|
Post by skyship on Oct 13, 2012 19:43:33 GMT -5
When we look in the right places behind the mask and false evolutionary icons, one finds the truth.
For so long we are hoodwinked by those who think they have all the answers, and from that can devise methods to alter humans, animals, plants and the earth itself.
The Mask is being ripped off to reveal the naked lies and dismissed real science that could have aided mankind in healing the ills of society.
Those Shadows are now finding the sunlight, no bioilluminance needed now. But the light is weak and we must bring them forth, for we shall find what we are looking for.
Here is an example:=============================== ======================= In the shadow of Darwin: Anton de Bary’s origin of myxomycetology and a molecular phylogeny of the plasmodial slime molds
DiscussionOne hundred and ï¬fty years ago, Darwin (1859) and deBary (1859) published their seminal monographs that later became the reference works for entire scientiï¬c disciplines.In contrast to Darwin’s book, which is still in print today and one of the most cited monographs in the biological sciences, de Bary’s work, a publication that marks the‘origin of myxomycetology’, is only known to a few specialists ( Martin and Alexopoulos1969; Sparrow1978; Horsfall and Wilhelm1982; Drews2001; Everhart and Keller2008).One reason for the unequal impact of these scientiï¬c classics is obvious. Darwin (1859) published a work of general signiï¬cance with reference to animals and plants,whereas de Bary (1859) discussed one little-known group of ‘lower micro-organisms’, living beings that have no economical value for man. Here we argue that this super-ï¬cial evaluation of de Bary’s work is not appropriate for the following reasons. ..."First, de Bary (1859) addressed the general question whether or not the slime molds (Schleimpilze) are fungi, as generally assumed by those naturalists who had studied this group of organisms before his monograph was published. Inthis seminal paper, de Bary (1859) came to the conclusion that plasmodial slime molds are animals and therefore re-named them ‘Mycetozoa’ as more in accordance with their supposed nature."............ .....". In a later work of general scope, he added the bacteria (de Bary1884), a group of microorganisms that was entirely ignored by Darwin. Today we know that bacteria and other prokaryotes dominate the protoplasmic mass of the biosphere (Whitman et al.1998; Kutschera andNiklas2004). Hence, with respect to the ‘lower forms of life’, de Bary (1859,1864,1866,1884), who was the ï¬rst to study the myxamoebae of slime molds in detail, held moremodern views than Darwin (1859,1872)......."" Second, de Bary’s discovery of the naked, amoeboid mass called plasmodium, a single cell with many nuclei,provided the basis for the protoplasmic theory of cellular life"........ ......."In this context, it should be noted that Anton de Bary also studied the origin of lichens, and, like in his research on the myxomycetes, traced all the developmental stages through which these organisms grew and reproduced. Based on these and related observations, de Bary coined the word ‘symbiosis’ in 1879 and deï¬ned this term as ‘the living together of unlike organisms’ (Sparrow1978). This discovery and deï¬nition later gave rise to an entire new branch of evolutionary cell research that resulted in the concept of symbiogenesis ( primary and secondary endo-symbiosis; see Kutschera2009; Kutschera and Niklas2005,2008; Niklas1997)"........ ........"Finally, it should be noted that Darwin (1859,1872) postulated a mechanism for the transformation and diversiï¬cation of species that was based on the gradual modiï¬cation of existing ones. However, he was unable to answer the question where the earliest forms of life came from. Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) is well known for his experiments that refuted the dogma of spontaneous generation. This long-held assumption states that living beings"..........can arise today de novo from non-living material(McLaughlin2005). Pasteur documented instead that lifeforms always originate from organisms. In a series of publications, de Bary (1859,1864,1866) documented that fungi can cause plant diseases. Based on these observations he provided independent evidence, by means of germi-nating spores, for Pasteur’s general conclusion. In a prize-winning paper to the French Academy entitled ‘Researches on the development of some plant parasites’, de Bary deï¬nitively proved that organisms cannot be generated spontaneously (Sparrow1978). In the introduction to his book on the Comparative morphology and biology of the fungi slime molds and bacteria , de Bary (1884) pointed out that he was glad that he no longer feels obliged to include a chapter on spontaneous generation, since this dogma is no longer taken seriously by competent scientists. Based on Pasteur’s and de Bary’s insights it was concluded that all forms of life developed in unbroken lineages of descent through time, with modiï¬cations, to produce the biological diversity we observe today. Darwin (1859,1872) was possibly aware of this fact, but in his book On the Origin of Species we ï¬nd no explicit statement concerning this general rule of the biological sciences"........ Please take a look at these forms:htmlimg2.scribdassets.com/3gd2fovlfkv82ao/images/5-722021d52e.jpghtmlimg2.scribdassets.com/3gd2fovlfkv82ao/images/6-a360806a35.jpg[/blockquote]========================= So the basic rules of biology were ignored to push for the forced/directed evolution we now see.
The mask was put on and the liars moved on with "contrived science"
Once past the anger, one realizes what has been done to humanity and living things. Nonliving was never described. until now, when we see this non living material in Morgellons.
Symbiosis was totally ignored, and existing organisms where altered with no biological sense of sybiosis and the damage it can do.
The Pine tree wilt is an excellent example.
You have a beetle, or many, which carry nematodes, which eat the blue fungi in the pine tree bark, which has resin dripping down it, the gnats carry the fungi with the beetle larvae and the gall bacteria from the roots which carry the neamtodes and the mites and the spores, and the lichen, formed from algae and fungus and so on.
This now is being looked at FINALLY and what are they finding? This symbiosis. This will happen to you from a simple gnat, or mosquito, or assassin bug, or reduviid cone nose pine beetle, which also carries Chagas protozoans.
So, if symbiosis is ignored, then how in can you alter species and not considered what the natural flow of biology really is?
So, until we bring the real botanists forward, we will never know what hit us folks. We will be gone before the real truth is revealed.
Do not wait for this. We have the knowledge by observing the symbiosis that goes on in our skin. It is all there, all we have to do is see each part for what it is and how the symbiosis in us happens.
Until we do, we will never find one cause, because it is multiple from the multiple complex that has been created by symbiosis of new novel species, with no consideration for what lives with it. ....
|
|
|
Post by skyship on Oct 13, 2012 20:47:47 GMT -5
Examining the symbiosis that takes place causing Pine tree wilt, I find this amazing group of symbionts that are present in this study. The Tria Project: all kinds of myxomycetes, myxoprotozoans, myxomites, etc. tria project: the original paper had 4 types of symbionts and 3 or four under each of those types. So, you can imagine how much damage is being done through the bark. Same way through our skin. Frogs skin shows it too......... pavellas.com/tag/plasmodiophorids/
|
|
|
Post by skyship on Oct 13, 2012 20:58:18 GMT -5
They took out the pdf so you could not see those symbionts. but the website they are using now is this. but does not go into each of the symbionts. They are only giving us the minimal amount of information. www.thetriaproject.ca/index.phpthis new fungal encephalitis involves the nematode as well. They are not telling us that either. However, I typed them down: so here they are, since they removed the evidence, now think they have the answer for curing this with some lame brain concoctions. Here is what is there: Tria Project:Ascomycetes:1. G. clavicera 2. lepto longiclaratin 3. Ophistoma monterem 4. ceratoripliopsia manitonbensis-like Yeast. 1. pichia capsula 2. P colytii 3. P holstii Basidiomycetes: 1. Entomocorticium dendroctoni 2. entomocorticum sp Bacteria: b. subtilis, p seudomunus sp. alcaligenes faecalis www.thetriaproject.ca/assets/res_100217061843_123.pdf
|
|
|
Post by skyship on Oct 14, 2012 1:27:58 GMT -5
===================== G. clavicera:www.pc.gc.ca/eng/docs/v-g/dpp-mpb/sec3/dpp-mpb3a.aspxwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3038703/figure/fig01/www.thetriaproject.ca/index.php?article=rtfungiHow dumb is this going to use another fungus to attack the problem??www.nature.com/news/2009/090918/full/news.2009.928.html============================ lepto longiclaratin: here is a leptomituswww.oz.net/~bnelson/bbn/Leptomitus_1.jpgleptospiros: what-when-how.com/acp-medicine/lyme-disease-and-other-spirochetal-zoonoses-part-2/================================== ophistoma monterem similar to another blue stain fungus en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ophiostoma_minus.jpegsee how hook to one another making a filament?upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Ophiostoma_wageneri_1.jpgwww.jaederfeldt.com/klas/FOV1-000197F7/S000B36AC.0/Ophiostoma%20polyporicola%202%20kopiera.jpgwww.public.iastate.edu/~tcharrin/OPHRES.htmlon elm trees; notice the stringing filaments?www.forestryimages.org/images/384x256/5366740.jpgasexual production:www.apsnet.org/edcenter/intropp/lessons/fungi/ascomycetes/Article%20Images/DutchElm07x.jpganamorph stages:img.springerimages.com/Images/Springer/JOU=13225/VOL=2010.40/ISU=1/ART=2009_4/MediaObjects/WATER_13225_2009_4_Fig4-18_HTML.jpg pyres: www.mycokey.com/MycoKeySolidState/pictures/asco/pyre/Ophiostoma/spS.jpg======================= ceratoripliopsia manitonbensis-like ====================== Yeasts:pichia capsula very small:www.alimentariaonline.com/media/levutil.jpgp. colytil #4Figs. 2–10. Photographs of novel yeast species. 2–3. Candida chauliodes NRRL Y-27909T. 2. Budding cells in YM broth after 3 d. 3. True hyphae on cornmeal (CM) agar after 7 d. 4. Candida corydali NRRL Y-27910T, budding cells grown in YM broth after 7 d. 5–6. Candida ascalaphidarum NRRL Y-27908T. 5. Budding cells after 3 d in YM broth. 6. True hyphae on CM agar after 7 d. 7–8. Candida dosseyi NRRL Y-27698T. 7. Budding cells in YM broth after 7 d. 8. Pseudohyphae after 7 d on CM agar. 9–10. Candida blattae NRRL Y-27698T. 9. Budding cells in YM broth after 7 d. 10. Pseudohyphae after 7 d on CM agar. All cultures were grown at 25 C. Bars = 10 μm. image: www.mycologia.org/content/99/6/842.full======================= P. holstii www.ncyc.co.uk/photo-ncyc-CBS2026B.htmlwww.ncyc.co.uk/photo-ncyc-CBS2026A.html Yeast in Insects: Five novel Candida species in insect-associated yeast clades isolated from Neuroptera and other insects www.mycologia.org/content/99/6/842.full======================== basidiomycetes: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basidiomycotaentomocorticium dendroctoni entomocorticum sp i.ytimg.com/vi/n6GcbCqewaQ/0.jpgfungus, bacteria video: www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=n6GcbCqewaQ============ Bacteria:b. subtilis:Mutualistic symbiosis between Bursaphelenchus xylophilus and bacteria of the genus Pseudomonas FOREST PATHOLOGY, Issue 5 2005 B. G. Zhao Summary Interactions between the pine wood nematode (PWN), Bursaphelenchus xylophilus, and bacteria of the genus Pseudomonas were examined by cultivating axenic PWN and bacterial strains using callus of Pinus thunbergii. Ten (Pseudomonas fluorescens, Pseudomonas putida, Pseudomonas cepacia and Pseudomonas spp.) of the 29 bacterial strains tested, significantly increased the reproduction of PWN. The rest of the bacteria (19 strains of 10 species) inhibited the reproduction of PWN completely. The growth of 18 of the 29 bacterial strains tested, including the 10 strains promoting PWN reproduction, was significantly increased by the presence of PWN. It indicated a mutualistic symbiotic relationship between PWN and the 10 bacterial strains in the genus Pseudomonas. The bacterial mutualistic symbionts are organisms, which may have co-evolved with PWN rather than being accidentally associated. The finding provides further evidence for our hypothesis that pine wilt disease is complex, induced by both PWN and associated phytotoxin-producing bacteria. www.academicconcepts.net/concepts/659/pine_wilt_disease.htm agrobacterium at roots:img.springerimages.com/Images/Springer/JOU=00203/VOL=2010.192/ISU=3/ART=2010_543/MediaObjects/WATER_203_2010_543_Fig2_HTML.jpgone thing leads to another: dumping mistake on mistake, does the b. subtilis make the biofilm?ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0944501308000566-gr1.jpgwww.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0944501308000566Well Serenade def took care of it didnt' it? What stupidity....www.agro.basf.com/agr/AP-Internet/en/function/conversions:/publish/images/solutions/4_5_4_1_content_bacillus-subtilis.jpgI thought the problem was the beetle, seems it isn't? the fungus is? how did the tree get the fungus in the first place?www.agro.basf.com/agr/AP-Internet/en/content/solutions/solution_highlights/serenade/bacillus-subtilis pseudomonus sp. more a protozoan? These have flagellas:www.biomed.cas.cz/gim_em/data/tem1_eng.htmlalcalienes faecalismicrobewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Alcaligenes_faecalis_NEUF2011 And I haven't even gotten to the nematodes, there could be more than one, one at the roots, and one in the bark, carried by the gnats who live in the galls. ========================== There are other trees with same type fungus and other fungi killing the tree.
So, if a tree can be taken down by this combination, what do you think Morgellons is?
One of the Plagues.
I think there are 10 pruvates being used to revamp the earth in the manner in which the Darwinian people are doing. They think they know Evolution. They missed some things. Or was that part of the pruvate ritual.
So, then the Palladium ritual comes along and cleanses with final slap. Adding metal to the mix.
Then the only thing left is artificial and synthetic and then we are no longer natural.
Is this all in the name of perfecting the christian gene, or to preserve pagan rituals?
Either way, both groups are destroying the earth, plants, trees, animals and humans.
Who will be left standing?
|
|
|
Post by skyship on Oct 14, 2012 1:46:44 GMT -5
When we ignore the roots, the rhizoids, the mildew, the lichen on the trees, the poisonous mushrooms growing in your yard. Does your dog know the difference? No. Nor does your cat.
If the spores with the fusarium fungi is in air, will effect all plants not the cannib. only. or the poppies. did any thought ever occur that the fungicide (fungus) for killing bugs would become the killer of other things.
Why would you have companies who know nothing of biology creating the goods called "green tech" not harm anything else. Was symbiosis not ever considered?
Did Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta, and others ever consider all this? No. When only Evolutionary history of the Masked bandits runs the show, then one can see the paradigm for the "green lie" was established.
|
|
|
Post by skyship on Oct 14, 2012 1:55:22 GMT -5
Black spores; Q: So, what exactly is the artillery fungus? A: The artillery fungus is a white-rotting, wood-decay fungus that likes to live on moist landscape mulch. It is in the genus Sphaerobolus (Greek for “sphere throwerâ€) and is very common across the USA, especially in the East, as well as many other parts of the world. The most common species in Pennsylvania seems to be S. iowensis (contrary to previous reports – including our own). The artillery fungus is technically a “Basidiomycete†fungus (like the common mushroom that we eat), and probably is most closely related to a group of fungi called “earth starsâ€. However, the artillery fungus is much smaller that the earth star that you may see occasionally growing in your yard. There may be other fungi and fungi-like organisms growing in your mulch. Check out our publcation "What Is Growing In My Landscape Mulclh?". spacer Q: I cannot see artillery fungus in the mulch – just how big is it? Is it the same as those little cups called the “bird’s nest fungusâ€? A: The artillery fungus is quite small – the fruiting bodies are about 1/10 of an inch across and are very hard to see in the mulch. spacer Artillery fungi are much smaller than the “bird’s nest fungus†with which it is often confused. By the way, the bird’s nest fungus does not actively shoot its spores – those little “eggs†of the bird’s nest fungus are splashed "splash cups." spacer Q: Why is it called the “artillery†fungus? Is it also called the “shotgun fungusâ€? A: The term artillery refers to the fact that the artillery fungus actively (uses energy) shoots its spore masses, sort of like a cannon or howitzer (an artillery piece). We will call these “spores,†although they are technically spore masses, or gleba. The spores are usually shot only a short distance but the wind can carry them for longer distances and even up to the second story of a house. spacer The term “shotgun fungus†usually refers to Pilobolus, a different kind of fungus commonly grows on fresh horse dung. spacer Q: Why do light-colored houses and cars have more problems than darker cars and houses? A: In nature, the artillery fungus shoots its spores towards sunlight. In the absence of direct sunlight, it shoots the spores at highly reflective surfaces, such as white house siding. And, of course, the black spots show up better on white surfaces, so they are noticed more easily. spacer Q: The artillery fungus problem seems to be much more severe now, than in the good old days. I don’t remember this being a problem 20 - 25 years ago. Why is it now a problem? A: This is a tough question. Wider recognition and awareness of the artillery fungus by the public certainly has led to a perceived increase in the problem. However, I think the problem is also realistically more severe than in past years, partly due to increased use of landscape mulch. There is more mulch being used these days, and therefore, more favorable material for the artillery fungus in our urban and suburban areas. spacer The artillery fungus may be just as common out in mulched flower beds far away from your house, but it is not noticed at that location. But, put the same mulch (and artillery fungus) next to your house foundation, add a white or reflective siding, and you may have a severe problem! spacer In addition, it is my experience that the artillery fungus seems to prefer wood as opposed to bark. Much of the mulch that we use today is recycled wood – in the past, most mulch was bark. In addition, the finely-shredded mulches used today hold more moisture than the older coarsely ground mulches – this favors fungi, because they need moisture to survive! spacer Q: Why is this problem more severe in some years than in others? A: The artillery fungus grows better and produces more spores during wet years, such as 2003 and 2004 (here in the Northeast). It is most common during the cool spring and fall, and is much less of a problem in the hot dry periods of mid-summer. And, not at all a problem during the winter here in Pennsylvania. www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/d/ddd2/
|
|
|
Post by skyship on Oct 14, 2012 2:05:40 GMT -5
Reminders: some good images morgellons-research.org/morgellons/morgellons-morphology.htmOut of Hawaii www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/wong/BOT135/Lect05_a.htmall the Ps are in the influenza vaccine which one can now see are made of M13 phages which form the non coding wires, or filaments in the human. If you do not get the vaccine, it is still shed from others anywhere anytime. ============================================ Filamentous Phages Self-Assemble at the Inner Membrane The M13 genome expresses packaging proteins, including protein P8, as well as the specialized tip proteins P3, P7, and P9 (see Fig. 2). All packaging proteins insert initially into the inner cell membrane. To mediate their assembly, a pore complex forms, composed of protein P4. P4 monomers extend through all layers of the envelope and assemble in a ring to build the pore. The positive charges on the N-terminal end of P4 help attract the negatively charged DNA into the pore. The pore guides the assembly of P8 monomers (also positively charged) and other packaging proteins around the DNA (see Fig. 4B). To avoid lysing the host cell, the pore is plugged by proteins P1 and P11 until phage assembly begins. As the P5-coated chromosome enters the pore, the protein P5 subunits are replaced by the growing tube of P8 proteins. The final step of phage export involves capping with protein P3, which is needed for attachment and infection of the next host cell. The pore complex is then recapped with P1 and P11 to avoid lysis. The production of M13 phages slows growth of the host because of resource consumption, but it does not destroy the host cell; in fact, two of the phage’s 11 gene products (about one-sixth of its genome) are devoted to preventing host cell lysis. The evolved strategy of M13 is to maintain its current host at minimal cost, rather than to maximize its immediate number of progeny. www.wwnorton.com/college/biology/microbiology2/ch/11/etopics.aspxOne thing to consider is that this vaccine could have been dumped from Aerosol Operations, first as spores, than as nanoparticles. s
|
|
|
Post by skyship on Oct 14, 2012 20:00:41 GMT -5
Now, considering that all of the science was not there, was suppessed and all jumped onto Darwins bandwagon, here is what they did.============================= " Darwin's dilemma was set in motion by a small vanguard of workers who blazed the trail in the 1950s and 1960s, just as their course was charted by a few pioneering pathfinders of the previous century, a history of bold pronouncements, dashed dreams, search, and final discovery.
Department of Earth and Space Sciences, Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics (Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life), and Molecular Biology Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1567
This paper was presented at the National Academy of Sciences colloquium “Variation and Evolution in Plants and Microorganisms: Toward a New Synthesis 50 Years After Stebbins,†held January 27–29, 2000, at the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center in Irvine, CA."
www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9766&page=6
===========
so my question is: What did Stebbin find?
R1 - R 12. gives you a clue about the supposed 12 strands of dna, that are now being activated. Do you think these may have been inducted into our genes without our knowledge? Could be? Meaning they never were there before but knowing that one can insert missing pieces for a preconceived paradigm, from Darwin on, once the missing pieces are found, than creative methods would be used to recreate such a mechanism. Even using the dna from the fossils? Possibly?
==
Variation and Evolution in Plants and Microorganisms TOWARD A NEW SYNTHESIS 50 YEARS AFTER STEBBINS
"“The present book is intended as a progress report on [the] synthetic approach to evolution as it applies to the plant kingdom†(Stebbins, 1950, p. ix). With this simple statement, G. Ledyard Stebbins formulated the objectives of Variation and Evolution in Plants (Stebbins, 1950), published in 1950, the last of a quartet of classics that, in the second quarter of the twentieth century, set forth what became known as the “synthetic theory of evolution†or “the modern synthesis.â€
The other books are Theodosius Dobzhansky's Genetics and the Origin of Species (1937), Ernst Mayr's Systematics and the Origin of Species (1942) and George Gaylord Simpson's Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944). The pervading conceit of these books is the molding of Darwin 's evolution by natural selection within the framework of rapidly advancing genetic knowledge. Stebbins said it simply: “In brief, evolution is here visualized as primarily the resultant of the interaction of environmental variation and the genetic variability recurring in the evolving population†(Stebbins, 1950, p. xi).".......
www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9766&page=R5
======================== Now with such arrogant language, one has trouble trying to figure out what actually is said here, but, we will attempt to find out.
So, synthesis would have begun 50 years after Stebbins, meaning the organic crossover was created so that it could be synthesized from chemicals. From Stebbins on, they found they could put any piece in anywhere to prove that missing pieces could be made to be inserted so that the paradigm of man and machine could take place.======================= ......botanist Edgar Anderson, had been invited to write botany's analogue to Mayr's Systematics and the Origin of the Species and to publish it jointly with Mayr's book. Anderson did not fulfill the task, and Stebbins was thereafter invited to deliver the Jesup Lectures in 1947. Variation and Evolution in Plants is the outgrowth of the Lectures. The mathematical underpinnings of the modern synthesis were set between 1918 and 1931 by R. A. Fisher (1930) and J.B.S. Haldane (1932) in Britain, and Sewall Wright (1931) in the United States. According to Darwin, evolutionary change occurs by natural selection of small individual differences appearing every generation within any species. Any change effected by selection is typically small but they amount to major change over time. Thomas Huxley and Francis Galton, among Darwin's most dedicated supporters, argued instead that evolution occurs by selection of discontinuous variations, or sports; evolution proceeds rapidly by discrete leaps. Natural selection operating only upon gradual differences among individuals, could hardly account, in Huxley's view, for the gaps between existing species evident in the paleontological record. According to Galton, evolution proceeds by “jerks,†some of which imply considerable organic change, rather than as a smooth and uniform process.
================================== So, then along came the "leap" evolution, meaning could be created by inserting missing links so that the evolutionary process could begin again, by forcing adaptation then natural selection would follow? However, this time it would be made from chemicals in the synthetic versions. ===================== "Like other geneticists, William Bateson argued, rather, for the primary importance of discontinuous variations. The controversy was acrimonious. The rediscovery of Mendelian inheritance in 1900 might have served as the common grounds to resolve the conflict. Instead, the dispute between biometricians and geneticists extended to continental Europe and to the United States. Bateson was the champion of the Mendelians, many of whom accepted the mutation theory proposed by De Vries (1900), and denied that natural selection played a major role in evolution. The biometricians for their part argued that Mendelian characters were sports of little significance for the evolutionary process. Fisher, Haldane, and Wright advanced theoretical models of evolutionary processes based on the natural selection of genetic changes (mutations) that are individually small, but are cumulatively of great consequence." ================ So, mutation was the route they went.......... rather than natural selection alone.------------------------
|
|
|
Post by skyship on Oct 15, 2012 0:17:51 GMT -5
So what did Stebbins find or do or proclaim such marvelous bases for the synthesis of man?"Theodosius Dobzhansky first and, then, Mayr, Simpson, and Stebbins (and, less notably, many others) completed the mathematicians' theoretical propositions with a wealth of biological knowledge and empirical support. Stebbins was particularly suited to bring in the evidence from plants. He was born in 1906 and had become interested in natural history from childhood. He started botanizing in his early teens while a student at Cate School in Santa Barbara (California). As an undergraduate at Harvard (1924–1928) he came under the influence of Merritt Lyndon Fernald (1873–1950), a charismatic teacher and distinguished botanist, whom Stebbins accompanied on field trips to study the New England flora. In 1928, Stebbins became a graduate student at Harvard and worked on the cytology, geographic variation, and seed development of Antennaria, a genus that bore several apomictic species that could be collected in nearby localities. The distinctive evolutionary role of vegetative reproduction in plants would remain a focus of interest to the end of his life.
The 17 papers that follow were presented at a colloquium sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, “Variation and Evolution in Plants and Microorganisms. Towards a New Synthesis 50 Years after Stebbins.†The colloquium, held at the Beckman Center of the National Academies, in Irvine, California, January 27–29, 2000, sought to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the publication of Stebbins' classic. Professor Stebbins, although frail for the last few years, intended to attend the colloquium. Alas, he became ill around Christmas time and died on January 19, 2000, a few days before the colloquium was held, just about two weeks after his 94th birthday, on January 6. The “Appreciation†(Chapter 1) was read by Peter Raven, after dinner on January 28th, at the time and place that had been reserved for Stebbins' own words. The 16 papers following the “Appreciation†are organized into five successive sections: Early Evolution and the Origin of Cells, Virus and Bacterial Models, Protoctist Models, Population Variation, Trends and Patterns in Plant Evolution.
....."In 1858, a year before publication of Darwin's opus, specimens of distinctively green- and white-layered limestone collected along the Ottawa River to the west of Montreal were brought to the attention of William E. Logan, Director of the Geological Survey of Canada. Because the samples were known to be ancient (from “Laurentian†strata, now dated at about 1,100 million years) and exhibited layering that Logan supposed too regular to be purely inorganic (Fig. 1), he displayed them as possible “pre-Cambrian fossils†at various scientific conferences, where they elicited spirited discussion but gained little acceptance as remnants of early life.
In 1864, however, Logan brought specimens to Dawson who not only confirmed their biologic origin but identified them as fossilized shells of giant foraminiferans, huge oversized versions of tiny calcareous protozoal tests. So convinced was Dawson of their biologic origin that a year later, in 1865, he formally named the putative fossils Eozoon canadense, the “dawn animal of Canada.†Dawson's interpretation was questioned almost immediately (King and Rowney, 1866), the opening shot of a fractious debate that raged on until 1894 when specimens of Eozoon were found near Mt. Vesuvius and shown to be geologically young ejected blocks of limestone, their “fossil-like†appearance the result of inorganic alteration and veining by the green metamorphic mineral serpentine (O'Brien, 1970)."..............
......" Moving further into this........"In 1878, as a 28-year-old apprentice to James Hall, Chief Geologist of the state of New York and acknowledged dean of American paleontology, Walcott was first introduced to stromatolites—wavy layered moundshaped rock masses laid down by ancient communities of mat-building microbes —Cambrian-age structures near the town of Saratoga in eastern New York State. Named Cryptozoon (meaning “hidden lifeâ€), these cabbagelike structures (Fig. 2) would in later years form the basis of Walcott's side of a nasty argument known as the “Cryptozoon controversy.â€"..........
"A year later, in July, 1879, Walcott was appointed to the newly formed U.S. Geological Survey. Over the next several field seasons, he and his comrades charted the geology of sizable segments of Arizona, Utah, and Nevada, including unexplored parts of the Grand Canyon, where in 1883 he first reported discovery of Precambrian specimens of Cryptozoon (Walcott, 1883). Other finds soon followed, with the most startling in 1899—small, millimeter-sized black coaly discs that Walcott named Chuaria and interpreted to be “the remains of . . . compressed conical shell,†possibly of primitive brachiopods (Walcott, 1899). Although Chuaria is now known to be a large single-celled alga, rather than a shelly invertebrate, Walcott's specimens were indeed authentic fossils, the first true cellularly preserved Precambrian organisms ever recorded."
So what is the Shelly invertebrate???"After the turn of the century, Walcott moved his field work northward along the spine of the Rocky Mountains, focusing first in the Lewis Range of northwestern Montana, from which he reported diverse stromatolitelike structures (Walcott, 1906) and, later, chains of minute cell-like bodies he identified as fossil bacteria (Walcott, 1915). His studies in the Canadian Rockies, from 1907 to 1925, were even more rewarding, resulting in discovery of an amazingly well-preserved assemblage of Cambrian algae and marine invertebrates—the famous Burgess Shale Fauna that to this day remains among the finest and most complete samples of Cambrian life known to science (Walcott, 1911; Gould, 1989).
Walcott's contributions are legendary—he was the first discoverer in Precambrian rocks of Cryptozoon stromatolites, of cellularly preserved algal plankton (Chuaria), and of possible fossil bacteria, all capped by his pioneering investigations of the benchmark Burgess Shale fossils. The acknowledged founder of Precambrian paleobiology (Schopf, 1970), Walcott was first to show, nearly a century ago and contrary to accepted wisdom, that a substantial fossil record of Precambrian life actually exists." So, the Burgess Shale told the story, or started the organic inorganic scenario.Continued from: www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9766&page=11
|
|
|
Post by skyship on Oct 15, 2012 2:35:53 GMT -5
continued:...."Tyler published a short note announcing the discovery (Tyler and Barghoorn, 1954), a rather sketchy report that on the basis of study of petrographic thin sections documents that the fossils are indigenous to the deposit but fails to note either the exact provenance of the find or that the fossils are present within, and were actually the microbial builders of, large Cryptozoon-like stromatolites (an association that, once recognized, would prove key to the development of the field). Substantive, full-fledged reports would come later—although not until after Tyler's untimely death, an event that cheated him from receiving the great credit he deserved—but this initial short article on “the oldest structurally preserved organisms that clearly exhibit cellular differentiation and original carbon complexes which have yet been discovered in pre-Cambrian sediments†(Tyler and Barghoorn, 1954) was a benchmark, a monumental “first.â€"........ ......Images page 15.......microfossils 2,100 years old:www.nap.edu/books/0309070996/xhtml/images/p200036f7g15001.jpg page 17 filamentous microfossils.www.nap.edu/books/0309070996/xhtml/images/p200036f7g17001.jpgThe four keys of the strategy, as valid today as they were three decades ago, are to search for (i) microscopic fossils in (ii) black cherts that are (iii) fine-grained and (iv) associated with Cryptozoon-like structures. Each part plays a role.
I. Megascopic eukaryotes, the large organisms of the Phanerozoic, are now known not to have appeared until shortly before the beginning of the Cambrian—except in immediately sub-Cambrian strata, the hunt for large body fossils in Precambrian rocks was doomed from the outset.
II. The blackness of a chert commonly gives a good indication of its organic carbon content—like fossil-bearing coal deposits, cherts rich in petrified organic-walled microfossils are usually a deep jet black color.
III. The fineness of the quartz grains making up a chert provides another hint of its fossil-bearing potential—cherts subjected to the heat and pressure of geologic metamorphism are often composed of recrystallized large grains that give them a sugary appearance whereas cherts that have escaped fossil-destroying processes are made up of cryptocrystalline quartz and have a waxy glasslike luster.
IV. Cryptozoon-like structures (stromatolites) are now known to have been produced by flourishing microbial communities, layer upon layer of microscopic organisms that make up localized biocoenoses. Stromatolites permineralized by fine-grained chert early during diagenesis represent promising hunting grounds for the fossilized remnants of the microorganisms that built them.
Measured by virtually any criterion one might propose (Fig. 5), studies of Precambrian life have burst forth since the mid-1960s to culminate in recent years in discovery of the oldest fossils known, petrified cellular microbes nearly 3,500 million years old, more than three-quarters the age of the Earth (Schopf, 1993). Precambrian paleobiology is thriving—the vast majority of all scientists who have ever investigated the early fossil record are alive and working today; new discoveries are being made at an ever quickening clip —progress set in motion by the few bold scientists who blazed this trail in the 1950s and 1960s, just as their course was charted by the Dawsons, Walcotts, and Sewards, the pioneering pathfinders of the field. And the collective legacy of all who have played a role dates to Darwin and the dilemma of the missing Precambrian fossil record he first posed. After more than a century of trial and error, of search and final discovery, those of us who wonder about life 's early history can be thankful that what was once “inexplicable†to Darwin is no longer so to us. Jumping to this:::::::::::The Chimeric Eukaryote: Origin of the Nucleus from the Karyomastigont in Amitochondriate Protists
"LYNN MARGULIS*, MICHAEL F. DOLAN*, and RICARDO GUERRERO‡
We present a testable model for the origin of the nucleus, the membrane-bounded organelle that defines eukaryotes. A chimeric cell evolved via symbiogenesis by syntrophic merger between an archaebacterium and a eubacterium. The archaebacterium, a thermoacidophil resembling extant Thermoplasma, generated hydrogen sulfide to protect the eubacterium, a heterotrophic swimmer comparable to Spirochaeta or Hollandina that oxidized sulfide to sulfur.
Selection pressure for speed swimming and oxygen avoidance led to an ancient analogue of the extant cosmopolitan bacterial consortium “Thiodendron latens.†By eubacterial-archaebacterial genetic integration, the chimera, an amitochondriate heterotroph, evolved. This “earliest branching protist†that formed by permanent DNA recombination generated the nucleus as a component of the karyomastigont, an intracellular complex that assured genetic continuity of the former symbionts. The karyomastigont organellar system, common in extant amitochondriate protists as well as in presumed mitochondriate ancestors, minimally consists of a single nucleus, a single kinetosome and their protein connector. As predecessor of standard mitosis, the karyomastigont preceded free (unattached) nuclei. The nucleus evolved in karyomastigont ancestors by detachment at least five times (archamoebae, calonymphids, chlorophyte green algae, ciliates, foraminifera). This specific model of syntrophic chimeric fusion can be proved by sequence comparison of functional domains of motility proteins isolated from candidate taxa.
Archaeprotists / spirochetes / sulfur syntrophy / Thiodendron / trichomonad Woese claims there are 3 domains, (Archaean the third), but Margulis does not, she says there are two:TWO DOMAINS, NOT THREE All living beings are composed of cells and are unambiguously classifiable into one of two categories: prokaryote (bacteria) or eukaryote (nucleated organisms). Here we outline the origin of the nucleus, the membrane-bounded organelle that defines eukaryotes. The common ancestor of all eukaryotes by genome fusion of two or more different prokaryotes became “chimeras †via symbiogenesis (Gupta and Golding, 1995). Long term physical association between metabolically dependent consortia bacteria led, by genetic fusion, to this chimera. The chimera originated when an archaebacterium (a thermoacidophil) and a motile eubacterium emerged under selective pressure: oxygen threat and scarcity both of carbon compounds and electron acceptors. The nucleus evolved in the chimera.
The earliest descendant of this momentous merger, if alive today, would be recognized as an amitochondriate protist. An advantage of our model includes its simultaneous consistency in the evolutionary scenario across fields of science: cell biology, developmental biology, ecology, genetics, microbiology, molecular evolution, paleontology, protistology.
So, where did the science go? In the direction of the 3 domains of life? Was that correct? "Our analysis requires the two- (Bacteria/Eukarya) not the three-(Archaea/Eubacteria/Eukarya) domain system (Woese et al., 1990). The prokaryote vs. eukaryote that replaced the animal vs. plant dichotomy so far has resisted every challenge. Microbiologist 's molecular biology-based threat to the prokaryote vs. eukaryote evolutionary distinction seems idle (Mayr, 1998). In a history of contradictory classifications of microorganisms since 1820, Scamardella (1999) noted that Woese's entirely nonmorphological system ignores symbioses.
But bacterial consortia and protist endosymbioses irreducibly underlie evolutionary transitions from prokaryotes to eukaryotes. Although some prokaryotes [certain Gram-positive bacteria (Gupta, 1998a)] are intermediate between eubacteria and archaebacteria, no organisms intermediate between prokaryotes and eukaryotes exist.
These facts render the 16S rRNA and other nonmorphological taxonomies of Woese and others inadequate. Only all-inclusive taxonomy, based on the work of thousands of investigators over more than 200 years on live organisms (Margulis and Schwartz, 1998), suffices for detailed evolutionary reconstruction (Mayr, 1998).
When Woese (1998) insists “there are actually three, not two, primary phylogenetic groupings of organisms on this planet†and claims that they, the “Archaebacteria†(or, in his term that tries to deny their bacterial nature, the “Archaeaâ€) and the “Eubacteria†are “each no more like the other than they are like eukaryotes,†he denies intracellular motility, including that of the mitotic nucleus. He minimizes these and other cell biological data, sexual life histories including cyclical cell fusion, fossil record correlation (Margulis, 1996), and protein-based molecular comparisons (Gupta, 1998a, b)
The enzymes of protein synthesis in eukaryotes come primarily from archaebacteria whereas in the motility system (microtubules and their organizing centers), many soluble heat-shock and other proteins originated from eubacteria (Margulis, 1996). Here we apply Gupta's idea (from protein sequences) (1998a) to comparative protist data (Dolan et al., 2000) to show how two kinds of prokaryotes made the first chimeric eukaryote. We reconstruct the fusion event that produced the nucleus. " “the sequence data . . . . suggest that the archaebacteria are polyphyletic and are close relatives of the Gram-positive bacteria †(p. 1485). The archaebacterial sequences, we posit, following Searcy (1992), come from a Thermoplasma acidophilum-like thermoacidophilic (eocyte) prokaryote. This archaebacterial ancestor lived in warm, acidic, and sporadically sulfurous waters, where it used either elemental sulfur (generating H2S) or less than 5% oxygen (generating H2O) as terminal electron acceptor. As does its extant descendant, the ancient archaebacterium survived acid-hydrolysis environmental conditions by nucleosome-style histone-like protein coating of its DNA (Searcy, 1992) and actin-like stress-protein synthesis (Searcy and Delange, 1980). The wall-less archaebacterium was remarkably pleiomorphic; it tended into tight physical association with globules of elemental sulfur by use of its rudimentary cytoskeletal system (Searcy and Hixon, 1994). The second member of the consortium, an obligate anaerobe, required for growth the highly reduced conditions provided by sulfur and sulfate reduction to hydrogen sulfide. Degradation of carbohydrate (e.g., starch, sugars such as cellobiose) and oxidation of the sulfide to elemental sulfur by the eubacterium generated carbon-rich fermentation products and electron acceptors for the archaebacterium. When swimming eubacteria attached to the archaebacterium, the likelihood that the consortium efficiently reached its carbon sources was enhanced. This hypothetical consortium, before the integration to form a chimera (Fig. 1), differs little from the widespread and geochemically important “Thiodendron†(Dubinina et al., 1993a, b)." so what is this thiodendron stage?? These dendrons are archaean, and not from the normal state of separate prokaryotes and eukaryotes? Dimers, dendrons, dendrimers have been produced in the labs, did they use Archaean to do this? more on the Thiodendrons........
I hope you don't get too bored with the history, but, it does tell us where the problem possibly with Morgellons may have begun? Not sure, but attempting to find out.
|
|
|
Post by skyship on Oct 15, 2012 3:17:37 GMT -5
contin...... " THE “THIODENDRON†STAGE The “Thiodendron†stage refers to an extant bacterial consortium that models our idea of an archaebacteria-eubacteria sulfur syntrophic motility symbiosis. The partners in our view merged to become the chimeric predecessor to archaeprotists. The membrane-bounded nucleus, by hypothesis, is the morphological manifestation of the chimera genetic system that evolved from a Thiodendron-type consortium. Each phenomenon we suggest, from free-living bacteria to integrated association, enjoys extant natural analogues. image of Amitochondriate Eukaryotes: www.nap.edu/books/0309070996/xhtml/images/p200036f7g25001.jpgHere the Spriochaete consortia is mentioned:Study of marine microbial mats revealed relevant bacterial consortia in more than six geographically separate locations. Isolations from Staraya Russa mineral spring 8, mineral spring Serebryani, Lake Nizhnee, mudbaths; littoral zone at the White Sea strait near Veliky Island, Gulf of Nilma; Pacific Ocean hydrothermal habitats at the Kurile Islands and Kraternaya Bay; Matupi Harbor Bay, Papua New Guinea, etc. (Dubinina et al., 1993a) all yielded “Thiodendron latens†or very similar bacteria. Samples were taken from just below oxygen-sulfide interface in anoxic waters (Dubinina et al., 1993a, b).
Laboratory work showed it necessary to abolish the genus Thiodendron because it is a sulfur syntrophy. A stable ectosymbiotic association of two bacterial types grows as an anaerobic consortium between 4 and 32°C at marine pH values and salinities. Starch, cellobiose, and other carbohydrates (not cellulose, amino acids, organic acids, or alcohol) supplemented by heterotrophic CO2 fixation provide it carbon. Thiodendron appears as bluish-white spherical gelatinous colonies, concentric in structure within a slimy matrix produced by the consortium bacteria. The dominant partner invariably is a distinctive strain of pleiomorphic spirochetes: they vary from the typical walled Spirochaeta 1:2:1 morphology to large membranous spheres, sulfur-studded threads, gliding or nonmotile cells of variable width (0.09–0.45 µm) and lengths to millimeters. The other partner, a small, morphologically stable vibrioid, Desulfobacter sp., requires organic carbon, primarily acetate, from spirochetal carbohydrate degradation. The spirochetal Escherichia coli-like formic acid fermentation generates energy and food. Desulfobacter sp. cells that reduce both sulfate and sulfur to sulfide are always present in the natural consortium but in far less abundance than the spirochetes.
We envision the Thiodendron consortium of “free-living spirochetes in geochemical sulfur cycle†(Dubinina et al., 1993b, p. 456) and spirochete motility symbioses (Margulis, 1993) as preadaptations for chimera evolution. Thiodendron differs from the archaebacterium-eubacterium association we hypothesize; the marine Desulfobacter would have been replaced with a pleiomorphic wall-less, sulfuric-acid tolerant soil Thermoplasma-like archaebacterium. New thermoplasmas are under study. We predict strains that participate in spirochete consortia in less saline, more acidic, and higher temperature sulfurous habitats than Thiodendron will be found.".
When “pure cultures†that survived low oxygen were first described [by B. V. Perfil'ev in 1969, in Russian (see Dubinina et al., 1993a, b)] a complex life history of vibrioids, spheroids, threads and helices was attributed to “Thiodendron latens.†We now know these morphologies are artifacts of environmental selection pressure: Dubinina et al. (1993a, p. 435), reported that “the pattern of bacterial growth changes drastically when the redox potential of the medium is brought down by addition of 500 mg/1 of sodium sulfide.†The differential growth of the two tightly associated partners in the consortium imitates the purported Thiodendron bacterial developmental patterns. The syntrophy is maintained by lowering the level of oxygen enough for spirochete growth. The processes of sulfur oxidation-reduction and oxygen removal from oxygen-sensitive enzymes, we suggest, were internalized by the chimera and retained by their protist descendants as developmental cues.
Metabolic interaction, in particular syntrophy under anoxia, retained the integrated prokaryotes as emphasized by Martin and Müller (1998). However, we reject their concept, for which no evidence exists, that the archaebacterial partner was a methanogen. Our sulfur syntrophy idea, by contrast, is bolstered by observations that hydrogen sulfide is still generated in amitochondriate, anucleate eukaryotic cells (mammalian erythrocytes) (Searcy and Lee, 1998).
T. acidophilum in pure culture attach to suspended elemental sulfur. When sulfur is available, they generate hydrogen sulfide (Searcy and Hixon, 1994). Although severely hindered by ambient oxygen, they are microaerophilic in the presence of small quantities (<5%) of oxygen. The Thermoplasma partner thus would be expected to produce sulfide and scrub small quantities of oxygen to maintain low redox potential in the spirochete association. The syntrophic predecessors to the chimera is metabolically analogous to Thiodendron where Desulfobacter reduces sulfur and sulfate producing sulfide at levels that permit the spirochetes to grow.
We simply suggest the replacement of the marine sulfidogen with Thermoplasma. In both the theoretical and actual case, the spirochetes would supply oxidized sulfur as terminal electron acceptor to the sulfidogen.
The DNA of the Thermoplasma-like archaebacterium permanently recombined with that of the eubacterial swimmer. A precedent exists for our suggestion that membrane hypertrophies around DNA to form a stable vesicle in some prokaryotes: the membrane-bounded nucleoid in the eubacterium Gemmata obscuriglobus (Fuerst and Webb, 1991). The joint Thermoplasma-like archaebacterial DNA package that began as the consortium nucleoid became the chimera's nucleus.
now we are getting down to brass tacks here:In yeast, nematode, insect, and mammalian cells, nonkaryomastigont microtubule-organizing centers are “required to position nuclei at specific locations in the cytoplasm†(Raff, 1999). The link between the microtubule organizing center and the nuclei “is mysterious†(Raff, 1999). To us, the link is an evolutionary legacy, a remnant of the original archaebacterial-eubacterial connector. The modern organelles (i.e., centriolekinetosomes, untethered nuclei, Golgi, and axostyles) derive from what first ensured genetic continuity of the chimera's components: the karyomastigont, a structure that would have been much more conspicuous to Proterozoic investigators than to us.So, it appears a chimera was created. Images: FIGURE 2. Biological phylogeny of chimeric eukaryotes taken to be primitively amitochondriate.www.nap.edu/books/0309070996/xhtml/images/p200036f7g32001.jpg So, was there a mishap way back, in this creation of the so called new eukaryote in representing the primitive form? Are the artifacts of Morgellons similar to this, but, in the sense the artifacts of Chimeric Sythetics are now present?
|
|
|
Post by skyship on Oct 15, 2012 3:56:44 GMT -5
Thiodendron latens? www.pnas.org/content/103/35/13080/F1.large.jpgNow where is the archaean by itself? ??not there........so the archaean is the issue in the newest artifacts. As it was before. So the new form is the symbiosis of an archaean bacteria, a eukaryote, and a extremophile (Archaean only). Someone said years ago that many Archaean extremophiles were unculturable, or the if they were they were not released so other scientist could view them. So, something was lost around 1978, due to the inclusion of Archaea into the human genome. It has not always been there as has been stated before. So, we still have work to do, how did the science go from this finding of Stebbins and others of the amitochondriate and then the creation of this new eukaryote, that could fit nicely into the creation of the new synthetic genome?
|
|
|
Post by JamJany on Feb 19, 2020 14:06:03 GMT -5
Side Effects Of Viagra Tablets cialis Zithromax Full Or Empty Stomach <a href=https://buyciallisonline.com/#>Buy Cialis</a> Crotamiton Herb
|
|