The Great Australian Bight is part of the 'dead skin of the Earth'. Do you think the bark is worse than it?
"Mineral Kingdom Has Co-evolved With Life "Evolution isn't just for living organisms. Scientists at the Carnegie Institution have found that the mineral kingdom co-evolved with life, and that up to two thirds of the more than 4,000 known types of minerals on Earth can be directly or indirectly linked to biological activity. The finding, published in American Mineralogist, could aid scientists in the search for life on other planets. Robert Hazen and Dominic Papineau of the Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory, with six colleagues, reviewed the physical, chemical, and biological processes that gradually transformed about a dozen different primordial minerals in ancient interstellar dust grains to the thousands of mineral species on the present-day Earth. (Unlike biological species, each mineral species is defined by its characteristic chemical makeup and crystal structure.) "It's a different way of looking at minerals from more traditional approaches," says Hazen. "Mineral evolution is obviously different from Darwinian evolution-minerals don't mutate, reproduce or compete like living organisms. But we found both the variety and relative abundances of minerals have changed dramatically over more than 4.5 billion years of Earth's history." All the chemical elements were present from the start in the Solar Systems' primordial dust, but they formed comparatively few minerals. Only after large bodies such as the Sun and planets congealed did there exist the extremes of temperature and pressure required to forge a large diversity of mineral species. Many elements were also too dispersed in the original dust clouds to be able to solidify into mineral crystals. As the Solar System took shape through "gravitational clumping" of small, undifferentiated bodies-fragments of which are found today in the form of meteorites-about 60 different minerals made their appearance. Larger, planet-sized bodies, especially those with volcanic activity and bearing significant amounts of water, could have given rise to several hundred new mineral species. Mars and Venus, which Hazen and coworkers estimate to have at least 500 different mineral species in their surface rocks, appear to have reached this stage in their mineral evolution. However, only on Earth-at least in our Solar System-did mineral evolution progress to the next stages. A key factor was the churning of the planet's interior by plate tectonics, the process that drives the slow shifting continents and ocean basins over geological time. Unique to Earth, plate tectonics created new kinds of physical and chemical environments where minerals could form, and thereby boosted mineral diversity to more than a thousand types. What ultimately had the biggest impact on mineral evolution, however, was the origin of life, approximately 4 billion years ago. "Of the approximately 4,300 known mineral species on Earth, perhaps two thirds of them are biologically mediated," says Hazen. "This is principally a consequence of our oxygen-rich atmosphere, which is a product of photosynthesis by microscopic algae." Many important minerals are oxidized weathering products, including ores of iron, copper and many other metals. Microorganisms and plants also accelerated the production of diverse clay minerals. In the oceans, the evolution of organisms with shells and mineralized skeletons generated thick layered deposits of minerals such as calcite, which would be rare on a lifeless planet. "For at least 2.5 billion years, and possibly since the emergence of life, Earth's mineralogy has evolved in parallel with biology," says Hazen. "One implication of this finding is that remote observations of the mineralogy of other moons and planets may provide crucial evidence for biological influences beyond Earth." Citation: Robert M. Hazen, Dominic Papineau, Wouter Bleeker, Robert T. Downs, John M. Ferry, Timothy J. McCoy, Dimitri Sverjensky and Hexiong Yang (2008) Mineral evolution. American Mineralogist. Provided by Carnegie Institution" ---------------------------------------------------- PhysOrg.com November 13, 2008 regs suresh
Exactly. The authors say - in your own quotation - " "Mineral evolution is obviously different from Darwinian evolution-minerals don't mutate, reproduce or compete like living organisms." Now will you take your infantile nonsense and go play with the traffic. Moderator: What the **** does it take to bring some order to this forum. It is a disgrace that this nonsense - amsuing as it may be - is permitted to remain. Are you brain dead, or what. Take some ****ing action before the members do.
You have been given multiple references for this in the past. But I suggest you go to this online book: http://geowords.com/tocnetscape.htm Read the whole thing. Post nothing in the meantime. Then report back. Make any posts before then and I shall do all that I can to get you banned. If that doesn't work I shall track you down and let the air out of your bicycle tires.
forgive me writing you again without your permission. pls read the attached docs very serious and interesting. 2. pls advise me how different different layers and different different pockets of minerals arise in one globe according to latest theory.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=1&view=att&th=12041e5da1f36cf0&attid=0.1&disp=attd&zw
our planet earth has bark like tree. continents are bark of earth. 2. new bark is forming between center of continents in deep oceans.that is why rocks of new forming bark under oceans are much younger than rocks on continents.
all living thing or having biological growth produces different differrent type of oil. same our planet earth is producing crude oil.
i read this post. this man has same idea Dear All at the Expanding Earth Group, The following is an extract from my new website, which is far from complete but should be fully live by end of June (It is not just a website, it is an online school and interactive community for highly talented people, geniuses, who genuinely do wish to help make our world a better place) The website is: www.genius-for-hire.com (please bear with me as I finish designing and constructing it) and the mini-article I am posting on the site is regarding the Expanding Earth Hypothesis is as follows: "Is planet Earth expanding and GROWING? And, if GROWTH is happening, is this happening because the planet is in fact Alive? Hi! I want to make it very clear that this particular section has been inserted by me [Ray Murray] personally, because the views I express here may not be shared by every member of The Genius Collaborative ~ they may indeed have completely different views, and that?s OK. However, I have posted these highly provocative videos here, which refer to a modern variation of the Expanding Earth Theory that was proposed by Charles Darwin as far back as 1834 - 1835. Darwin later dismissed the theory, but it was not completely dismissed by others, and variations of it have been ?in fashion? or ?out of fashion? ever since Darwin. (See Wikipedia for history of proponents of slightly different Expanding Earth Theories.) Now a new Expanding Earth Theory has recently been proposed by Neal Adams. His theory states that the Universe as a whole, and planets specifically, behave in ways that do not fit the generally accepted theories of Orthodox Science. (See Neal Adams own website for summary of this HIGHLY controversial proposal) As Neal states about his Expanding Earth Theory: ? First... It?s important to understand that this is the most profound disagreement in all of science in a century and a half... And, even so, it is the tip of the iceberg, the ramifications of this disagreement will change everything we know in science, top to bottom? Now, please note that I am not in a position to confirm or otherwise the accuracy of any of Neal Adams? statements - so I am not saying categorically that he is correct when he claims that The Earth and other planets in our Solar System (see videos) are GROWING. What I am saying is this: The proposal by Neal Adams and others before him, that The Earth and other planets are in fact GROWING is not so ludicrous as orthodox science would have us believe. However, if I were a betting man, and if I had to bet between Adams and Orthodox Science on whose arguments or theories were closest to the truth, then I would put my money on Neal Adams. My own work is based on the fact that I am the discoverer of The Law of Creation, which I first began to comprehend back in 1987. This is fully explained in my e-book ?Letter To The Leader?, which you can download from this site or from Scribd.com, where it is published. Briefly, you will see that The Law Of Creation (The LOC) essentially states that the entire Universe and many of the ?characters? that make up the Universe, such as our own Planet Earth, are in fact Alive. Now, that may sound preposterous to you and many other visitors to this section. It certainly sounds ludicrous to most orthodox scientists. Unfortunately for orthodox science, however, what I say in my book is absolutely correct and The Law Of Creation holds true. It is pretty easy to test it and confirm this for yourself. As Neal Adams indicated in relation to his own work, it is also true that the likely impact of my work and The Law Of Creation on the world of orthodox science will by enormous. In short, we are each independently stating that: ?The whole world of science has to re-examine the very foundations upon which modern science is based.? Like Neal Adams? theory about The Expanding Earth, you may well find that my work on The LOC is HUGELY controversial. (For some people, however, it is merely common sense). Understandably though the first reaction of Orthodox Science to the kinds of different, but potentially related hypotheses that Neal Adams and I are proposing, is likely to be, ?Where?s the proof?? And that is a perfectly proper question, the answer to which is: ?The proof is right on our doorstep and all around us. The whole of Nature is the proof. We are part of the proof, and so is this whole planet.? If you take the time to read the entry in Wikipedia on the Expanding Earth Theories, you will see that: ?The primary objections to an expanding Earth have centered around the lack of an accepted process by which the Earth's radius could increase and on the inability to find an actual increase of earth's radius by modern measurements. This issue, along with the evidence for the process of subduction, caused the scientific community to dismiss the theory of an expanding Earth.? Subduction may be defined as: ?A geologic process in which one edge of one crustal plate is forced below the edge of another? It is important to note that the arguments against any Expanding Earth theory, and especially the arguments against the theory currently being offered by Neal Adams, are all coming from roughly the same, ?Level of Thinking?. And the reason that that is important to note is because, as Einstein famously stated: ?We can't solve problems by using the same level of thinking we used when we created them.? For example, I am categorically stating that God exists and one of the ETERNAL and INFINITE ?side-effects? of this is LIFE. Thus the Earth is a Living Entity and indeed the entire Universe is a Living Entity. I am not alone in making this assertion, of course, but anyone who proposes this is usually ridiculed by the orthodox scientific establishment ~ because the idea that God and LIFE may actively be involved in ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING is just not ACCEPTED by the world of orthodox science. And the points to note here are these: 1] If God does exist, as I claim is the case, and... 2] If LIFE is a natural and UNIVERSAL consequence of that, as I also claim is the case, and... 3] If LIFE is thereby infinitely and eternally OMNIPRESENT throughout the universe...(including in Stars / Planets etc) Then there is nothing at all strange about Neal Adams? proposal that the EARTH is GROWING, and that the other planets in our Solar System have also GROWN to reach their current size ~ and it is likely that all such planets (including the Earth) may still be GROWING. Living things GROW, until they reach their OPTIMUM SIZE. There is nothing unusual in that. But the level of thinking needed to grasp this concept, as Einstein indicated, is a higher level of thinking than the established level of thinking being generally practiced by the orthodox scientific community regarding how Life, The Universe and Everything actually work. You see, the normal arguments that fiercely oppose Neal Adams? Expanding Earth hypothesis, are generally based in a detailed understanding of only: Geologic and Physical processes (God and LIFE are not involved in these processes, so far as orthodox science is concerned) They do not see this as a Spiritual AND Biological AND a Physical AND Geological thing, where The Godflow and LIFE are just as involved in cosmic and planetary events as any Physical or Geologic process. This myopic stance is firmly held, mainly because the view of orthodox science is that the Universe is NOT alive, and LIFE is a rare event, rather than being an OMNIPRESENT and extremely COMMON thing. So this whole thing becomes a disagreement or confrontation, as I see it, between: Myopic Orthodox Science and ?Level 2 Thinking? * versus Visionary Omni-Science and ?Level 3 Thinking?* (*These terms are fully explained in my book, which you can obtain for free from my website - www.genius-for-hire.com - or directly from Scribd.com by going to: http://www.scribd.com/doc/8357130/Letter-to-the-Leader ) If you do read Letter To The Leader, you will see that I provide a complete and fairly easy to understand explanation of how The Law Of Creation works, and how this is employed by every single part of The Whole of Life and Nature, ~ holistically, uniquely and universally, equally ~ and in an infinite variety of ways ~ in order to enable ALL natural living systems in the Universe to function as a whole, in UNISON, and in ways which are designed to NATURALLY SUSTAIN LIFE ~ INFINITELY and ETERNALLY. (The Law Of Creation thus explains the extremely simple ways in which The Infinite enjoys INFINITELY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ~ and because this is about Sustainable Development, this whole field of study is just as relevant to the world of business and ethics as it is to cosmology, or biology and physics or any other ?ology? and ?ics? you can think of) Now looking again at the objections of the orthodox scientific community to Neal Adams? version of the Expanding Earth Theory, Wikipedia points out:: ?The primary objections to an expanding Earth have centered around the lack of an accepted process by which the Earth's radius could increase ....? OK - try this. If indeed it can be proven that the Earth has in fact GROWN to reach it?s current size ~ if Neal Adams turns out to be essentially correct in his claims ~ then the PROCESS that makes that possible will prove itself to be, quite simply, LIFE. (And, in turn, the ?process? or ?potential? which makes LIFE possible is God ~ this isn?t rocket-science, nor is it any kind of ?religious thing?. This is just the way everything works.) Now, having said all the above, after proper investigation by genuinely open-minded investigators, it may indeed turn out to be the case that Neal Adams is wrong. (But I wouldn?t bet on it). So it may indeed prove to be the case that in fact the Earth did NOT grow and is NOT growing. However, please note that such a conclusion would not alter one iota the accuracy or relevance of The Law Of Creation. My findings regarding The Law Of Creation are not at all dependent on Neal Adams being correct, though if he is correct, then his work would tend to corroborate my own. (Whilst on the other hand my work would explain not only HOW the Earth is able to grow, but also WHY this is a very normal thing for any LIVING BODY in the Cosmos to do) So... If Mr Adams? claims are proven to be completely or even generally accurate, then the simple reason WHY the Earth would be able to grow is because LIFE IS OMNIPRESENT throughout the Universe, and as a result of that, certain specific entities (like trees, like you and like me) are able to comply with The Law Of Creation and thus experience and tangibly demonstrate BEING ALIVE. The Earth, I submit, is one of those entities. It is a LIVING THING and just like all other living things that I am aware of, it stands to reason that any LIVING PLANET might indeed be able to GROW as it ages. As referred to in the video, this may produce a DOUBLING PERIOD, implying that such growth is exponential, but please note we are not talking here merely about EXPONENTIAL TANGIBLE GROWTH per se, we are talking about BIOLOGICAL GROWTH. This starts off generally as a relatively exponential thing, like a cell turning into a foetus, a foetus turning into a baby, a baby turning into a young child, and a young child turning in to an adult, but when the adult stage is reached, the ?getting bigger, exponentially? stops happening because the LIVING BEING has reached its OPTIMUM SIZE. So if a LIVING PLANET is able to grow, then it would only grow until it reaches an optimum size, just like every other LIVING GROWING THING. Is that such a strange idea to ACCEPT? Please note that the comment in Wikipedia did NOT state: ?The primary objections to an expanding Earth have centered around the lack of a process by which the Earth's radius could increase...? The entry in Wikipedia states: ?The primary objections to an expanding Earth have centered around the lack of an accepted process by which the Earth's radius could increase See the difference? The idea is not dismissed because there is no PROCESS which could cause the Earth to GROW - the idea is dismissed because the orthodox scientific community just don?t ACCEPT any of the THEORIES so far proposed which attempt to explain such a phenomenon. Yet there is a very ACCEPTABLE PROCESS that would explain this phenomenon with the greatest of ease, if indeed the phenomenon is a real phenomenon. And that ACCEPTABLE PROCESS, as already stated, is: LIFE ~ LIFE enables things to grow. Simple. You know, orthodox science does not think it at all strange that tiny little things called phytoplankton are able to photosynthesise, and directly transform the ENERGY of the Sun into ?food?, which enables those phytoplankton to GROW. The Earth as a whole (Living Entity) is bombarded by HUMUNGOUS amounts of ENERGY from the Sun every moment of the day and night. Is it too much of a stretch of the imagination to consider the possibility that the Earth itself may also be able to directly transform the ENERGY of the Sun into ?food?. How does it do that? By using The Law Of Creation in some appropriate way ~ though I won?t even begin to try to describe here HOW this amazing LIVING PLANET goes about specifically employing The Law Of Creation to transform Sunlight into Energy. (I submit that it will prove to be a slight variation on the way that trillions of micro-organisms and green plants do that very thing, and a variation on how other micro-organisms around volcanic spouts at the bottom of the sea transform heat directly in to ?food?) My point is that micro-organisms, phytoplankton and common or garden plants can directly transform ENERGY into FOOD, and they do so NATURALLY, and EASILY. These organisms can do this because they have LIFE, and because LIFE inherently knows how to employ The Law Of Creation. It is not just because they are green. It is because they are ALIVE. So perhaps the Sun is all The Earth needs, if indeed The Earth feeds. Please note that so far as I am aware Neal Adams is NOT claiming that the Earth is ALIVE. I am making that claim. And to be honest, to fully grasp what I am talking about here, you?ll just have to read my book ?Letter To The Leader?." Please also note the work of Dr Elisabet Sahtouris (Author of EarthDance) and Duane Elgin (Author of The Living Universe) as well as the work of Dean Radin on The Global Consciousness Project (Author of The Conscious Universe and Entangled Minds) You will find links to these people and their work on my website in the next few days. All the best - hope this different viewpoint proves to be relevant! Ray Murray
This guy is even better than you: he not only agrees with you but he's got his own, additional crackpot ideas.
I exchanged arguments with Adams, whom he quotes liberally, on another forum. Adams is better known as one of the primary artists for Batman. Form your own conclusions.
Give the guy a break. I, too, think the Earth is a living thing. I have been working on this for a long time and have gathered a lot of evidence. BTW, Leonardo da Vinci was convinced the Earth was a living thing and he was a genius.