trees will grow, so will the animals... We, however, cannot live without the earth.

No you wont! I'm still waiting for a reply on post #238!!!!

Look I can be ignorant too!

You just clearly stated that it's the organisms on the Earth that are alive and not the Earth itself. How can you not see this?

All you're saying is that "without life there would be no life". Our planet is rocky with lots of ocean. The grass and fields you see etc. are all organisms on the planet. Not the planet itself.



You missed my point completely.

You're saying that the Earth is alive because there is life on it. So by that logic, a plant pot must also be alive because there is also life on it.

oh ok ok, i see, you like conflict lol, i wasnt trying to sound deep at all. and like i said you got your reply now ill leave this topic alone. but yes i have heard people sound stupid trying to say something deep before. i think gray lady pointed one out

I'm done now, enough with this topic for me. I hear the wind calling me to another topic

plus we are killing the earth anyways, and personally I like the way you debate topics

What part of the earth is the plant pot?

Just the plant pot. It's not a metaphor so there's no point trying to extend it, it's just an application of graylady's logic.

If something harbours life then it must be alive. The Earth harbours life so it must be alive. A plant pot harbours life so it must be alive. So is my chair.

The Earth needs the sun for the life on the planet to exist I think even the moon plays a part in our existence also.


The planet itself is not a living entity. It is a rock which has the the right conditions for life to live on it.