EU and Human Origins

What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: EU and Human Origins

Unread postby tholden » Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:19 pm

CuriousCat wrote:Whether humans are indigenous to this planet or not, we do seem to be here now. I know, I'm overstating the obvious.

Cat


In business that's called a "hostile takeover"...
tholden
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: EU and Human Origins

Unread postby hex » Mon Apr 29, 2013 9:24 am

tholden wrote:
There was no day time or day light in those times.

http://saturndeathcult.com/the-sturn-de ... rple-haze/


I wonder about photosynthesis under those conditions
hex
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:07 am

Re: EU and Human Origins

Unread postby tholden » Sun May 05, 2013 4:25 pm

hex wrote:
tholden wrote:
There was no day time or day light in those times.

http://saturndeathcult.com/the-sturn-de ... rple-haze/


I wonder about photosynthesis under those conditions



http://saturndeathcult.com/the-sturn-de ... rple-haze/

....This purple dawn period would have produced an environment of perpetual twilight, with uniform global temperatures producing virtually no wind and there being a complete inability to calculate time. All continents, including Antarctica, would have supported the continual growth of fantastically elongated and splayed reddish vegetation in tropical abundance. Adapted through its red colouring to absorbing Saturn’s radiated energy rather than its light, Earth’s vegetation would have enjoyed a complete absence of seasons and this would have contributed to a densely rich atmosphere able to supprt the flight of giant insects that we know once existed.

From orbit, the Earth would have been cast in a darkish purple hue, and its ocean levels would have been significantly lower leading to larger versions of the existing continents as well as the existence of now lost and submerged continents.......
tholden
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: EU and Human Origins

Unread postby nick c » Sun May 05, 2013 6:51 pm

hex wrote:I wonder about photosynthesis under those conditions


Photosynthesis requires light within the visible EM spectrum. However, the effectiveness is concentrated at the ends of the visible spectrum, that is the Blue and Red. Presented graphically it would form a "U." The bulk of the visible spectrum is not so effective in photosynthesis.
See:
http://www.botany.uwc.ac.za/ecotree/pho ... ectrum.htm
The red end of the spectrum is especially good:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~basey/bluer.htm
The light of a dwarf star would be concentrated in the Red end of the spectrum and conducive to photosynthesis.

From Other stars, other worlds, other life?
Since an electric star is heated externally a planet need not be destroyed by orbiting beneath its anode glow. In fact life is not only possible inside the glow of a small brown dwarf, it seems far more likely than on a planet orbiting outside a star! This is because the radiant energy arriving on a planet orbiting inside a glowing sphere is evenly distributed over the entire surface of the planet.
radiant_shell.jpg
radiant_shell.jpg (10.4 KiB) Viewed 7530 times

There are no seasons, no tropics and no ice-caps. A planet does not have to rotate, its axis can point in any direction and its orbit can be eccentric. The radiant energy received by the planet will be strongest at the blue and red ends of the spectrum. Photosynthesis relies on red light. Sky light would be a pale purple (the classical “purple dawn of creation”). L-type Brown Dwarfs have water as a dominant molecule in their spectra, along with many other biologically important molecules and elements. Its “children” would accumulate atmospheres and water would mist down. It is therefore of particular interest that most of the extra-solar planets discovered are gas giants, several times the size of Jupiter, orbiting their star extremely closely. It is our system of distantly orbiting planets that seems the odd one out. In fact it argues in favor of a galactic traffic accident between the Sun and a sub-Brown Dwarf like Jupiter or Saturn.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2464
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: EU and Human Origins

Unread postby celeste » Mon May 06, 2013 12:54 am

What I find interesting is that the eye is not adapted to deal with ultraviolet light. Cataracts, retinal degeneration,etc,are damage caused especially by light in the UV portion of the spectrum. It's not just man, but other animals as well, that seem ill equipped to deal with the sun's ultraviolet light. Which leads me to wonder why no one seems to have followed up on this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2793364
My question here would be what caused that split in evolutionary development between these two species. And maybe important to the Saturn hypothesis, is when did this split start (and how fast can the split occur). Also do we see changes in ascorbic acid in other animals over time (maybe indicating evolution still occuring in adapting to our modern sun?). If changes to our solar system were as recent as Saturn theory suggests, maybe mice are at an advantage in adapting, since they produce more generations in a given period of time?
I guess what puzzles me the most is that with all the different eye adaptations we do see between animals, so many different species just happen to be stuck when it comes to finding a way to deal with UV? It does seem most likely that our earth in the fairly recent past, was not lit by such a UV source as our current sun.
celeste
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: EU and Human Origins

Unread postby celeste » Mon May 06, 2013 9:23 am

One more point I would make, is that many arctic animals have adapted to see in UV,and also be protected from eye damage due to UV. The standard explanation, is that these animals needed to adapt because of the snowy conditions in the arctic (snow reflecting lots of UV). That may be the case, but that makes things more puzzling. How can animals have adapted so well in these extreme arctic UV conditions, and yet animals in more equatorial regions still suffer from UV related eye damage (and blindness) from lesser amounts of UV radiation?
celeste
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: EU and Human Origins

Unread postby tholden » Mon May 06, 2013 9:56 am

celeste wrote:One more point I would make, is that many arctic animals have adapted to see in UV,and also be protected from eye damage due to UV. The standard explanation, is that these animals needed to adapt because of the snowy conditions in the arctic (snow reflecting lots of UV). That may be the case, but that makes things more puzzling. How can animals have adapted so well in these extreme arctic UV conditions, and yet animals in more equatorial regions still suffer from UV related eye damage (and blindness) from lesser amounts of UV radiation?


Our entire living world is built on a system of information and information-processing (DNA/RNA etc.)

Even microevolution appears to be possibly only when the information to allow a creature to adapt to differing surroundings/conditions is built into the creature a priori. Macroevolution of course is a sort of a myth or fairytale.

What we see in the cases of dinosaurs and hominids with their huge eyes on the one hand, and humans and dolphins with their smallish eyes on the other, is not adaptation or microevolution. As I noted originally, that is a case of creatures originally designed for a very dark world (this planet), and a fairly bright one (Ganymede).

Creatures like deer which appear to see in UV spectrums may actually be from some other place originally, I don't have any sort of a theory for that one.
tholden
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: EU and Human Origins

Unread postby tholden » Mon May 06, 2013 10:07 am

This one would actually have made a good straight line for the Carson show...

How dark was it (50,000 years ago)??


It was so dark that...
tholden
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: EU and Human Origins

Unread postby tholden » Mon May 06, 2013 10:48 am

Troy's response to the question of photosynthesis:

Question
In ‘Timeless Age of Purple Haze’ I notice you state plants were red to absorb the Saturnian light. Any colour surface reflects the colour which we see, absorbing the remaining (complementary) spectra. I would say that GREEN is actually the perfect colour for leaves in that environment as it absorbs red and blue spectra. I have tried to convince various experts but they avoid the significance. The current star is not so well suited having a higher yellow component, which is reflected.

Response
You [my correspondent] are essentially correct in your understanding that a plant’s optical surface colour is its reflective filter for ensuring the correct amount of radiated energy reacts with its chlorophyll component to produce photosynthesis.
However, the key to vegetation appearing with a reddish hue when exposed to a sub-brown dwarf’s predominantly blue-red light spectrum is the existence of the largely dormant and more ancient light sensitive molecule found in plants called ‘retinal’. Retinal acts in the opposite way to chlorophyll and, when dominant in a plant, behaves precisely as you say it would under a red-biased light spectrum — it filters the reddish radiant energy to the correct proportion of radiant light required.

Dwardu Cardona sums it up best:

“Shil DasSarma, a microbial geneticist at the University of Mayland, found himself pondering why chlorophyll, which is the major photosynthetic pigment of vegetation, absorbs blue and red solar wavelengths while reflecting green ones since, as already noted, the Sun transmits most of its radiative energy in the green part of the visible spectrum. His eventual solution to the problem, which had long puzzled biologists, is that chlorophyll appeared [in the proposed evolutionary cycle] after another light-sensitive molecule, known as retinal, was already ensconced on early Earth. In opposition to chlorophyll, retinal absorbs green light while reflecting red and violet. Although the names we give to some colours do not mean the same to everyone, the combination of red and violet is said to result in the color purple. Retinal and chlorophyll are both found in different microbes, and the former would have lent organisms a purple hue. The outcome of this, according to DarSarma, is that the "earliest life on Earth might have been just as purple as it is green today..."

Dwardu Cardona, Primordial Star, p32 (quoting K. Than, "Early Earth was Purple, Study Suggests," livescience.com (April 10, 2007)

The above quoted conclusions of DarSarma gains extra credence if we assume Earth was originally bathed in the blue-red light spectrum of a brown dwarf star - thus facilitating this purple hued arrangement as vegetation’s original condition. All that remains for mainstream science is to find a model in which the current Sun's light was once sufficiently filtered to allow the purple-hued element in plants to become predominant - a problem solved if we 'simply' swap the Sun for a brown dwarf.

Also, and this is what sold the red vegetation concept to me, we still see purple-hued vegetation on Earth, mostly in the filtered environment of the oceans’ depths where red-coloured seaweeds and coral abound and the light spectrum approaches that of a brown dwarf. For those looking to get a hint at what kind of atmosphere enveloped the Earth under Saturn, an ocean dive down to about 15 feet will approximate the purplish gloom experienced by early humans.

"Studies have thus indicated that "the colour of a planet's photosynthetic organisms depend on the type of star the world orbits and the make up of its atmosphere." What this means is that if trees grow on other planets their leaves might be anything but green. Take red and brown dwarf stars, for instance, both of which give off less visible light. Any plants growing on planets associated with them, according to Nancy King of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, might even be black. And while it has been voted "the least likely plant colour on any planet", under certain conditions, even blue could be possible."

Dwardu Cardona, Primordial Star, p31-32 (see for his refs: K. Than, "Colorful Worlds: Plants on Other Planets Might not be Green," Space.com, April 11, 2007 and J. Barone, "Extraterrestrial Landscaping," Discover (July 2007), p.15)
End of Response
tholden
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: EU and Human Origins

Unread postby celeste » Mon May 06, 2013 1:44 pm

tholden wrote:
celeste wrote:One more point I would make, is that many arctic animals have adapted to see in UV,and also be protected from eye damage due to UV. The standard explanation, is that these animals needed to adapt because of the snowy conditions in the arctic (snow reflecting lots of UV). That may be the case, but that makes things more puzzling. How can animals have adapted so well in these extreme arctic UV conditions, and yet animals in more equatorial regions still suffer from UV related eye damage (and blindness) from lesser amounts of UV radiation?


Our entire living world is built on a system of information and information-processing (DNA/RNA etc.)

Even microevolution appears to be possibly only when the information to allow a creature to adapt to differing surroundings/conditions is built into the creature a priori. Macroevolution of course is a sort of a myth or fairytale.

What we see in the cases of dinosaurs and hominids with their huge eyes on the one hand, and humans and dolphins with their smallish eyes on the other, is not adaptation or microevolution. As I noted originally, that is a case of creatures originally designed for a very dark world (this planet), and a fairly bright one (Ganymede).

Creatures like deer which appear to see in UV spectrums may actually be from some other place originally, I don't have any sort of a theory for that one.


Let's take the case of canines for a minute. Notice that the artic fox is well adapted to UV, but also,the Australian shepherd is known for genetic proneness to cataracts, compared to north american breeds. I don't think you will argue that all these dogs are from different systems. What is clear,is that we have a spread in ability to handle UV:dogs at north polar region more adapted to uv,dogs nearer equator less adapted, dogs in australia (north pole not even visible),least adapted. This suggests to me possibly that if our earth was mostly illuminated by a more red star, it is possible that a more luminous UV source was located at earth's north pole at one time. At least that makes more sense to me than suggesting we had dogs coming from more than one planet. Especially since we have from Talbott and others that we HAD a polar alignment of some bodies in the past,and a change to our current sun.
celeste
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: EU and Human Origins

Unread postby tholden » Tue May 07, 2013 5:36 am

Let's take the case of canines for a minute. Notice that the artic fox is well adapted to UV, but also,the Australian shepherd is known for genetic proneness to cataracts, compared to north american breeds. I don't think you will argue that all these dogs are from different systems.


They might be, i.e. I do not rule it out. I see two possibilities only: either the dogs are from different systems or the information which allows the fox to process uv light was there from the beginning. Similarly chickens have the genetic information for teeth and experiments in which that gene is turned on produce chickens with teeth, i.e. you don't have to ADD anything which wasn't there a priori.
tholden
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: EU and Human Origins

Unread postby STR » Wed May 22, 2013 7:24 am

I believe you can easily prove that not only are we indigenous to this planet and this system but we are locked into it. I have read a number of things over the years and one thing that stood out to me was how the Mayans kept the sun cycle records. They knew that when the sun went into certain cycles that reproduction would be difficult as an example. They knew in advance according to what I have seen, and they could put the word out, 'make many babies' and the people did. They did this in prep for the coming cycle based one what I was told by a medicine woman in Zuni Pueblo years ago because they would know when fertility rates dropped and when seasonal changes occurred with these things the priests were on top of it!

On average woman of this system have a 28 day cycle. Men a 33 day on average. Experiments in the 50s already show that if you seal a woman off from the sun and moon frequencies her 28 day cycle disrupts. In time it stops, which means 'no more babies from this woman' so leave this system and what do you expect happens to our species? I mean if the sun can shift just a bit and cause infertility here where we are from what do you suppose happens when you are no where near it at all out there somewhere in another foreign system? Do you suppose you'll adapt? Maybe those frequencies will kill you? Maybe shorten your life, or maybe you'll just go so frickin' haywire long before that due to bio rhythm disruption that it would not even matter? To you men out there I propose this. I've been married 30 years. Sometimes when my wife gets 'hormonal' I can't say the computer room is far enough away. So, when one of the females of our species does this shape shift in space magnified by the disruption of no more sun and moon to regulate her body functions how you suppose you'll deal? Remember its 50 million miles one way to get home! I know I know. Space walk! :mrgreen:

Folks we ain't going no where. Not and surviving as a species anyways. Even the Mayans knew that.
STR
Guest
 

Re: EU and Human Origins

Unread postby tholden » Sun May 26, 2013 9:53 pm

tholden
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: EU and Human Origins

Unread postby tholden » Tue Jun 25, 2013 6:47 pm

Cosmos in Collision is now available as a full color paperback.

These books are a bit pricier than we had hoped, but not overwhelmingly so and still under $50. The problem is that there is no inexpensive way to manufacture a color paperback book. Cosmos in Collision is heavily illustrated and the illustrations work much better in color. If you think of C in C as a textbook of sorts, it will be one of the less expensive ones in today's market and the illustrations are substantially above average for textbooks.

http://www.amazon.com/Cosmos-Collision- ... +mclachlan
tholden
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: EU and Human Origins

Unread postby allynh » Tue Jul 30, 2013 1:34 pm

The book came in from Amazon and am reading it now, I'm on page 40. I stumbled on this just out that is too fun not to share.

Human Species Created From Pigs and Chimps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIrE9TaC2rc

Georgia geneticist challenges evolution, links humans to pigs
http://saportareport.com/blog/2013/07/m ... evolution/

A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans?
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig- ... umans.html

Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-human-hybr ... dence.html

This is the original site.

Human Origins - Are we hybrids?
http://www.macroevolution.net/human-ori ... fgTxeBVd4V
allynh
 
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Human Question

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest