1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
|
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<title> Ici THK — Les Forces Francaises de l'Interieur parlent aux francais </title>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="../assets/css/style.css">
</head>
<body>
<header>
<h1> <a href="../index.html">Ici THK</a> </h1>
<h2> Lynn MARGULIS </h2>
<h3> Symbiogenesis </h3>
</header>
<main>
<article>
<section id="natural-theology">
<h2>Natural Theology</h2>
<p>To me, the Gaia hypothesis, or theory as some would have
it, owes its origin to a dual set of sources: the immense
success of the international space program that began with
the launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union in 1957 and the
lively but lonely scientific imagination, inspiration, and
persistence of Jim Lovelock. Part of the contentiousness
and ambiguity attendant on most current descriptions of
the Gaia hypothesis stems from confused definitions,
incompatible belief systems of the sci- entific authors,
and inconsistent terminology across the many a¤ected
disciplines (for example, atmospheric chemistry,
environmental studies, geology, microbiology,
planetary astronomy, space science, zoology).</p>
<p>Anger, dismissive attitude, and miscomprehension also come
from the tendency of the human mind toward
dichotomization. In this limited summary whose purpose is
to draw attention to several recent, excellent books on
Gaia science and correlated research trends, I list the
major postulates of the original Gaia statement and point
to recent avenues of in- vestigation into the verification
and extension of Lovelock’s original ideas. I try to
minimize emotionally charged rhetoric aptly indulged in
and recently reviewed by Kirchner (2002) and to maximize
the proximity of the entries on my list to directly
observable, rather than computable, natural phenomena. I
self-consciously align this contribution to a field ignored
by most of today’s scientific establishment and their
funding agencies, one considered obsolete, anachronistic,
dispensable, and atavistic.</p>
<p>To me this field in its original form, ‘‘natural theology’’
that became ‘‘natural history,’’ should be revived with
the same enthusiasm with which it thrived in the 18th and
early 19th centuries. That age of exploration of the seas
and lands generated natural history in the same way that
satellite technology and the penetration of space brought
forth Gaia theory. In fact when Lovelock said, ‘‘People
untrained ... do not revere ... Geosphere Bio-sphere
System, but they can ... see the word Gaia embracing both
the intuitive side of science and the wholly rational
understanding that comes from Earth System Science’’ he
makes a modern plan for the return to the respected
natural history, the enterprise from which biology,
geology, atmospheric science, and meteorology had not yet
irreversibly divorced themselves. Is he not explicit when
he writes, ‘‘We have some distance still to travel because
a proper understanding of the Earth requires the abolition
of disciplinary boundaries’’? For the science itself,
although precluded today by administrative and budgetary
constraints, the advisable action would be a return to
natural history, the status quo ante, before those
disciplines were even established.</p>
</section>
<section id="sexualite-et-commerce-genetique-planetaire">
<h2>Sexualité et commerce génétique planétaire</h2>
<p>Les hommes exploitent l'énergie des combustibles fossiles vieux de millions d'années comme le charbon, le pétrole et le gaz naturel, ils n'ont pas encore puisé dans des gisements d'information vieux de plusieurs milliards d'années. La micro-électronique de la photosynthèse, le génie génétique, le développement de l'embryon et d'autres technologies naturelles sont là qui les attendent. L'accès à de tels stocks d'informations, la maîtrise de leur mystère les conduiront à des changements bien au-delà de ce qu'ils peuvent imaginer aujourd'hui.</p>
</section>
<section id="sex-and-reproduction">
<h2>Sex and reproduction</h2>
<p>Reproduction is the increase in number of cells or organisms,
whether unicellular or multicellular. Growth is increase in
size. All species of organisms grow and reproduce, although the
details of how they do it vary. Even though fusion of parental
gametes accompanies reproduction in humans and in the animals we
best know, biologically, sex is entirely distinguishable from
reproduction. Sex is defined as the formation of an organism
whose genes come from more than a single individual. Sex, the
recombining of genes from two or more individuals, does occur in
prokaryotes, but prokaryotic sex is not directly required for
reproduction.</p>
<p>Prokaryotic cells do not open their membranes and fuse their
contents. Rather, genes from the fluid medium, from other
prokaryotes, from viruses, or from elsewhere unidirectionally
enter prokaryotic cells. A prokaryote that carries some of its
original genes and some new genes is called a recom-
binant. This propensity for gene uptake, along with the lack of
a nucleus and the other features listed in Table I-2, defines
one of the two highest taxa, or superkingdoms: Prokarya,
organisms composed of bacterial cells. All other organisms are
Eukarya, organisms composed of nucleated cells, that evolved by
symbiogenesis (Table I-2).</p>
<p>Eukaryotic cells reproduce by mitosis. They form
chromosomes—tightly coiled gene packages bound together by
proteins and attached to the inner membrane of the nucleus. At
least two chromosomes are located in the nucleus of every
eukaryotic cell; some protoctists have more than 16,000
chromosomes in a single nucleus at certain stages. Although all
cells and species of organisms made of cells must either
reproduce or die, the way that eukaryotes make more eukaryotic
cells or organisms made of cells is highly peculiar to each of
the eukaryotic kingdoms and forms the basis of our
classification system.</p>
</section>
</article>
<nav>
<ul>
<li><a href="bernard-aspe.html">ASPE</a></li>
<li><a href="karen-barad.html">BARAD</a></li>
<li><a href="muriel-combes.html">COMBES</a></li>
<li><a href="stephane-lupasco.html">LUPASCO</a></li>
<li><a href="deborah-lupton.html">LUPTON</a></li>
<li><a href="lynn-margulis.html">MARGULIS</a></li>
<li><a href="gilbert-simondon.html">SIMONDON</a></li>
<li><a href="subrosa.html">SUBROSA</a></li>
<li><a href="etc.html">Etc.</a></li>
</ul>
</nav>
</main>
</body>
</html>
|
