The cell is the most basic form of life we know about. Like us it exchanges gases, not through a mouth but through a membrane. It also maintains a homeostasis through its internal reactions, like all living creatures. The conditions of life, as defined by biologists, are such that an organism must be capable of responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy transformation, and reproduction. A cell meets all of these requirements; it grows, reproduces, and dies, the way you would expect anything living to do. Does it surprise you that something so small, so seemingly detached from the larger world, and so different from other forms of life, could be considered an organism?
When Robert Hooke first discovered them in 1665, he didn't think they were alive because he wasn't able to observe their interior contents. On the surface, a cell is a stationery object that doesn't appear to have any internal chemistry at all. Hooke suggested that these microscopic objects he'd discovered came about because of spontaneous generation, from either natural or artificial heat. It wasn't until Anton van Leeuwenhoek's discovery in 1676 that the composition of a cell had a high amount of motility that the cell was interpreted as a life-form for the first time. After that, it took about 100 years for us to realize that cells were the building blocks of life.
The discovery of the cell started a biological revolution in science. Prior to the discovery, nobody had thought that our bodies were composed of an astronomically large amount of living organisms. The finding of bacteria came later, and insights into the nature of organs were expanded upon. The idea that organs such as the brain, liver, and kidney, were made of unique types of different cells- that all worked together to keep a larger organism functioning- never really inspired the kind of mass-mystical enlightenment it should have, in the opinion of this writer. It should have been considered divinely miraculous that our bodies were found to be so intricately designed by a network of species invisible to the naked eye. I'm at a loss to explain why it wasn't.
It's now time to share with you what I always suspected: that the earth is a living, breathing organism. I realize that this may come as a surprise to you; it came as a shock to me when I first conceived it. It may seem especially presumptuous coming from a man who isn't a specialist in biological sciences, but I can assure you that I have thought this through to the core (no pun intended) and found that indeed, the ground we walk on is but the surface of a much larger organism, our ever-self-sufficient planet Earth.
First, I shall use a couple analogies to illustrate my point. Like the microscopic dust mites that walk over our bodies searching for food, we are scavenging the body of something bigger than ourselves for food of our own, completely oblivious to the fact that it is a living organism. An even smaller organism that isn't aware of serving a larger body is the cell itself, which compares much better to the Earth when we consider their shapes and asymmetrical properties. Most animals are symmetric in design, but not our spherical building blocks. It comes as a special surprise that we may in turn provide some of the building blocks of our own planet, the same way cells do to our bodies. The body we provide chemical balance to is the Earth, a spherical object, while our bodies rely on the chemical balance of spherical bodies themselves. And considering fractals, the planets and stars could be likened to cells inside a universal body, one that may be symmetrically shaped like our own. There lies another proof of God; that if the definition of life is skewed to allow planetary and stellar objects to be considered life-forms, they would all resemble the cells in some universal being.
As mentioned, the standard definition of life states that it must have a metabolism, it must reproduce, it must have the ability to grow, it must adapt to changing conditions, and it must respond to stimuli. Never mind the fact that such a rigid definition discounts viruses, proteins, and a lot of other things that self-regulate. Our new definition must require only a number of these things and not all five. I also want to dismiss the Gaia Hypothesis on the grounds that it has mostly been thought of as a metaphorical model for the Earth being a symbiotic entity, where every living thing depends on everything else that's living. For I firmly believe that the Earth doesn't care whether we are alive or not. Though it depends on us for certain characteristics, it would exist on its own without our meddling, just as other planets do. All we do is give it some extra substance, making it more evolved than other planets. If planets are communicating with each other via magnetism, entanglement, the "music of the spheres" or any other such barely detectable phenomenon, Earth might be proud to boast of being the only one that supports life in its neighborhood.
You might be interested in my post on Protein Interaction Theory, which likens proteins to being alive because they fit several of the criteria for the definition of life. The same issue here is at hand: our planet fits several of the criteria as well, and I will be using a cell as a model of comparison. Like a cell, the internal chemistry of the Earth goes through cycles of imbalance to regulate homeostasis. Trapping charged particles from the sun can be likened to osmosis, or eating. In this fashion the Earth acts as a giant capacitor, storing charge in the ionosphere and filtering it into the ground via the lightning of cumulonimbus clouds. The very action of a thunderstorm may be described as the Earth "swallowing" food, giving it an extra supply of ions for each atom that escapes the atmosphere. Another key process lies in the magnetosphere generated by the liquid outer core, which allows the Earth to block excessive amounts of solar radiation that would otherwise harm it. Yes, the Earth has devised its own way of defending itself, like many planets have. The outer core can be compared to a nuclear membrane in that it sends out massive amounts of energy to the mantle (or in a cell's case- all the organelles in its cytoplasm). Admittedly, we don't yet know enough about the inner core to be able to compare it with the nucleus of a cell. There surely aren't proteins and long strands of DNA swirling through the inner core of the Earth, however if we consider that two thirds of the amount of all carbon on the planet is roasting inside it in some form, the possibility of it spelling a form of life we aren't aware of becomes far more interesting. Perhaps the mechanism of the core operates far differently from the other domains of life as we know them.
In order to see this comparison more clearly, you will have to try imagining all Earth processes sped up to the point where they relatively coincide with life processes in our own bodies, the processes that define what makes us alive. If we speed up all Earth processes, we notice they have an uncanny resemblance to reactions taking place inside a cell, from the convection cells in the mantle to the spewing of lava at the surface. Seeing as these processes can take up to millions of years, it isn't all that far-fetched when you eliminate time parameters. A side-by-side viewing of the cell vs. The Earth scaled to the same time frequency would yield interesting similarities.
In evolutionary terms, the Earth would come before the cell as being the first monophyletic entity. (And if we describe the sun as being alive then the Earth clearly evolved from it, deeming stars the first monophyletic entity instead.) Evolution doesn't necessarily need to go from small to large, as we've seen through its long history on Earth. Plenty of new bacterium have arisen as a result of larger beings coming into existence. Even new phyla of bacteria owe their existence to larger beings, like Chlamydiae, which attacks eukaryotic cells. This begs the question: is life on Earth a disease? Has the Earth constantly been trying to get rid of us through its long history? Are we nothing but parasites? Probably not. Carbon dioxide and oxygen aren't necessary for the Earth's existence, but they do enhance its appearance. Depending on taste, one wonders if other planets, which arguably have consciousness like everything else, look at the Earth as either being polluted beyond repair or astoundingly beautiful.
Another thing to consider is the tendency that larger life lives longer than smaller life. Whales, elephants, and the tallest of trees live far longer than bacteria, plankton, fish, and smaller mammals. Clams and turtles are a couple exceptions, though considering their elaborate defense mechanisms- shells and carapaces- it shouldn't surprise anyone they live longer. Metabolism is another factor: the faster an organism is relative to its mass, the lower its life expectancy. The Earth and sun, being millions of times larger than terrestrial organisms and having much slower "metabolisms", perfectly fit statistical models that the laws of life seem to have. I have also considered that even galaxies are alive, seeing as they are larger, older, and more or less regulate themselves. As far as reproduction, the merging of astronomical bodies, like stars and galaxies, could resemble fertilization, and thus the conception of new bodies. Clearer is the apparent solar "mitosis" of a supernova, which gives birth to thousands of baby stars.
The sun and the Earth have always stood as mythological icons, like God, Gaia, and Ra, guiding us through the ordeals of life. Now they are able to stand as literal beings who can be scientifically studied by one of the creatures they created. Creationism is no longer the myth that science has made it. Those who fear religion in the scientific community, without even looking at the evidence right in front of them, will reject everything I've said on the basis that I've arrogantly changed the definition of life. They should not let any preconceived notions about intelligent design sneak into their judgment. Mine is a purely rational argument, and I didn't originally set out to prove the existence of God. I have merely been observing what's in front of me, questioning everything, and connecting the dots. Maybe the dots aren't really there and I'm simply imagining them; maybe they really exist and science will eventually prove the life forces of our celestial brothers. It will take a long time for the scientific community to remold the definition of life in order to make it suitable for what I am describing. Odds are it will never happen because scientists are so wrapped up in the boxes of convention that they can't see the light trying to penetrate their senses. Nonetheless I urge them to watch a video showing Earth processes sped up, to see if the velocities of Earth's interactions aren't relatively mutual with those of a cell. If they are, they must open their minds to the possibility that the Earth, as much as it might unsettle them, is the most ancient, versatile organism we've ever studied.
No comments:
Post a Comment