A Living Earth

It WILL matter somewhat crucially (in so far as my own ability is concerned) as to if this is really PRE CELLULAR or not if you intend to bring the hypothesis AGAINST "Creationism". The outstanding issue seems to be if bad biological determinism is being avoided how is the causality of your new human design NOT one that does not require a maker other than you. Since come kind of biological causality and not Jacob's junk yard cobbler (unless you are taking a strict Wolfram view) by summing to a "pre"cellular state you could have design hypothetically but without chance randomly being the button hole of the causal evolutionist against a creationist but in the random chance that it is plausible still one would not have argued away (sans the cell) any conceiveable assymetry yet if it IS pre-ceullar you would have a better go of it(especially as to the probabilites).

If the issue IS NOT precelluar then Galvani's issue of animal or metalic electricity IS relevant as the advance in understanding of dielectrics (even up to Feynman) does not differntiate the logical difference between between Volta and Galvani-Faraday.

Have you not ASSUMMED** that the frog is a Leyden Jar or that the Platypus Bill Bone is an inverted one by that simplicity in thought. If so ONE CAN NOT SIMPLY PURCHASE such a means to quantify electricity. After Einstein thought up sepeate electric and light quanta AND relative relations or not to the Eather indeed the volt meter you could have gotton for Christmass existed but if you think this must be a battle think again. THE HYPOTHESIS could be non fingo but you instead wish for a list of experimental philosophy. That's ok but it is not longer simple nor a beer. Yeast are not algae. I wish it was all as you said. Tesla had a quaint idea but I am not saying this earth is that alive. If cell death matters then assuming RNA life may also be a mistake of current "hot" biology. Animal vs Metalic vs Plant ELECTRICITY is a really thinkable option that may not exclude your clouds. I thouht that a neat idea.

I am afraid you have spoken before you knew me wise wise. Best of luck in the NewYEAR. Poltics is something like a network connection that has merely caught up with the way I live but it was not there in the first days of net c/eing in the sense politics is not religion these days.

Are you sure that it is a "global" electrical circuit and not merely the two disciplines of biology and physics viaing for your's or mine attention. Could it NOT be not the negative (non bold below) of Volta but rather the positive interpretation of the same ontological confidence we both could hold no matter the third party being addressed????From Marcello Pera THE AMBIGUOUS FROG The Galvani-Volta Controversy on Animal Electricity. For it may NOT be YOUR DIELECTRIC FROM A CLOUD but instead ONLY WITHINI the organic tissue as was argued and which I can similary to the dissimalarity argue the same as Gould compared Paley -Agassiz and Fisher-Wright only this day it is c-e or e-c, I care not who starts to "debate". p.104 "At the outset, despite the lack of direct proof, VOlta regarded the existence of animal electricity as at least "concievable." And nearly half the Memoria seconda is dedicated to demonstrating this plausibility. In the first place, it was suggested by the research on the minimum charge required for contractions." It appears you and I sensu stricto will not come to agreement until after some potentially dreadful results of nanotech are either avoided or secured in safty for on page 145 I explain positively counter Volta but also question the use of a faculty of reason that post Morgen geneticts gain says from G that V did not use appropo to the current standing issue of nanoecology not nanotech, (me in bold- Volta in plain)"Herein lies the whole secrect, the magic of GALVANISM. It is simply an artifical electricity, which acts there under the impluse of contacts between different conductors. It is these that strictly speaking if biologically closed electric circuits exist function as the true prime MOTORS of baraminic blood by specific planimetric dimensionality affordance ornamentation nor is such a virtue ex,clusive to metals (Pauling on BORON) or frist-class conductors, as one first might have believed in a naive seperation of biophysics and physical chemistry . It is common to all conductors of Faraday's question if electric fish, torpedos etc, can be ALTERNATIVELY this conductor AND Symmer's insulator (page39 "Symmer's experiment - which made him known as the philosophe dechausse (barefoot philosopher)..." to varying degree, depending on their nature and fitness-"I can continue but we would be better off to find some ground of dielectric exchange before I go off on a monologue.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-30-2003][This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-30-2003]

Ok, but for me I would be questioning the existence of the geneotype-phenotype distinctioN in the CONTEXT of creation and evolution between Gould and Eldgridge CONTENT for much of the difference of their anti-c opinion user who was not me as I can easily be it resolved, if copying and duplication are -not- the same, but this incomprehensibity of IA does not get to how "ENERGY" is coupled biologically,If we find water on Mars and all that...Two species are not one but reproductive isolation does not need to pervert metabolism. It may however. Conspiring motions are altogether something other for Mother or Father etc, on earth or Bacteria on MArs etc etc.

It is undoubtedly true their are serious lacunae in the biologist's use in general of electromagentics. If I was doing only biology I would likely be more interested in focusing in on what you are saying but meanwhile... this is a c/e site and there more serious and less difficult things that need to be addressed which may speak to the same kind of communication but if indeed creationism can predict gaps farther seperated spatially than evolutionists who finding bacteria on Mars might try to insist for this station on Earth as well than room for your ideas may indeed materialize and I could comment on Baramins and your map of Europe. I see two scientific developemnts that would need to unfold before this could happen. ONE-Gould's notion of hardened adaptation would have to be DOCUMENTED to be historically inaccurate. TWO- Higher categories of classification would have to be shown to be due to new ideas in entropy. If both of these occur then it would be likely needed to show that Hyatt's planorbids' illustration can be explained IN THE SAME LIGHT that Mark25 admitted he came to on this board. I think at that point should it ever occur will be demonstrable that Niles E-'s "sloshing bucket"p88 will devolve to Newton's absolute force in locating Wright's trial and error process IN taxogeny not OUT as Eldredge preferred it. In this judged environment your ideas may grow. I dont think the Earth is alive however I think that reliance on geographic speciation will BE instead Mark25's morph change that will NOT have during scalability of a kind the same FINDABILITY that the usability would indicate no matter the e-m. Cantor had showed that continuous motion was possible in discontinuous space. This would have to apply to your stuff as well is what I am saying as I try to foist it reverse wise onto the less Wise understanding that NE fails or would have failed my own notion of his "biomere' merely for if I was his student rather than Will's. There WOULD be implications of content magangement software is such was the case for Gould has erected a discetable labeling system I think VRML could decompose if properply programmed to foucs set wise on his division of MILTONS. That is only my two Franklins worth and the idea that Gould was wrong to think that these kantian objects are "things" instead of potentials. If they are potentials both you and I could be correct. I dont think this makes this station or endemism "alive" however because on my side of this coin it reverts to LInne said about~ there are as many species as the INFINITE BEING. But In some failure to get this across I may have to resort more to your sort of space and time. Form-making and nanotech will tell.