Our Living Universe: Seen and Unseen – Gravity & Invisibility

Quoting Earth Mother Our Womb of Life:

The universe is alive. It is a living universe whose life and awareness ensouls every star and world. Within our universe, life is nested together from largest to smallest, life within life — the universe is alive, so our Galaxies are alive, so our solar systems are alive, and so our Earth is also a living, conscious entity from whom we receive our own life. Life cannot be supported by something that is dead; if our Earth was dead, we would not have life. Every planet is a unique, life supporting living entity. The life and power of the Almighty Spirit is not distant from us, but is everywhere within creation at-once, including beneath our feet in Gaia/Ina Maka/Pachamama/Tuuwaqatsi/Etenoha/Eingana, etc. — our Mother Earth. If we desert our world, severing our roots in the Earth, we abandon Nature’s plan, removing ourselves from our life-giving source and course, breaking our covenants with the Great Spirit we call God.

maxresdefaultIf life abounds throughout the universe, why don’t we see any life but ours? As the book explains, our Earth has evolved life from the outlying orbit of Pluto, migrating orbit by orbit closer to the Sun, in a process known to the Hopi as the Sacred Path of Migration. Each orbital move closer to the Sun brings about greater evolutionary development in the biology of Earth. Each orbit closer to the Sun also increases in density. And this is the reason why we don’t see any life but ours. Quoting from the book:

Life exists upon the other planets of our system, but we cannot see it because each world is a unique ecosphere existing within its own density spectrum. Our sense perceptions are bound within a limited range of our system’s spectra, so we only perceive the other worlds where their spectra overlap into our own. There is much more going on upon the other worlds of our system than we can be aware of within the limited range of our present perception. To understand our universe, and our place within it, we have to come to a whole new understanding of life, death, reality, and visibility. That which lies outside of our spectrum of sound, light, and density, and which we cannot hear, see, or touch is also created by God.

For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in Earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him. (Col. 1:16)

MercuryVenusEarthMarsIn order to explain the process I would like to quote the words from someone very wise, who can explain it much better than me:

A good understanding about the different densities prevailing on planets will be very helpful in understanding why we appear to be alone in a densely populated universe. For now I just want to say that density increases with closer proximity to the sun, therefore, the earth has a greater density than Mars, and Venus has a greater density than the earth. And density is tied to perception.

The planets’ densities, measured in grams per cubic centimeter, are generally given as follows:
• Mercury – 5.427 g/cm³
• Venus – 5.204 g/cm³
• Earth – 5.515 g/cm³
• Mars – 3.934 g/cm³
• Jupiter – 1.326 g/cm³
• Saturn – 0.687 g/cm³
• Uranus – 1.27 g/cm³
• Neptune – 1.638 g/cm³
• Pluto – 2.03 ± 0.06 g/cm³

The chart is is mistaken in proposing a greater density for the earth than for Venus. Venus, the planet closest to the Sun, has the greatest density of all planets in our Solar System.

Venus is the most dense planet in our Solar System. Mercury is very dense, but Mercury is not a planet, Mercury is an ejected core. The material of Mercury is almost identical to the composition of the core of earth.  Earth is the second most dense planet in our Solar System and Mars is the third most dense. Mars has a lower density than Earth because Mars is further from the sun. Planetary density decreases with distance from the Sun.

The theory that the inner, terrestrial planets, are greater in density than the outlying planets is based on the idea that the outlying planets are comprised almost entirely of gases, but such is not the case, the outlying planets are solid bodies, surrounded by gases.

The rest of this post is a direct copy of another post on HaMoshiach.com which, I’m afraid, has recently been removed. I’m putting it here in its entirety. Because it is a wonderfully clear, concise and fascinating explanation:

invisibility

This post is a brief answer to a question I received among my messages.  It will be removed soon.

Language is limited to that which is known.  Words have not been formulated for the unknown.  I found this sentence on a university website, “The concept of mass is so basic that it is impossible to define. Isaac Newton called mass the quantity of matter. We can talk all around it but we will finally have to admit that our words fail.”

I was pleased to see that the author was able to admit that there are times when “words fail”.  The same author defined mass as the measure of the amount of stuff in something.  I would do away with the word mass altogether, because it’s an unnecessary concept, instead of mass I use the word body.

The same author, a physicist, said that a unit of mass is called a slug, short for sluggishness.  And he defined weight as the force with which the earth pulls on the mass, and said that weight is related to the force of gravity.  He added that the word “gravity”  causes confusion.

I don’t believe the word gravity causes confusion. I believe a better understanding of gravity would resolve existing confusion.  The author completed his explanation of mass with these words, “No matter where you might be in the universe “the weight of a mass is the force of gravity on the mass.”

Some men express themselves more easily in the language of mathematics than that of words, but contrary to popular belief, mathematics is not always correct. Often, when a theory is proposed, a formula is devised to ‘prove’ the theory.  Many such formulae belong in the realm of science fiction.

Even when a concept can be described using formulae, most people aren’t able to grasp complex formulae.  And the problem remains that there aren’t always words to describe that which is not understood. Therefore, when a word doesn’t exist I adapt an existing word.

Think of density not as weight but as  ‘compactness’.  And think of ‘compactness’ as being a measure of how tightly the molecules of a body are wound.  After you have grasped the concept of tightly and loosely wound molecules you may wonder, “What is the force that winds the molecules in a body?”

A force with a coiling action winds the molecules of a body.  And the force has weight.  The force isn’t weight per se, but it has weight and it impartsweight. The force enters into the molecules of a body and winds the molecules into loops.  My continued use of the words “the force” are making me sound like a scriptwriter for Star Trek, so I’m going to make less use of the words “the force” and use the word “gravity“.

Man’s DNA is loosely coiled.

Man's DNA is loosely coiled.

In 1997 a science fiction film called, “The Fifth Element” portrayed an advanced being with tightly coiled DNA.

Above is picture of the more tightly coiled DNA of the entity in the film “The Fifth Element.”

Above is a picture of the more tightly coiled DNA of the entity in the film “The Fifth Element.”

Milla Jovoich fifth element

The above picture is of Milla Jovovich, the actress who portrayed the entity referred to as the Fifth Element. I pass no comment on the posture the actress assumes in the picture, rather, I point out the brilliant red colour, and ray-like appearance, of the entity’s hair – see pictures below – symbolic of an existence close to a Sun.

Milla Jovoich fifth element2

Milla Jovoich fifth element3

Milla Jovoich fifth element4

It is made clear in the course of the film that the entity, who is referred to as “him”,  is androgynous and “perfect”.  Once again, those are the attributes of entities having their existence close to a Sun.  An entity having molecules as tightly wound as those of the Fifth Element would have a greater density than man, would also be heavier than man, and would exist on a planet closer to a Sun. In our Solar System that planet would be Venus.

This is an excerpt from the script of The Fifth Element:

General: Have you at least identified it?
Scientist: We tried but the computer went off the charts. You see, normal human beings have 40 DNA memo groups, which is more than enough for any species to perpetuate itself. This one has 200,000 memo groups.
General: Sounds like a freak of nature to me.
Scientist: Yes…can’t wait to meet him

Albeit it is science fiction, nevertheless it is unfortunate, that an advanced entity having 200,000 memo groups would be considered a freak.  The scientist goes on to describe the compositional elements of “his” DNA chain as being, “the same as ours; there are simply more of them, tightly packed with infinite genetic knowledge”.

As I’ve said, the coiling force that acts on molecules has weight, therefore comparing man’s loosely wound DNA to the entities tightly wound DNA should be enough to demonstrate that such an entity would be heavier than man.  Weight is not confined to size (proportion).  An entity with tightly wound molecules could be smaller than man and yet weigh considerably more than man.

Man’s DNA is loosely coiled.

Above:  DNA being ‘packaged’ into chromosomes by the force I refer to as “Gravity”.

DNA would unwind if the force exited from the molecule

Above: DNA would unwind if the force exited from the molecule.

Image below: Without the action of Gravity, DNA would uncoil and become straight and ladder-like.

Without the action of Gravity, DNA would uncoil and become straight and ladder-like.

The combined action of the coiling force of gravity on a body, and the presence of gravity inside the molecules of a body, determine the density of the body.  When gravity diminishes in the molecules of a body, weight and density also diminish.

If a large body ejects half of its substance, the two halves may retain their original density (compactness), or they may be compressed into more compact material. Whether or not either body retains its original compactness, or compresses into a denser substance, depends on internal and external forces at work on the body.

Throughout the day, whatever else I have been doing, I have been thinking about my choice of sentence, “Whether or not either body retains its original compactness, or compresses into a denser substance, depends on internal and external forces at work on the body.” I’m aware that it’s the kind of sentence a normal scientist would use when he is at loss for just one word.  And I am at loss for one good descriptive word so I’m going to have to use several words.  There are factors that determine the degree to which gravity is present in a body.  One factor is the presence of other forces of gravity. When one source of gravity is in the vicinity of another source of gravity, there is a net effect.  If I were confident that you had understood me clearly thus far, I would say, “combined gravities can pack more information into less molecules” but I’m not confident that I’ve been understood.  A planet close to the Sun is influenced by the gravity of the Sun. All the planets in a Solar System are influenced by the Sun’s gravity and since the Sun’s gravity diminishes with distance, outlying planets are less influenced than inner planets.

Returning to the science fiction film, “The Fifth Element”.  Milla Jovovich acted the part of an advanced being named, “Leeloo”.  For Leeloo’s DNA to be as many-stranded and as dense as the example depicted in the film, she would have come from a planet very close to the Sun, as is our planet Venus.  Her home planet would be greatly influenced by it’s close proximity to the Sun, and this influence would be apparent in her DNA.

invisibilityI’m going to use the word ‘spectrum’ in this explanation of ‘density’ though it is not an accurate word as it has connotations of ‘optics’ and I need a word that conveys ‘reality’.  Consider that density (compactness/how tightly the molecules of a body are wound) exists on the same spectrum as sound, and your interaction with density, like sound, is limited to the green area on the spectrum marked 20HZ to 20,000HZ. Think of the small, green area of the spectrum as your reality because the green area is where you receive environmental input.

Sound extends far beyond the elephant in one direction and far beyond the bat in the other direction.  Sound that occurs on the spectrum but does not come into the green band, is not perceived by your senses and is inaudible to you.  If you think of inaudible sound as being like invisible matter, then you are approaching a rudimentary understanding of density.  Staying with the word ‘spectrum’, density can be conceived of as being on the same spectrum as sound.

Density that is perceived by your senses occurs on the green band between the elephant and the bat. Density , as with sound, extends far beyond the elephant and the bat, but you are limited to interaction with density that occurs on the green band of the spectrum.  Move the elephant further along on the spectrum until you’ve moved it off the green band and it becomes invisible. Do the same with the bat and it becomes invisible.

Electricity, magnetism, thought, light, sound, density, visibility, invisibility, are aspects of a single “force” that has no word in this world.  “Electromagnetism” is not appropriate because of the clear reference to electricity and magnetism.  All the different aspects  –  electricity, magnetism, thought, light, sound, density, visibility, invisibility (and more )– arise out of the action of one single force.

I use the word “gravity” to describe the primary force because “gravity” (“gravis”, “gravid”, “heavy”) implies “pregnant”.  A gravid uterus being one which is carrying young.

The Earth is “gravid” with all manner of eggs and young in all stages of life.  When I say ‘gravity’ I’m referring to the force which arises out of the Earth’s gravid condition. All the aspects of reality that impact on man’s senses to shape his world emanate from gravity.

Input that you perceive occurs in the green band of spectrum. Gravity is the spectrum.

Where you are on the spectrum determines what is audible and visible in your reality.  If you could increase or decrease your physical density to a point that falls outside of the green band, you would become invisible to everyone who remains in the confines of the green band.  Alter Gravity and you alter reality.  Move the elephant out of the green area of the spectrum and she “disappears” out of your reality and reappears in a different reality.

I’m not satisfied with this explanation, the words don’t exist to clearly describe what I’m trying to say in this post.

Getting back to your question, changing the weight of a body by removing a part of it does not impact on the density (compactness) of the body. Any increase or decrease in the density of the body is brought about through the action of gravity tightening (or loosening) the tension in the molecules of the body.

********

Mk's bk pg 140-141 - We are the Root & Offspring of the Earth

Mk’s bk pg 140-141 – We are the Root & Offspring of the Earth

The final word  I would like to give to Earth Mother Our Womb of Life:

Our Earth is next in line to ascend to the highest position of our sun system, where those who remain with Her will receive their completed, incorruptible forms. Our World will then become a paradise beyond what we can presently imagine. A world of great beauty where all life lives together in peace without suffering or struggle, the completion of a journey we have been upon for many ages with the Earth. In our perfected, eternal bodies, our Mother will release greater knowledge and power to us, with which to serve God as guardians of the life evolving upon the younger worlds of ours, and other systems.

Is Mercury a Moon?

Mercury

Mercury

Our Moon

Our Moon

Not just any moon, but is Mercury a moon from the 3rd orbit (like ours)
that migrated to the 1st orbit?

The movement of the moon from the 3rd orbit to the 1st orbit is part of a ‘migratory’ explanation to the formation of Solar System and the evolution of life – described in the previous post: “Step 3b: The Sacred Path of Planetary Migration – Evolution Realised“. And of course explained so beautifully in the book: Earth Mother Our Womb of Life.

I want to look at different parts of the proposal. In the post “Did Life Begin in the Icy Orbit of Pluto?” I examined what the title says – did life begin out near Pluto? – the first stop on our journey of evolution. I found that scientists support the idea that life began and evolved in very cold conditions, that do not exist presently on Earth. I found that paleontologists and evolutionary scientists believe the Earth was once a ‘snowball’ and have collected evidence in support of the theory. I also discovered that Pluto is not:  

“just an over sized snowball, but a dramatically dynamic world.” ~ Marc Buie, astronomer Southwest Research Institute

As Alan Stern, principal investigator of the New Horizons (the unmanned Pluto-Kuiper Belt probe) said:

“No one predicted river valleys on Mars, or volcanoes on the Galilean satellites, or that Mercury was mostly a core and little else. It’s entirely likely that Pluto will be something so surprising that everything we’ve done so far looks quaint in comparison.”

In this post I want to skip to the end of the proposed evolutionary journey and explore Mercury.

The video above, from NASA, shows Mercury’s south polar region.  Mercury not only looks like our moon, but also shares more similarities with our moon than any of the planets in our Solar System, including:

  • Mercury has no atmosphere, neither does our moon.
  • Mercury is heavily scarred with craters and lava mares, like our moon.
  • Mercury and the moon are of similar size – less the half the size of the Earth.
  • Mercury is highly rich in iron (in fact the most iron-rich of all the planets by a large margin), as is our moon.

The video below is from the Science Chanel – it explains the closeness of Mercury and our moon.

Mercury is very dense. As Alan Stern says above: “Mercury [is] mostly a core and little else.” Mercury’s density cannot be explained by slow-and-gradual-development models. So the preferred scientific explanation is that billions of years ago, a large object crashed into Mercury, stripping away its lesser-dense material, leaving behind the high-density planet seen today. In other words – leaving behind the Core of the planet. This agrees with the explanation in the “Sacred Path of Migration” which says that Mercury was once a planetary Core. The difference between the two is that in the Sacred Path of Migration says Mercury’s host planet ejected its Core – rather than having it ripped out.

Diagram of the interior structure of Mercury. The metallic core comprises most of the planet’s interior. Credit: Nicolle Rager Fuller, National Science Foundation

Diagram of the interior structure of Mercury. The metallic core comprises most of the planet’s interior. Credit: Nicolle Rager Fuller, National Science Foundation

Another similarity between Mercury and our moon is that both are magnetised. Other planetary bodies in our Solar System are magnetised, but no one expected Mercury or the moon to be. Quoting from the Astronomy Notes of astronomy professor Nick Strobel from Bakersfield College, California:

Mercury is a bit surprising because it has a weak magnetic field. Mercury is the smallest of the terrestrial planets, so its interior should have cooled off long ago. Also, Mercury spins slowly—once every 58.8 days. Mercury’s high density tells us that it has a proportionally large iron-nickel core. 

Mercury’s situation was a major challenge to the magnetic dynamo theory. In true scientific fashion, the theory made a testable prediction: Mercury should have no magnetic field or one even less than Mars’ one because its core should be solid. Observation, the final judge of scientific truth, contradicted the prediction. Should we have thrown out the magnetic dynamo theory then? Astronomers were reluctant to totally disregard the theory because of its success in explaining the situation on the other planets and the lack of any other plausible theory.

So most take a more conservative route: either modifying the magnetic dynamo theory or investigating Mercury more closely to find out what is so unusual about its interior to produce a magnetic field despite our expectations. Is their reluctance a violation of the objectivity required in science? Perhaps, but past experience has taught that when confronted with such a contradiction, nature is telling you that you forgot to take something into account or you overlooked a crucial process. The MESSENGER mission confirmed the existence of Mercury’s liquid core through careful tracking of the spacecraft’s motion in Mercury’s gravity field. The Mercury spin data and gravity field measurements have solved part of the problem (part of the core is molten), but how has the core remained molten and convecting (even partially) despite Mercury’s small size?

I’ve highlighted part of the quote above because the professor makes a valuable point: there is no other viable theory currently available in science. The data does not always agree with the theory, but we keep it because there is nothing else on offer. And here the professor makes a most salient statement “Nature is telling you that you overlooked a crucial process.” I think the process being overlooked is that our Solar System acts as one integrated system – in the same way that our Earth acts as one system – the planets and moons fit together like the gears of a clock, working together in one process, one over arching procedure. It may be easier (and more successful) to explain the properties and behaviour of the individual components (the planets and moons) if we look at the Solar System as a whole.

Perhaps it is time to consider the possibility and viability of a new theory – a theory which not only explains the conditions of Mercury, but all of the planets and moons in our Solar System. This explanation says that Mercury (like our moon) was once was an iron-nickel core of a planet, spinning in the opposite direction to the mantle creating a dynamo, an engine – convecting large amounts of heat, energy and magnetism. This explains both why Mercury’s interior has such a high iron-nickel content and the planet’s magnetism – it is a left-over feature from its previous employment.

Recently the moon has also been discovered to contain the magnetism of a spent dynamo – and scientists don’t know why. The article from the Daily Galaxy below entitled “The Moon Once Harbored a Dynamic Molten Core” examines the unexpected magnetism of the moon, discovered by scientists at MIT. I examine the article in an earlier post: “A Core Becomes a Moon“.

To learn more about this explanation start with the post “Evolution in 4 Easy Steps” or download the book in the top right corner of this blog: Earth Mother Our Womb of Life.

"The moon once harbored a dynamic molten core", say researchers at MIT.

“The moon once harbored a dynamic molten core”, say researchers at MIT.

Step 3b: The Sacred Path of Planetary Migration – Evolution Realised

Evolution in 4 Easy Steps describes the formation of our Solar System, the planets and the evolution of life as a cyclical, purposeful system in Nature:

  • Step 1: The Birth of a Solar System explains how our Solar System first formed – including our young Earth with all of the ‘material’ for life – the micro-organisms, gases and chemicals.
  • Step 2: Friction at the Core Enables Life identifies the life force of the planet. And it’s all to do with the iron Core in the heart of the planet. I describe and provide evidence of how the Core of the Earth is rotating in the opposite direction to the mantle – creating friction. Friction is a powerful force – it produces heat, energy and magnetism which rises through the body of the planet and brings the material form in Step to life.
  • Step 3a: Punctuated Equilibria – Initiating Evolution explains evolution as a dynamic engineered procedure – like a catapult (see below). Step 3a describes the mechanism that initiates the event – the release of the spring: which is the ejection of the planet’s solid Core (due to the process of ‘differentiation’ – described in step 3a and very soon in this post).
  • Step 3b (this post) explains what happens next – the launch of the payload:
Catapult

Catapult

Without the Core, the planet is now lighter in weight, in mass – and is gravitationally pulled one orbit closer to the Sun. As I wrote earlier, evolution is purposeful engineered process within a structured and dynamic Solar System. It isn’t just our planet – the Earth – that ejects Her Core and moves one orbit closer to the Sun, but rather all of the planets work  together in one process, one over arching procedure – during what the Hopi call ‘Purification Time’. The only two planets that do not eject their Cores and move closer to the Sun are the planetary bodies in the first two orbits (currently Venus and Mercury). These two are drawn into the Sun to create energy. The diagram below illustrates the procedure.

IMG_1434 - Copy

The diagram in the photo above illustrates the Sacred Path of Plantary Migration.

  • The first line of the diagram shows the Solar System in a state of ‘equilibrium’ – as we know it now, with the planets orbiting in set paths around the Sun.
  • The second line shows the coming ‘punctuation’ in equilibrium (Purification Time), when the planets eject their Cores (to become moons) and are gravitationally pulled one orbit closer to the Sun. During the next punctuation or Purification, our Earth will move into the second orbit (currently occupied by Venus). And our moon will move into the first orbit (currently occupied by Mercury).
  • During each Purification, the planet and moon in the first two orbits (currently Venus and Mercury) enter the Sun to create energy.
  • This procedure is repeated in regular intervals, as shown in the remaining lines of the diagram.

The migration of planets from the outer orbit towards the sun is compelled by two mechanisms – differentiation and gravity. The two act together to ensure a perpetual cyclical movement.

differentiationDifferentiation (see pic left)  means that the materials in a planet will separate into layers based on density: heavier elements will fall towards the Core and lighter elements will rise. Movement causes differentiation, imagine shaking a bucket containing different things, the heavy things will fall to the bottom. Our Earth is in constant motion – it rotates around its axis, orbits the Sun and flies through the galaxy. So the Core will continue to grow larger and larger. Eventually it becomes too large and heavy and is ejected. And like the release of the spring in a catapult, the payload – our planet – is then launched.

Gravity now pulls the lighter planet one orbit closer to the Sun. And once again the planet rotates about its axis causing differentiation to begin again.

Hence the notion of planetary migration as a cyclical pattern of perpetual motion – like the video below of John Wilkins’ perpetual motion machine, once the ball is put in motion, the set-up, using gravity and magnetism, ensures its perpetual cyclical movement.

The purpose of this system, described in the book as “The Sacred Path of Migration“, is the evolution of life from its raw materials to its final forms. The planets begin their existence in the outlying orbit of Pluto and move one orbit at a time to the position of Venus – our final destination on our evolutionary journey. During each orbital migration – or punctuation, or Purification – life on Earth evolves due to the excitation existing in our system during these times.

Quoting from Earth Mother Our Womb of Life:

When a planet makes a transition from one orbit to another, the newly evolved lifeforms are adapted to live in their new environments, closer to the sun. The sun acts as an incubator: as God’s creations draw nearer the sun, more heat and energy are released to them, and they are evolved to a higher form. This fits with the theory proposed by some scientists, based on the fossil record. This theory is known as Punctuated Equilibria: life remains fairly constant over long periods (equilibrium over the span of a given World-Age); then, relatively suddenly, life makes major evolutionary advances (the punctuation at the end of Purification Times).

In the previous post: Did Life Begin in the Icy Orbit of Pluto? I examine the argument and evidence and discover that scientists have long considered, and now seem to prefer the notion, that life began and evolved in very, very cold planetary conditions. In further posts I will examine in much greater detail the explanation of evolution given in the book. But first, in this post I want to explore the fundamental proposal that planets migrate orbit by orbit across the Solar System.

Mk's bk pg 19-20: Our Greatest Journey - Evolution

Mk’s bk pg 19-20: Our Greatest Journey – Evolution

IMG_1706

IMG_1707

IMG_1709

 EVIDENCE

There is already a theory in science called Planetary Migration – it is not the same as I describe above, but it does attempt to explain the position of the planets and their orbits within our Solar System. I first wrote about the theory almost a year ago in a post called “A Systems Thinking Approach to Evolution“. I wrote it shortly after I received the July 2013 issue of National Geographic. In the magazine was an article entitled “It All Began in Chaos” and there I read the words that planetary migration was almost considered “a textbook idea“! Wow, I thought, we figured it out??

Our Wild Wild Solar System,  National Geographic July 2013

Our Wild Wild Solar System, National Geographic July 2013

“The notion of migrating planets came along at a time when planetary scientists were puzzled by several other features of the solar system… Astronomers had started to discover planets around other stars—and to radically expand their notions of what’s possible in a planetary system. Hundreds of extrasolar planets have now been detected. Some are in tightly bunched orbits, much closer together than the planets in our solar system. Some are Jupiter- or Neptune-size worlds that race on insanely hot orbits close to their suns. Others loop deep into space on weird trajectories—on average the orbits of extrasolar planets are more eccentric than those in our solar system. Some planets even float freely in interstellar space.

None of this is what you would expect from planets that were born in a spinning disk around a star and stayed quietly in their birthplace. That process should produce well-spaced, near-circular orbits, like the ones in the brass orreries. Clearly many planets had migrated…”

I felt elated. I didn’t expect to read the version I knew, but the notion that planets migrated systematically from one orbit to another would still be amazing. The theory of Planetary Migration is kind of like that – but then again, not.

“Clearly many planets had migrated, but smooth migrations didn’t seem to account for extreme orbits and late bombardments [when meteors "pounded Earth viciously"], at least not to Levison [Harold Levison, Southwest Research Institute]. He began to suspect that our solar system’s history had been anything but smooth—that it had somehow endured a “global gravitational instability,” as he now calls it…

This is not migration as we know it. “Migration” is being used as a metaphor – not an actuality. The current scientific theory of Planetary Migration does not view the movement of planets as part of  an organised system – but rather the result of spiraling disks of chaotic cosmic clutter reshuffling into new orbits. I was initially disappointed by this view but it’s to be expected. As I explain A Systems Thinking Approach to Evolution, it is a common feature in our scientific history that we see chaos in Nature until we recognise order. As the title of article indicates, scientists believe – “It All Began in Chaos“:

“Forecasting the solar system is like forecasting the weather. There’s so much randomness in the system, says theorist Greg Laughlin of the University of California, Santa Cruz, that the forecast—as well as any historical reconstruction—has to be given in probabilities.”

IMG_1813

Mk’s bk pg 130-131 – It All Began in Chaos? No, it is the Great Migration.
Two articles from National Geographic.

The current scientific theory should not be called Planetary Migration but instead it should be called Planetary Movement, because ‘migration’ does not imply chaos – but rather order, grand order. Using the words from (see pics above and below) National Geographic’s Nov 2010 article “Great Migrations” :

“Animal migration is a phenomenon far grander and more patterned than animal movement. It represents collective travel with long-deferred rewards. It suggests premeditation and epic willfulness, codified as inherited instinct… Driven at that moment by an instinctive sense of something we humans find admirable: larger purpose… larger purpose, as shaped by evolution.”

P1140177

Great Migrations apply to Planetary Migrations

The use of the metaphor ‘migration’ in our current scientific model implies something that is not true. It implies a system that is patently absent. I know I sound picky, but there’s a reason. As long as we use words that denote a system, then we start to believe it is a system – and we don’t look for a truly ‘systematic’ explanation. This is what I fear in regard to the explanation of our Solar System.

Presently we think the cosmos is just left over debris from the Big Bang. And we think our Solar System formed by violent calamity. The intricate, dynamic, ordered system of Nature that we know all around us on Earth, seems to end once we step off our planet and into space – or so science proposes. But what if, for a moment, we consider that Nature – as we know it – does extend beyond our planet. We once believed the cell was nothing more than a few chemicals in jelly – there was no order to the molecular world. But advancements in technology changed that incorrect belief. Perhaps the microscopic world of cellular order, also exists at the macro level our Solar System: “As below, so above.”

The video above demonstrates that order exists in Nature even where we cannot see it. As someone commented on the TED Talk page:

There are worlds inside of worlds inside of worlds all around us. So much happening all the time. It is a powerful and profound truth that most of us (me for sure) tend to forget.”

We don’t just forget it, we take the default position that order and complexity don’t exist at all in Nature until science reveals it. If this is the case, then shouldn’t we, at the very least, keep our minds open to the possibility of proper structure and order in our Solar System?

However, it is one thing to say “what if” and get lost in philosophical ponderings. That is not my intention. The whole point of these posts of is to offer (with evidence) a material, scientific and natural explanation to evolution – told so beautifully in the book Earth Mother Our Womb of Life. And that is what I intend to do in this post – offer evidence that the planets migrate in systematic order from the outlying orbit of Pluto towards the Sun.

Systems Thinking, from Wikipedia

Systems Thinking, from Wikipedia

The best way to show the validity – the truth – of a proposed system is to predict what will happen next. If it happens, there is reason to believe the system might be true. Therefore let’s apply that test. What is the next event predicted to happen?

The Earth and all of the other planets in our Solar System – excluding Venus and Mercury – will eject their Cores.

Is there evidence of the coming Purification Time?

Yes, there is. In fact the abundance of evidence is why I’m writing this blog – our Earth and all the other planets in our Solar System (excluding Venus and Mercury) are experiencing exactly what is predicted at Purification Time.

Mk’s bk pg 74-75 – Is the Earth in Labour? Evidence of Earth’s rotation slowing down.

Mk’s bk pg 74-75 – Is the Earth in Labour? Evidence of Earth’s rotation slowing down.

In the post Earth Changes: Purification Time – Is Our Earth in Labour? I give evidence of the following changes:

  • a sharp increase in number and intensity of earthquakes;
  • unexplained energy output from the Core;
  • a slowing down of the Earth’s rotation; and
  • a weakening of the Earth’s magnetic field.

There is more recent evidence of great geological unrest. The video below shows global seismic activity for 30 days between March and April 2014. And note there were nineteen 6.0M+ earthquakes, seven 7.0M+ earthquakes and two 8.0M+ events!! This is an incredible amount of earthquakes! Please have a look at the video below for more detail.

In the post The Weddell Sea in Antarctica: The Earth’s Yoni, I give evidence of the warming of the deep waters of the Weddell Sea – where the Earth’s Core is predicted to emerge – and explain how these changes are causing global climactic instability.

Mk's bk pg 30-31: Weddell Sea - Earth's Yoni

Mk’s bk pg 30-31: The Weddell Sea – Earth’s Yoni

Since writing that post last year the West Antarctic ice sheet has become even more unstable. On 12 May 2014  a news story broke from NASA – The “Unstable” West Antarctic Ice Sheet:

“The new finding that the eventual loss of a major section of West Antarctica’s ice sheet “appears unstoppable” was not completely unexpected by scientists who study this area. The study, led by glaciologist Eric Rignot at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, and the University of California, Irvine, follows decades of research and theory suggesting the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is inherently vulnerable to change.”

The video below by NASA explains the recent finding of unstable conditions in Antarctica:

And yet another recent news story caught my eye (see pic below) from the Times 11 May 2014 – Antarctic Ice threatened by undersea volcano!

“Antarctica’s ice sheets may face a far more imminent threat than climate change: scientists have found a new volcano forming a mile under the ice, which is threatening a full eruption. The volcano seems to be part of a much bigger volcanic system that is generating earthquakes and releasing heat into the ice above.

The scientists believe the activity is caused by a volcanic hotspot – a giant blob of superheated rock rising from deep within the Earth. It could mean the area is a rift zone, where the Earth’s tectonic plates are pulling apart…

There are six giant glaciers in West Antarctica, with evidence suggesting they are all flowing much faster than in the past, releasing 77% more water a year than in 1973. The causes are not understood but scientists say climate change is a likely factor.”

The Times 11 May 2014 - Antarctic ice threatened by undersea volcano

The Times 11 May 2014 – Antarctic ice threatened by undersea volcano

Our Earth is going through great change, but scientists tend to view the Earth as a constant. Therefore any changes must come from a different source – namely man. However this explanation cannot account for changes beyond man’s control – great earthquake clusters, volcanic eruptions, the weakening magnetic field and planetary rotation slowing down. Nor can man-made climate change models account for disturbances on other planets.

In the post A Systems Thinking Approach to Evolution, I provide linked articles which show that the changes we are experiencing on Earth are also happening on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto.

Jupiter’s Atmosphere Experiencing Large Scale Changes - Images in the visible-light and infrared parts of the spectrum highlight the massive changes roiling the atmosphere of Jupiter. In the visible-light images on the left that were obtained by amateur astronomers, Jupiter can be seen “losing” a brown-colored belt south of the equator called the South Equatorial Belt (SEB) from 2009 to 2010. This belt returns in 2011 and is still present in 2012. From 2011 to January 2012, a belt north of the equator known as the North Equatorial Belt (NEB) can be seen to be thinning out. In 2011, it whitened to an extent not seen in over a century. In March 2012, after the last picture in this series was taken, the northern belt began to darken again. Scientists compared the visible-light data to data obtained in infrared wavelengths of 4.78 and 8.7 microns (middle and right columns), which show progressively deeper levels in the Jovian atmosphere. Image credit: NASA/IRTF/JPL-Caltech/NAOJ/A. Wesley/A. Kazemoto/C. Go

Jupiter’s Atmosphere Experiencing Large Scale Changes – Images in the visible-light and infrared parts of the spectrum highlight the massive changes roiling the atmosphere of Jupiter. In the visible-light images on the left that were obtained by amateur astronomers, Jupiter can be seen “losing” a brown-colored belt south of the equator called the South Equatorial Belt (SEB) from 2009 to 2010. This belt returns in 2011 and is still present in 2012. From 2011 to January 2012, a belt north of the equator known as the North Equatorial Belt (NEB) can be seen to be thinning out. In 2011, it whitened to an extent not seen in over a century. In March 2012, after the last picture in this series was taken, the northern belt began to darken again. Scientists compared the visible-light data to data obtained in infrared wavelengths of 4.78 and 8.7 microns (middle and right columns), which show progressively deeper levels in the Jovian atmosphere.
Image credit: NASA/IRTF/JPL-Caltech/NAOJ/A. Wesley/A. Kazemoto/C. Go

All the information above should certainly give us pause to think. Is man the cause of all this change? Perhaps the notion that the Earth might birth its Core is so unusual that science could not consider it. But science has considered this idea – it is not new. As I explained right back in the post Evolution in 4 Easy Steps – everything I’m writing has been discovered, science has identified all of the pieces of the puzzle. And so too with the Earth birthing Her Core.

In an earlier post New Scientist: The Day the Earth Birthed its Core, I discuss an article in the 6 July 2013 issue of the New Scientist magazine entitled “Tick tick boom, the Earth spits out a moon” which puts forth the proposal that the moon was once part of the Earth and somehow got blasted into space. The article examines the proposal and the evidence. The author interviews planetary scientists and cosmo-chemists and arrives at the conclusion that it is possible, even plausible – the Earth could have ejected Her Core.

IMG_1544

Mk’s bk pg 137-137 – The Day the Earth Birthed its Core, 6 July 2013 New Scientist magazine

Quoting from Earth Mother Our Womb of Life and the Coming New Heaven (and the clue is in the title):

It’s important to realize the Great Spirit has designed the universe with purpose informing its movements and cycles. We are part of the universe, part of Nature’s evolutionary cycles. According to this universal plan, we are advancing in awareness and body— an evolved brain in an evolved body – finally receiving our perfected forms in the Fifth World [Venus]. Accordingly, it is best for us not to devalue or reject the universe, looking to mystically transcend it. But rather to realize that we are part of creation, and to trust where Nature is carrying us according to the great designer of it all.

P1140189

Did Life Begin in the Icy Orbit of Pluto?

P1120122 - Copy

“You could say that the universe is in the business of making life – or that God is an organic chemist.”
~ Dr. Cyril Ponnamperuma, “Seeds of Life”, Omni Magazine Interview, 1983

Evolution in 4 Easy Steps explains a 4 step process to the formation of our Solar System and the evolution of all life in it. It’s procedural, progressive and defined – one thing happens which triggers the next, which triggers the next, and triggers the next and so on and so forth. It is a very specific plan – like the development of a child in the womb follows a very specific plan, so does the evolution of life. No meteor strikes, no mutations in DNA, no arbitrary nada. And it all kicks off in the orbit of Pluto.

Quoting from Earth Mother Our Womb of Life:

On July 21, 1986, more than 260 scientists from over 20 nations gathered in California to discuss the origin of life on Earth. Dr. Cyril Ponnamperuma, director of the chemical evolution laboratory of the University of Maryland, expressed the opinion of everyone present when he said, “… The processes which led to life on Earth must have started elsewhere in the universe…”

It is common knowledge that the conditions prevailing in the Earth’s present position (approximately 149 ½ million km. from the sun) are unsuitable for the formation of life. Any search for the origins of humanity has to look for a place with much colder conditions, and with an atmosphere of hydrogen and hydrogen compounds. The most plausible explanation is that terrestrial life is a phenomenon which originated in an outlying orbit of the Solar System, where microorganisms were gathered by the convolutions of the Earth and packed into hard ice – conditions perfect for the preservation of organic material.

Did life begin in the icy orbit of Pluto?

Screenshot of the BBC webpage on Snowball Earth, which include a number of explanatory videos.

Screenshot of the BBC webpage on Snowball Earth, which includes a number of explanatory videos.

dropstone NamibiaThere is a very interesting theory knocking about that Earth was once covered in ice, known as “Snowball Earth“. I don’t know who originated the theory – different sources claim different authorship, but certainly the work of geologists Paul Hoffman and Dan Schrag contributed significantly. They found ‘dropstones’ in Namibia, Africa. Dropstones are rocks and boulders believed to be dropped into sediment from icebergs. The fact that so many are found in the hot dry deserts of Namibia led them to propose an ice-age existed which extended as far south as the equator. Since its initial proposal Snowball Earth has gained substantial evidential support. There is a dedicated website by the U.S. National Science Foundation (Geology & Paleontology Division) which explores the theory: Snowballearth.org

Why is it interesting? Because this it the time when the first life forms are thought to have evolved. An informative and fascinating article in Discover Magazine, February 2008, entitled: Did Life Evolve in Ice? brings together the work of chemists, physicists and astro-biologists who all arrived independently at the notion that the “funky properties of frozen water may have made life possible.

Below is a series of excerpts, including the original links – which are brilliant! I highly suggest reading the full article, the author Douglas Fox is one of the best science journalists I have ever read.

Mk's bk pg 112-113 - Did Life Evolve in Ice?

Mk’s bk pg 112-113 – Did Life Evolve in Ice?

Discover Magazine February 2008

Discover Magazine February 2008

“For decades, those studying the origin of life have imagined that it emerged in balmy conditions from primordial soups, tropical ponds, even boiling volcanic vents. Miller [Stanley L. Miller, renowned origin of life chemist] and and a few other scientists began to suspect that life began not in warmth but in ice—at temperatures that few living things can now survive. The very laws of chemistry may have favored ice, says Bada [Jeffery Bada, chemist and astrobiologist], now at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. “We’ve been arguing for a long time,” he says, “that cold conditions make much more sense, chemically, than warm conditions.”

*****

… strange things happen when you freeze chemicals in ice. Some reactions slow down, but others actually speed up—especially reactions that involve joining small molecules into larger ones. This seeming paradox is caused by a process called eutectic freezing. As an ice crystal forms, it stays pure: Only molecules of water join the growing crystal, while impurities like salt or cyanide are excluded. These impurities become crowded in microscopic pockets of liquid within the ice, and this crowding causes the molecules to collide more often. Chemically speaking, it transforms a tepid seventh-grade school dance into a raging molecular mosh pit.

“Usually as you cool things, the reaction rates go down,” concluded Leslie Orgel, who studied the origins of life at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California, from the 1960s until his death last October. “But with eutectic freezing, the concentrations go up so fast that they more than make up” for the difference.

“The strong point of freezing,” according to Orgel, “is that you concentrate things very efficiently without evaporation.” Freezing also helps preserve fragile molecules like nucleobases, extending their lifetime from days to centuries and giving them time to accumulate and perhaps organize into something more interesting—like life.

Orgel and his coworkers proposed these ideas in 1966, when he showed that frozen cyanide efficiently assembles into larger molecules. Alan Schwartz, a biochemist at the University of Nijmegen in the Netherlands, took the idea further when he showed in 1982 that frozen cyanide, in the presence of ammonia, can form a nucleobase called adenine.

*****

Hauke Trinks and wildlife on the beach of Nordaustland

Hauke Trinks and local wildlife on the beach of Nordaustland, far north of the Arctic Circle, where he went to study the evolution of life in sea ice – similar conditions to prehistoric ‘Snowball Earth’. Credit: Marie Tieche

[Pre-historic] Earth may have cooled to an average surface temperature of –40°F and a crust of ice as much as 1,000 feet thick may have covered the oceans. Many scientists have puzzled over how life could have arisen on a planet that was essentially a giant snowball. The answer, Trinks [Hauke Trinks, physicist at Technical University of Hamburg-Harburg in Germany] suspected, involved sea ice.

Trinks had become interested in sea ice 10 years before, while studying its tendency to accumulate pollutants from the atmosphere and concentrate them in liquid pockets within the ice. He set out to explore whether a layer of ice covering early Earth’s oceans might have gathered and assembled organic molecules.”…

By the time Trinks returned to Hamburg in 2003, he had formulated a theory that ice was doing much more than just concentrating chemicals. The ice surface is a checkerboard of positive and negative charges; he imagined those charges grabbing individual nucleobases and stacking them like Pringles in a can, helping them coalesce into a chain of RNA. “The surface layer between ice and liquid is very complicated,” he says. “There is strong bonding between the surface of the ice and the liquid. Those bondings are important for producing long organic chains like RNA.”

At a lecture in Hamburg in 2003, Trinks met up with chemist Christof Biebricher, who was studying how the first RNA chains could have formed in the absence of the enzymes that guide their formation in living cells. Trinks approached Biebricher with his sea ice theory, but to Biebricher, the experiments to test it sounded messy—more like a margarita recipe than a serious scientific investigation. “Chemists,” says Biebricher, “do not like heterogeneous substances like ice.” But Trinks convinced him to try it in his laboratory at the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry in Göttingen, Germany.

dna-and-rnaBiebricher sealed small amounts of RNA nucleobases—adenine, cytosine, guanine—with artificial seawater into thumb-size plastic tubes and froze them. After a year, he thawed the tubes and analyzed them for chains of RNA.

For decades researchers had tried to coax RNA chains to form under all sorts of conditions without using enzymes; the longest chain formed, which Orgel accomplished in 1982, consisted of about 40 nucleobases. So when Biebricher analyzed his own samples, he was amazed to see RNA molecules up to 400 bases long. In newer, unpublished experiments he says he has observed RNA molecules 700 bases long.

*****

That is a good start, but it leaves unanswered the question: How do you get from tiny snippets of RNA to longer, well-crafted chains that could have acted as the first enzymes, doing fancy things like copying themselves. The shortest RNA enzyme chains known today are about 50 bases long; most have more than 100. To work effectively, moreover, an RNA enzyme must fold correctly, which requires exactly the right sequence of bases.

A young scientist named Alexander Vlassov stumbled upon a possible answer. He was working at SomaGenics, a biotech company in Santa Cruz, California, to develop RNA enzymes that latch on to the hepatitis C virus. His RNA enzymes were behaving strangely: They normally consisted of a single segment of RNA, but every time he cooled them below freezing to purify them, the chain of RNA spontaneously joined its ends into a circle, like a snake biting its tail. As Vlassov worked to fix the technical glitch, he noticed that another RNA enzyme, called hairpin, also acted strangely. At room temperature, hairpin acts like scissors, snipping other RNA molecules into pieces. But when Vlassov froze it, it ran in reverse: It glued other RNA chains together end to end.

Vlassov and his coworkers, Sergei Kazakov and Brian Johnston, realized that the ice was driving both enzymes to work in reverse. Normally when an enzyme cuts an RNA chain in two, a water molecule is consumed in the process, and when two RNA chains are joined, a water molecule is expelled. By removing most of the liquid water, the ice creates conditions that allow the RNA enzyme to work in just one direction, joining RNA chains. The SomaGenics scientists wondered whether an icy spot on early Earth could have driven a primitive enzyme to do the same. 

*****

Miller died on May 20, 2007, but the provocative theory he helped nurture lives on. In the latest twist, Miller’s ideas are influencing not just theories about life’s origin on Earth but also investigations about the potential for life elsewhere in the solar system. 

In January 2013, a drill cut half a mile through the Antarctic Ice Sheet to Subglacial Lake Whillans.

In January 2013, a drill cut half a mile through the Antarctic Ice Sheet to Subglacial Lake Whillans.

In an article in the July 2013 issue of Discover Magazine (once again written by Douglas Fox): “Life Under Antarctic’s Ice”, a group of scientists discovered a subglacial lake half a mile under Antarctica, which contained something no one thought was possible – life!

“On Jan. 28, Trista Vick-Majors, one of Priscu’s Ph.D. students, took a long-awaited step: She added DNA-sensitive dye to a sample of lake water — the first attempt to detect life in Lake Whillans. As she viewed it through a microscope, she saw specks of green shining against a background of black — cells glowing in response to the dye — as many as 1.6 million cells in each cubic inch of water. Those cells were the first ever found unambiguously in a subglacial lake.”

They thought life was impossible in the subglacial lake, not just because of the cold, but the lack of sunlight.

The location of subglacial Lake Whillans West Antarctic Ice Sheet

The location of subglacial Lake Whillans West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Credit: Discover magazine

“Only the upper 10 to 30 feet of water in these lakes was frozen as ice, so sunlight filtered through, allowing life to power itself through photosynthesis. But a lake as deeply buried as Vostok [another subglacial lake] would be entirely dark, so any life there would have to use some other energy source. At that time, the question of what life might inhabit Lake Vostok was becoming increasingly relevant to people who were looking for life elsewhere in the solar system.”

pluto_core

Pluto with its Core

This is a common notion – that life requires the Sun. I recently took a university short course in eco-systems and I was surprised at how the literature gave solar energy as the only source for life. Yet this completely overlooks life found in the deep oceans near volcanic vents and the numerous translucent and blind life forms found in deep caves – who have never seen sunlight. Heat and energy coming from the Earth’s Core have been shown to provide the necessary energy for life (see video below). In the orbit of Pluto, where sunlight is limited, the planet’s Core could theoretically provide the heat and energy for life to develop (see Step 2: Friction at the Core).

 

So far I think I have provided a fair amount of evidence that:
  • Earth was once covered in ice,
  • life is believed to have evolved in ice, and
  • present day icy conditions on Earth show an abundance of simple life forms, in particular single-cell organisms – even when there is no sunlight.

But the proposal of this post is not just that life began on an icy cold Earth, but that Earth was once in the orbit of Pluto – that’s why it was so cold. Perhaps it is best to look at the Pluto itself to see if it can offer us any clues:

The video above from Space Telescope Science Institute was published in 2010. I include it here because astronomers have unexpectedly discovered that Pluto is not “ just an over sized snowball, but a dramatically dynamic world”. Quoting from the video:

“Pluto got redder, markedly redder, just over that very short time span [1994-2002].” ~ Marc Buie, astronomer Southwest Research Institute. “I was expecting that if we would see any change at all it would be very, very subtle and instead it seems like Pluto is changing perhaps a little faster than I would have expected.” ~ Will Grundy, astronomer, Lowell Observatory. What Pluto’s changing landscape means is anybody’s guess.

“We can no longer interpret what we are seeing as the result of a static surface that’s just changing in the direction we’re looking at it. We really have to have change taking place on the surface to explain the observations.” ~Buie “Observations that hint the Pluto is not just an over sized snowball, but a dramatically dynamic world on the solar system’s final frontier.”

New Horizons - an unmanned Pluto-Kuiper Belt probe

New Horizons – an unmanned Pluto-Kuiper Belt probe

The more we learn about Pluto the more we discard old ideas – the difficulty is figuring out new explanations to replace our old ones. In 2015 an unmanned space probe, New Horizons, will pass by and photograph Pluto and hopefully provide new information. Quoting from a BBC article entitled: “Pluto’s dynamic surface revealed by Hubble images“:

“Alan Stern, who is principal investigator on the mission, said that with every great planetary reconnaissance mission “we have always learnt that when we get there, we are blown away by how primitive our ideas were from blurry images taken from Earth.

He told BBC News: “When we get there, the odds are very high that we will have so much more information and rich detail that all our views circa 1990 and 2000 and 2010 will appear antiquated. That’s why I don’t like to make predictions.”

He added: “No one predicted river valleys on Mars, or volcanoes on the Galilean satellites, or that Mercury was mostly a core and little else. It’s entirely likely that Pluto will be something so surprising that everything we’ve done so far looks quaint in comparison.”

I hope the evidence I presented here gives you cause to think that maybe, just maybe, there is more to our Solar System than we currently believe. Quoting the last paragraph from “Did Life Evolve In Ice?“:

“If life arose in ice on Earth, then why not on Mars, Europa, or Enceladus? “You’ve got to keep an open mind in this business,” Bada says. “If I were going to make a bet about what we’d find if we discover life elsewhere in the universe, I would suspect it would be more cold-adapted than hot-adapted.” “

In the next post I’ll examine the notion that evolution is compelled by the Earth migrating from the orbit of Pluto – orbit by orbit – across the Solar System to where it is today.

This is the most detailed view to date of the entire surface of the dwarf planet Pluto, as constructed from multiple NASA Hubble Space Telescope photographs taken from 2002 to 2003. The center disk (180 degrees) has a mysterious bright spot that is unusually rich in carbon monoxide frost. Image released - February 2010. Credit: NASA, ESA, and M. Bule (Southwest Research Institute)

This is the most detailed view to date of the entire surface of the dwarf planet Pluto, as constructed from multiple NASA Hubble Space Telescope photographs taken from 2002 to 2003. The center disk (180 degrees) has a mysterious bright spot that is unusually rich in carbon monoxide frost. Image released – February 2010.
Credit: NASA, ESA, and M. Bule (Southwest Research Institute)

The Mystery of the Appearing Turtle

P1120055

Mk’s bk pg 124-125 – The Mystery of the Appearing Turtle

The turtle is a mystery of evolution. Its body shape first appears in the fossil record fully formed. But how? If life evolves in small incremental steps where are all the fossils showing the development of the turtle? Quoting from the textbook ‘Explore Evolution:

A fossil of one of the world's oldest-known turtle shells with a limb bone discovered in clay deposit northwest of Krakow. Credit: PhysOrg Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-world-oldest-turtle-shells.html#jCp

A fossil of one of the world’s oldest-known turtle shells with a limb bone discovered in clay deposit northwest of Krakow. Credit: Phys.org

“The very first time turtles appear, their body plan is already fully developed, and they appear in the fossil record without intermediates. Furthermore, turtle and tortoise shells contain more than 50 bony “scutes” that appear in no other vertebrate order, nor anywhere else in the fossil record. What’s more, the turtle scapula is positioned underneath its ribs and scutes, unlike any living or fossilised vertebrate. Scott Gilbert, an evolutionary biologist who works on this puzzle, says that “the turtle shell represents a classic evolutionary problem: the appearance of a major structural adaptation”. According to Gilbert, this problem is made even more difficult by “the ‘instantaneous’ appearance of this evolutionary novelty.” Because “the distinctive morphology [form and structure] of the turtle appears to have arisen suddenly.” Gilbert and his colleagues argue that evolution needs “to explain the rapid origin of the turtle carapace [shell].” They are studying turtle embryology to investigate how this might have happened.

In Mike’s book I included a 2013 newspaper article from the Times. When I first saw it, I read with great interest thinking that the title was true: “At last, the hard facts on how the turtle got its shell“. But I was disappointed. Nowhere in the article does it say how the turtle got its shell. The article starts its explanation with a fully formed shell – without saying how it formed. Instead the article focuses on the next steps in the turtle’s evolutionary journey.

Excerpt from "At last, the hard facts on how the turtle got its shell" The Times 31 May 2013

Excerpt from “At last, the hard facts on how the turtle got its shell” The Times 31 May 2013

However the conclusion of the article did not disappoint:

“The team also revealed that the sequence of evolutionary events resembles the steps seen as turtle embryos develop their shells. It might not be the solution that Kipling would have dreamt up, but as Dr. Lyson [paleontologist Yale University and the Smithsonian] said: “The development data and the fossil record now align and are pointing towards the same answer.” ‘

The turtle’s evolutionary cycle resembles its embryonic growth cycle! This is an important realisation, yet I don’t think the author of the Times article or the very scientists studying the fossils grasp the implications. Even those who wrote the ‘Explore Evolution’ textbook, which is basically a criticism of Darwin’s theory, show a lack of understanding of what they are saying (see the highlighted sentence in the opening quote of this post).

Nature does not develop the embryo of turtle (or any other biological life form) through random steps or mutations. All life follows specific growth ‘plans’. This is the way Nature works for all life. Yet we choose to explain the evolution of life as a arbitrary process compelled by meteor strikes and mutations in DNA. Call this what you will – but don’t call it Nature.

Vertebrae in one  of the world's oldest-known turtle fossils.

Fully formed vertebrae in Proterochersis-type (oldest known) turtle fossil. Credit: Phys.org

If we want to know how Nature evolves life then perhaps we should be looking at how Nature develops life. This would lead us to look for cyclical transformative steps, as seen in the embryo and beyond – tadpole to frog, sapling to tree, foetus to baby – life changes its body shape (and often the environment it inhabits) during its growth from seed to embryo to infant to adult to death.

In Step 3: Jumps in our Evolutionary Journey I offer an explanation. Of course it is different than current scientific theory, but as these articles confirm, our current theory is inadequate to explain what we are seeing.

Embryonic development of different species.

Embryonic development of different species.

What if – if only for philosophical contemplation on this windy spring Sunday morning – what if Nature did evolve life the way Nature develops life. What would we expect to find? Life begins with the seed. Well, life on Earth began with single-cell organisms… seeds? One seed is often indistinguishable from anther, but once fertilized, life begins to take its distinctive shape (as shown in the pic on the left).

The same thing happens in our fossil record: after single-cell organisms, there was the Cambrian Explosion in which we find species began to take their distinctive body shapes. In fact, the vast majority of body types that exist on Earth today (known as phyla) began during the Cambrian Explosion (see pic below).

Sample of Cambrian fossils.

Sample of Cambrian fossils.

I know that analogy is not proof. I am not offering this comparison as proof. But rather as a thought experiment. As Dr Lyson (from the Times article) said: “The development data and the fossil record now align and are pointing towards the same answer.”

It may not be what paleontologists “would have dreamt up” but perhaps the answer is that we are part of a natural system of evolution/growth. We can’t see it because we’re in it – can’t see the forest for the trees.

This is the point of the story I learned, and it is the same point made in the book: Earth Mother Our Womb of Life – after all, the clue is in the title.

icaronycteris_index_1

Fossil of the Icaronycteris, earliest known bat.

 As a final note: the turtle is not the only animal to appear fully formed in the fossil record. The bat makes his first appearance looking very much like the modern day bat with fully functional wings (see above).

This is also true of many flowering plants which appeared during the “angiosperm big bloom”. As a National Geographic article “”The Big Bloom—How Flowering Plants Changed the World” asks: “Just when and how did the first flowering plants emerge? Charles Darwin pondered that question, and paleobotanists are still searching for an answer.”

A South African monkey beetle burrows deep into the center of a Gazania flower to feed on flower parts. The beetle then emerges with a luxuriant coat of pollen, which it carries to other flowers. Credit: National Geographic "The Big Bloom—How Flowering Plants Changed the World"

A South African monkey beetle burrows deep into the center of a Gazania flower to feed on flower parts. The beetle then emerges with a luxuriant coat of pollen, which it carries to other flowers. Credit: National Geographic “The Big Bloom—How Flowering Plants Changed the World