The origin of mankind

[Karl]

Karl, early on in our relationship your patience with me was broken. When I didn't agree with you or see your point of view, you gave up and bid me good luck. It was the uneasiness of our parting that raised your awareness that maybe Jim wasn't such a bad guy, and maybe he did had something to say. We butted heads because you are like me and I am like you. Your Ann Ryand way of thinking is something that you hold on to because it works very well for you...it is your life saver. For me it is the 12 Steps of Recovery. They are my life saver. And so I let them work me because I want to live.

No, that isn't quite true Jim. I stopped conversing via PM. I have no issues in an open forum where anyone is free to join in, I saw no reason to continue privately. That means I can add a reply if I want to do so, or not. On PM it's a more intimate space, once we have exhausted our arguments there is little point in continuing.

 

Neither did I label you as 'a bad guy' or that 'you had nothing to say'. I don't 'hold on' to objectivism either, that's also a misunderstanding, just as I don't hold on to the fact that 1+1=2, it just does regardless of whether that works for me or not.

[Jim D.]

You are correct Karl. I had forgotten that we were using PM. I really did not know how to navigate around Dao Bums. You have made a good point in that making our discussion more available to others invites more discussion.

 

Yeah, if 1 + 1 = 2 and it works for me than I will use it. But if alcohol and Mariuana's  formula is 2 + 2 = 5 due to the potentiation factor, I will use that formula in my own best interest.

 

You know, if I ( ego) drinks enough the body will survive itself by making me pass out and/or vomiting my stomach's contents in order to get by Blood Alcohol Level down to acceptable levels. But if I (ego) decide when I wake up to put more alcohol in me, than my body will shut down out of respiratory collapse, and then death will follow. The insanity of the ego which hurts or gets hurt is incomprehensible.

 

Karl, my conversations with you, MH, and others that participate is a "teachable moment" for me. Because I am a guy, initially I wanted to win, be right, dominate the discussion with my pontification and education. I entered a group of guys I did not know and was afraid I would not be accepted. This is group dynamics. When I let go of that perception and gave up trying to impress anyone, and gave myself the freedom to be right for me, I relaxed and started enjoying myself. It so difficult exchanging words over the Internet. You can't see the person. You can only hear the tone of their voice in the perception of that tone. My mind makes up images of the person that I am talking to from their logos like the guy with the crazy eyes logo. I don't know why he picked that picture to represent himself. But as I listen to his words, they are not coming out insane. As I listen to your words, I hear a man that seems afraid of the outcome of what this world is doing to itself. I hear a lot of dilemma in other Dao Bums, and I wonder if they are struggling for lack of having a Higher Power in their lives, no matter what shape that takes on. And yet, good always comes out of struggle. We just keep moving forward. Peace my friend. I don't like when people talk down to you. I even did it early on, and I apologize. I am also insecure.

[Marblehead]

My resilience or my patience ? I would have thought the former pretty much speaks for itself, the latter has yet to be broken.

 

No, I would never test your patience.  But, there are many scientists who consider Earth a living organism.  I can understand their view and from a certain perspective agree with them.  But then I agree with you that the rock is not alive.

 

Nature, for example, no it is not alive as in a living organism, but it is dynamic, constantly changing, fueled by the sun.

[Karl]

Everything has a nature.

[Marblehead]

True that.

[Jim D.]

If we turn our attention to Einstein, that rock will move on its own over time.

[Karl]

If we turn our attention to Einstein, that rock will move on its own over time.

Then it's a tortoise called Einstein and not a rock, get some better lenses.:-)

[Nungali]

That's a straw man argument. It's not a necessity to know how life began, it's only necessary to use ones mind to survive. Aborigines did not thrive, they almost got wiped out by western man. They had nothing at all to show for 40,000 years except a miserable stone age existence of continual toil.

 

 

 

I am actually shocked that you wrote that .  I will put it down to a complete lack of education in this particular area.

 

I am also surprised you believe it , if you do.    And I cant comprehend , now, what you must value as a good and worthwhile life. 

[Nungali]

Yeah, my knowledge of chemistry is lacking.  I know that when humans take a breath of air our lungs utilize the oxygen and expel the carbon dioxide.  Then plants utilize the carbon dioxide and expel oxygen.  Nice arrangement.

 

Can elements be created here on Earth?  Might be a nice topic to research when I have nothing else to do.

 

Man has created new elements.  I need more brain power.

 

Plants breathe oxygen. They have to because they are alive .  

 

They only breathe in CO₂ when photosynthesizing , extract the carbon and breath out the oxygen. Otherwise they breathe the same cycle as us; in O2 out CO2 . 

 

Hence the .... 

 

[Nungali]

Well, my fair feathered friend, my initial research indicates that oxygen truly is created here on Earth.  Yep.  It seems that blue-green algae (Cyanobacteria) are what changed the chemistry of Earth's atmosphere by creating vast amounts of oxygen about 3.5 billion years ago.

 

How ? 

 

How did they create it ? 

[Marblehead]

How ? 

 

How did they create it ? 

You asking me?  I'm not a chemist or biologist.

 

Check out the info on Stromatolites.  The oldest are documented in Australia and they still exist down there.

 

Plants don't use oxygen.  Think about it.

 

Consider enclosed biospheres.  There must be both plant and animal life within for it to function.  The plants supply the oxygen for the animals and the animals supply the carbon dioxide for the plants.  That's the way life on earth works.

[Nungali]

I checked myself. As I thought, Oxygen is formed in stars not on planets . 

 

 " it's the third-most abundant element in the universe, forged in the superhot, superdense core of stars. " 

 

I was assuming it was in the 'dust cloud; that formed planets and the earth. Locked up in minerals, gasses and liquids. and processes extracted it to O2 . Like I said before. 

 

The article states  " breathable air we enjoy today originated from tiny organisms "  Not that oxygen was created. 

 

' These microbes conduct photosynthesis: using sunshine, water and carbon dioxide to produce carbohydrates and, yes, oxygen. In fact, all the plants on Earth incorporate symbiotic cyanobacteria (known as chloroplasts) to do their photosynthesis for them down to this day. "

 

" But one thing is clear—the origins of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere derive from one thing: life. '  *

 

Note  " in Earth's atmosphere" . 

 

As I said, oxygen is not created on earth, its an ingredient. Physics and chemistry , remember that?  You cannot create or destroy matter , just mix it up and push it around a bit . Still, it has to balance out. 

 

 

there is your oxygen  (for our breathable air ) pumping out at the lower right 

 

 

 * http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/origin-of-oxygen-in-atmosphere/

[Nungali]

You asking me?  I'm not a chemist or biologist.

 

Check out the info on Stromatolites.  The oldest are documented in Australia and they still exist down there.

 

Plants don't use oxygen.  Think about it.

 

Consider enclosed biospheres.  There must be both plant and animal life within for it to function.  The plants supply the oxygen for the animals and the animals supply the carbon dioxide for the plants.  That's the way life on earth works.

 

 

Nope ... dont need no animals . 

[Marblehead]

Nope ... dont need no animals . 

Then where does the additional carbon dioxide come from after the plants have consumed all that is available?  It has to come from somewhere else all the plants would die.

[Karl]

I am actually shocked that you wrote that .  I will put it down to a complete lack of education in this particular area.

 

I am also surprised you believe it , if you do.    And I cant comprehend , now, what you must value as a good and worthwhile life.

 

 

 

Mans only tool of survival is his mind :tick:

 

Aborigines lived a primitive Stone Age lifestyle :tick:

 

I have to agree that I don't know that they were 'almost wiped out' but they certainly were heavily reduced in numbers due to encroachment by Europeans through direct attack and disease (it is suggested that there was early germ warfare).

[Nungali]

Plants even breathe oxygen in the day,  - respiration. At  the same time they breathe in carbon dioxide and out oxygen - photosynthesis. At night photosynthesis stops so only the oxygen pumps out 

[Marblehead]

Plants even breathe oxygen in the day,  - respiration. At  the same time they breathe in carbon dioxide and out oxygen - photosynthesis. At night photosynthesis stops so only the oxygen pumps out 

http://www.vtaide.com/png/photosynthesis.htm

[Nungali]

Mans only tool of survival is his mind :tick:

 

Aborigines lived a primitive Stone Age lifestyle :tick:

 

I have to agree that I don't know that they were 'almost wiped out' but they certainly were heavily reduced in numbers due to encroachment by Europeans through direct attack and disease (it is suggested that there was early germ warfare).

 

 

why are you reducing their 40,000 year success   to the recent decimation ?  I am talking about a wider picture. Success  of past peoples is not gleaned by a current snapshot. 

 

As far as you view of toiling all day ... in good country and season a 3 -4 'work' day would be normal.  We could compare that to the modern industrial worker as well ... especially in the 3rd world ! 

 

Pain and suffering  - medical ?  They have had a cure for cancer for ages, we only just discovered it - the blushwood nut . look it up. 

 

There are hundreds of examples. 

 

Have you ever been camping or out enjoying  nature Karl ?  Gone 'trekking'  ? 

 

Of course I admit  modern society does  things they never could.  One might be relted to a question an old fellow asked me when we were looking at the Moon one night ; "Why whitefellah want to go hoping around up there , like a kangaroo ? "

[Nungali]

Then where does the additional carbon dioxide come from after the plants have consumed all that is available?  It has to come from somewhere else all the plants would die.

 

It is continually pumping into the atmosphere ( at the current set up, the way the atmosphere is working  -  it changes over great periods of time )  from a variety of sources; from rotting logs in the forest to volcanic gasses.   Now, apparently, we are adding to it. 

[Nungali]

http://www.vtaide.com/png/photosynthesis.htm

 

.... and .... ? 

 

I understand what it is. That article only talked about one side of things and very simply. 

 

The point is ??? 

[Marblehead]

The point is plants absorb carbon dioxide and and through photosynthesis produce sugar and oxygen.  It uses the sugar and releases oxygen into the atmosphere.  The respiration of animals uses oxygen and exhausts carbon dioxide.  It is a cycle - the cycle of life.

 

We talk about our carbon footprint.  That refers to how much carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere during our lifetime.

 

The article I liked to was based on plants but if you look you will see the comparison of photosynthesis (plants) and respiration (animals).

[Marblehead]

It is continually pumping into the atmosphere ( at the current set up, the way the atmosphere is working  -  it changes over great periods of time )  from a variety of sources; from rotting logs in the forest to volcanic gasses.   Now, apparently, we are adding to it. 

Hehehe.  You got pretty close to using magic there.

[Karl]

why are you reducing their 40,000 year success   to the recent decimation ?  I am talking about a wider picture. Success  of past peoples is not gleaned by a current snapshot. 

 

As far as you view of toiling all day ... in good country and season a 3 -4 'work' day would be normal.  We could compare that to the modern industrial worker as well ... especially in the 3rd world ! 

 

Pain and suffering  - medical ?  They have had a cure for cancer for ages, we only just discovered it - the blushwood nut . look it up. 

 

There are hundreds of examples. 

 

Have you ever been camping or out enjoying  nature Karl ?  Gone 'trekking'  ? 

 

Of course I admit  modern society does  things they never could.  One might be relted to a question an old fellow asked me when we were looking at the Moon one night ; "Why whitefellah want to go hoping around up there , like a kangaroo ? "

Success is relative. Would I rather live in a modern city with all the amenities or as an aborigine ? No contest, give me the city everytime.

 

The answer to your question is yes, most of my life, though what that has to do with the price of fish I don't know :shrug:.

[Nungali]

The point is plants absorb carbon dioxide and and through photosynthesis produce sugar and oxygen.  It uses the sugar and releases oxygen into the atmosphere.  The respiration of animals uses oxygen and exhausts carbon dioxide.  It is a cycle - the cycle of life.

 

The point was oxygen , was not created on earth, remember.    If you look more into the dynamics of the atmosphere, it is a lot re complex, but yes, plants do breathe out oxygen in the day time. and we do breathe in oxygen, and yes, plants help to make the atmosphere breathable for us. 

 

But oxygen aint created here, and I think everything I wrote was right, this just looks at a type of symbiotic relationship that is a part of it. If the plants died we would be ****ed, if the animals died ?  The plants would go on like they do in the sealed jar  ( unitil they die, as the sealed jar does not have everything  planetary atmosphere minus the animals would have .

 

We talk about our carbon footprint.  That refers to how much carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere during our lifetime.

 

Yeah, but your footprint isnt just your breath ....   Idrive a car ... I am burning wood for heating right now ... its adding to carbon in the atmosphere. 

 

The article I liked to was based on plants but if you look you will see the comparison of photosynthesis (plants) and respiration (animals).

 

 

Yes I understand that. Did you know that plants respirated too?  Most living things do, life is oxygen based on earth ... is our fuel that burns the internal fire . 

[Nungali]

Success is relative. Would I rather live in a modern city with all the amenities or as an aborigine ? No contest, give me the city everytime.

 

The answer to your question is yes, most of my life, though what that has to do with the price of fish I don't know :shrug:.

 

Indeed it is  relative, that is my very point about western culture ! 

 

I was  talking about these things from an anthropological perspective. About cultures   which are collective things ... over time ... not about 'Karl's lifestyle '   ... or mine . 

 

You judge world cultures historically on a scale of your own   personal comfortable 'drathers'  ?