[_ Old Earth _] Did we breathe nitrogen?

[dad]

I was trying to look up some things we know about how creatures, even man may have breathed in the past. I thought I'd throw it out.
I think that massive changes happened, leaving our universe in a different state after the flood sometime. Before this I think evolution could happen very fast.
So, I was considering what evidence exists that might say we MUST have used to breathe as we now do, absorbing the oxygen, etc. Could we tell by any evidence anywhere that this was the case? (and I don't mean looking at a chest cavity, and speculating how it must have worked if the past were the same)

One example that made me think of this is trees. In the past, with a different light, and growing process, from what I can tell of the bible (as in the future) trees grew superfast. In a week or so, in cases.

Could they have did something like absorb the nitrogen, and give off more carbon, or some such? If so, looking at carbon levels in the past in trees would yield no results with any real bearing on any real time.

I hear nitrogen is used in keeping apples fresh over the winter. If we are looking for possible causes of man being able to live for a thousand years almost in the past, could this be one area to explore?
If, say, (I don't know, just guessing here) an apple can be kept pretty fresh for up to 7 months, instead of a week or so on our counter, that is a fantastic difference. 7 days on the counter, in this example, versus 210 days with the nitrogen process. Or, a thirty fold increase in "lifespan"!!
If we now live 80 years, rather than, say 950 years, that means about almost a 12 fold decrease in lifespan.

Can this idea, that we adapted to absorb gases differently be ruled out? I understand that we are talking major cellular changes, and such.

Now don't start with the 'dad now believes we breathed nitrogen stuff', this is simply a look at the actual evidence, and science, and facts we may have.

 

[Poke]

I don't think people ever breathed nitrogen. People need oxygen to produce energy (to burn carbon, like cars). Nitrogen has no ability to create energy as a replacement for oxygen.

Plants grow much faster when the CO2 levels are increased, which could have been the case before so much CO2 was trapped in the ground (coal, fossil fuels). Plants get their energy from solar power, so they don't need to burn carbon.

Apples, and many foods, are packed in nitrogen to displace oxygen. Nitrogen is easy to get. Oxygen is the destroyer. Oxygen causes oxidation (fire is rapid oxidation). Oxygen also is the destroyer in the human body. Antioxidants, such as Vitamin E, help prevent oxygen from destroying the body, and causing premature aging.

I've never researched life extension. But, I imagine keeping up a good supply of a variety antioxidants all through your life would be of great help (without toxic levels of any of them). Mice who fast every other day live 40% longer. Contrary to the Public Service announcements, get yourself some sunshine every day. Move to a near vegetarian diet. Avoid artificial chemicals in your food, trans-fatty acids, and other toxins of modern technology. If you start this when you're young, you might live to be 120 (assuming you don't get hit by a car or have a genetic predisposition to a dangerous form of cancer).

120, not 900.

Something radically different in the environment of the pre-Flood world might have lended itself to much longer lifespans. It might even be something simple, like higher oxygen levels in the air (ironically). But, the big problem is that the human body seems to be designed to self-destruct.

 

[dad]

I don't think people ever breathed nitrogen. People need oxygen to produce energy (to burn carbon, like cars). Nitrogen has no ability to create energy as a replacement for oxygen.

Not now, no, of course. Maybe even in the past we breathed as we do now. But hey, it's always fun to look at what we actually know, or not.

[quote:63bbd]Plants grow much faster when the CO2 levels are increased, which could have been the case before so much CO2 was trapped in the ground (coal, fossil fuels). Plants get their energy from solar power, so they don't need to burn carbon.

Now, yes, but then, I think plants at least were very different. Trees grew in a week or so.

Apples, and many foods, are packed in nitrogen to displace oxygen. Nitrogen is easy to get. Oxygen is the destroyer. Oxygen causes oxidation (fire is rapid oxidation). Oxygen also is the destroyer in the human body. Antioxidants, such as Vitamin E, help prevent oxygen from destroying the body, and causing premature aging.

Right, and we would need a whole different cellular sytem among other things for things to have worked another way. Obviously it can't work another way now.

I've never researched life extension. But, I imagine keeping up a good supply of a variety antioxidants all through your life would be of great help (without toxic levels of any of them). Mice who fast every other day live 40% longer. Contrary to the Public Service announcements, get yourself some sunshine every day. Move to a near vegetarian diet. Avoid artificial chemicals in your food, trans-fatty acids, and other toxins of modern technology. If you start this when you're young, you might live to be 120 (assuming you don't get hit by a car or have a genetic predisposition to a dangerous form of cancer).

Interesting. Persoanlly I expect the antichrist, and the final wrapping up of man's history quite soon.

Something radically different in the environment of the pre-Flood world might have lended itself to much longer lifespans. It might even be something simple, like higher oxygen levels in the air (ironically). But, the big problem is that the human body seems to be designed to self-destruct.

[/quote:63bbd]
Seriously if it was higher oxygen levels, old people with oxygen tanks would be the longest living men.

I think it was primarily a different universe, in that the spiritual and physical were together at the time. The state of matter, and light, even gravity as we know it were different. We also had the ability to hyper adapt, or evolve I think as well. So much so, that major cellular and molecular changes likely happened, I think.

 

[Biblereader]

Our air is more nitrogen than oxygen. I think when things were perfect, in the Garden of Eden, the air was much more pure than it is now.

I've always been interested in the why's of why our air is more nitrogen than oxygen, and, why plants give OFF oxygen, for us to breathe.
Pretty interesting subject.

 

[peace4all]

However, that apple must also be kept cool. It can't just sit in the varrying tempeartures of a house. Just look at an apple on your coutner for a week, and one in your fridge. The fridge lasts MUCH longer than the apple on the counter.

 

[dad]

Our air is more nitrogen than oxygen. I think when things were perfect, in the Garden of Eden, the air was much more pure than it is now.

I've always been interested in the why's of why our air is more nitrogen than oxygen, and, why plants give OFF oxygen, for us to breathe.
Pretty interesting subject.

Was our air more nitrogen in the days of Adam? If so, were we able to utilise it differently? Did something change where liquid gas was formed, and started the ice age quickly? So many questions, so little time.

 

[dad]

However, that apple must also be kept cool. It can't just sit in the varrying tempeartures of a house. Just look at an apple on your coutner for a week, and one in your fridge. The fridge lasts MUCH longer than the apple on the counter.

Yes, that is how it works now, as regards apples, and storage. Consider some lifeforms, however, where temperature is not the big thing in dealing with nitrogen.

"Figure 1. A microbial mat at a hot spring in eastern Oregon. Some of the organisms in the mat are cyanobacteria that can fix nitrogen. Cyanobacteria are found in a variety of terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Many, but not all, are capable of nitrogen fixation.






Figure 2. The aquatic fern Azolla is the only fern that can fix nitrogen. It does so by virtue of a symbiotic association with a cyanobacterium (Anabaena azollae). Azolla is found worldwide and is sometimes used as a valuable source of nitrogen for agriculture. The plants shown here are each about 2 cm across. The pale yellow plant has been deprived of cobalt (essential for the cyanobacterial symbiont) and thus is showing typical signs of N deficiency.




Figure 3. This is another example of a cyanobacterial nitrogen-fixing association. In this case the cyanobacteria Nostoc (visible as small dark colonies in this photomicrograph) has taken up residence on leaves of a common leafy liverwort (Porella navicularis). The scale bar is 1 mm.






Figure 4. Porella navicularis as it appears to the naked eye (See Fig. 3). Porella is an abundant epiphyte in Pacific Northwest forests.






Figure 5a and b Nitrogen-fixing cyanobacteria can occasionally form associations with bryophytes (notably leafy liverworts) that are growing as "epiphylls" on the leaf surface of other plants. In this case the host plant is the palm Welfia regia, a common understory plant in the tropical rainforests around the La Selva field station which is operated by the Organization for Tropical Studies in Costa Rica. Some of the nitrogen fixed by the cyanobacteria is transferred directly to the host leaf.









Figure 6. Lobaria pulmonaria, a common N-fixing lichen in Pacific Northwest forests. The nitrogen-fixing symbiont is the cyanobacterium Nostoc which is to be found in pockets within the lichen referred to as cephalodia. Lichens such as this are a major source of N in old growth forests.






Figure 7. Cycads are gymnosperms ("naked-seed" plants) that are common in tropical climes, though a few do make it into Florida. They are have two unique features with regards to nitrogen fixation. Cycads are the only gymnosperms that fix and they are the only vascular plant that forms root nodules in which the prokaryotic partner is a cyanobacterium.




Figure 8. Shown here are the female cones of the cycad Ceratozamia mexicana. All cycads are dioecious (i.e. male and female parts are on different individual plants).






Figures 9 & 10. Gunnera sp., an unusual angiosperm that contains nitrogen-fixing cyanobacteria in pockets at the base of petioles. This is often referred to as the only angiosperm that forms a nitrogen-fixing symbiosis with cyanobacteria, however, this is not strictly true since some tropical angiosperms have cyanobacterial films on their leaf surfaces. Gunnera has some of the largest leaves of any plant and is very common in parts of South and Central America where it is called "nalca." The young petioles are often peeled and eaten as demonstrated by Emily Ross (former Reed college student, at right) during her travels to Chile.








Figures 11. Cross section through the stem of Gunnera with arrows indicating pockets of cyanobacteria (Nostoc punctiforma). This specimen is from the central mountains of Costa Rica.






Figure 12. Young plants of red alder (Alnus rubra). Alder is a N-fixing plant that forms a symbiotic association with bacteria (more specifically an actinomycete) of the genus Frankia. There are about 21 genera of non-legumes that fix N. These plants are collectively called actinorhizal plants and are important contributors of N in ecosystems where fixed N is scarce. In this figure, all plants are the same age and are growing in pure sand. The plants on the left were inoculated with Frankia. The plants on the right were not inoculated and are displaying signs of extreme N deficiency. For more on the ecology of nitrogen fixation by alder go to the ecology section of this site.






Figure 13. Root system of red alder showing abundant root nodules.





Figures 14 & 15. Snowbrush (Ceanothus velutinus), a common nitrogen-fixing actinorhizal shrub throughout the western U.S.






Figure 16. Root nodules of snowbrush (Ceanothus velutinus).

Figure 17. Wax myrtle (Myrica californica, on left), a common N-fixing actinorhizal shrub found in sandy coastal areas in the western U.S.






Figure 18. Mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius), a common nitrogen-fixing actinorhizal shrub in arid regions of the western U.S. It is often found on ridge tops in central and eastern Oregon.





Figures 19 & 20. Bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), a nitrogen-fixing actinorhizal shrub in the rose family (Rosaceae). Bitterbrush is common in the understory of ponderosa pine forests in the Pacific Northwest. It is highly desirable forage for deer and livestock







Figure 21. Buffalo berry (Shepherdia argentea), an actinorhizal shrub from Arizona.




Figure 22. Beefwood (Casuarina equisetifolia), a common nitrogen-fixing actinorhizal tree native to the Old World tropics, but now widely introduced throughout tropical beaches worldwide including the Caribbean and Hawaii."

http://academic.reed.edu/biology/Nitrogen/Nfix1.html

 

[Poke]

Yes, that is how it works now, as regards apples, and storage. Consider some lifeforms, however, where temperature is not the big thing in dealing with nitrogen.

Plants use nitrogen to form chemicals, like protein. It has nothing to do with preservation, but with function. The link you provided has to do with some kinds of bacteria providing nitrogen for plants. Plants can't take nitrogen from the air, in spite of air having an abundance of nitrogen.

 

[dad]

Plants use nitrogen to form chemicals, like protein.

And did they also in Eden? If so, how do you know? It seems to me that the possibilty may exist that they worked differently back then. Trees could grow in a week, for example, impossible today. If, say, a tree grew then and did not use the carbon, but produced more as it got older, or something, then carbon dating of the present is useless. In other words, a very totally different world, and how plants grew, including the light itself possibly, as well as the process itself.

It has nothing to do with preservation, but with function. The link you provided has to do with some kinds of bacteria providing nitrogen for plants. Plants can't take nitrogen from the air, in spite of air having an abundance of nitrogen.

That is the point, now they can't, although some few things can still use nitrogen some ways via a symbiotic relationship. But we are not talking about the present, unless of course you can prove that the past was the same?!

 

[Poke]

And did they also in Eden? If so, how do you know? It seems to me that the possibilty may exist that they worked differently back then.

It's possible, but you can speculate anything. You need reasons behind your speculation.

If, say, a tree grew then and did not use the carbon, but produced more as it got older, or something, then carbon dating of the present is useless. In other words, a very totally different world, and how plants grew, including the light itself possibly, as well as the process itself.

Cabon dating is no problem. Carbon dating is based on C14/C12 ratio found in organic remains. C14 is made in the air, from sunlight. When the world was new, there was no C14 in the air, therefor early trees would have no C14. If prior to the flood there was a vapor canopy, that could have reduced C14 production. If scientists do not account for this, then their carbon dates will give exaggerated dates, especially for the earlist organisms.

But we are not talking about the present, unless of course you can prove that the past was the same?!

Assuming the past was the same is the starting point, unless you have reason to assume otherwise.

 

[dad]

And did they also in Eden? If so, how do you know? It seems to me that the possibilty may exist that they worked differently back then.

It's possible, but you can speculate anything. You need reasons behind your speculation.

Thank you. That is right, and I have reasons for thinking the future and past the bible speaks of is different. As it turns out, strangely enough, science, on the other hand can provide no real reasons evidence or proof at all that the past was the same. It has hitherto simply been assumed. The motherlode underlying foundation belief for all old age speculations!

If, say, a tree grew then and did not use the carbon, but produced more as it got older, or something, then carbon dating of the present is useless. In other words, a very totally different world, and how plants grew, including the light itself possibly, as well as the process itself.

Cabon dating is no problem. Carbon dating is based on C14/C12 ratio found in organic remains. C14 is made in the air, from sunlight.

Now, yes. It was assumed the past was the same. If the past was different, that is a wrong assumption.
If plants say, somehow got the n14 to c14 by the former growing process, and different light, etc, then the ratio of c14 to c12 beyond the big change, or split is of no meaning. Coincedentally that is close to the time science admits that that dating is no good anyhow.
"Carbon 14, or radiocarbon as it is often called, is manufactured in the upper atmosphere by the action of cosmic rays. Ordinary nitrogen (N14) is converted into C14. Ordinary carbon (C12) is found in the carbon dioxide in the air we breathe, which, of course, is cycled by plants and animals throughout nature, so that your body, or the leaf of a tree, or even a piece of wooden furniture, contains carbon. When C14 has been formed, it behaves just like ordinary carbon (C12), combining with oxygen to give carbon dioxide (C14O2), and also gets freely cycled through the cells of all plants and animals. The difference is this: once C14 has been formed, it begins to decay radioactively back to N14, at a rate of change which can be measured.

... It is strictly limited to short term dating of up to 30,000 years maximum. In fact, it is only probably reliable up to 3000 years. The Geochron laboratory in Massachusetts in America refuses to use it beyond three thousand years, claiming that it is unreliable beyond that. "

http://home.primus.com.au/bonno/evolution11.htm

With the split being likely about 4400 years ago, this means only post split carbon dating is of any value at all! And the post split dating I call the present, so it really doesn't deal in the orgins debate.

When the world was new, there was no C14 in the air, therefor early trees would have no C14.

AS mentioned above, that may not be the case, we really do not know that.

If prior to the flood there was a vapor canopy, that could have reduced C14 production. If scientists do not account for this, then their carbon dates will give exaggerated dates, especially for the earlist organisms.

The different past allows for a canopy, or partial canopy, or even rings! The laws of our present universe now make these things pretty well impossible. So that could be a factor as well.

Assuming the past was the same is the starting point, unless you have reason to assume otherwise.

Until I have solid proof the past was the same, and evidences, etc, I see no reason on earth to assume it was the same.
The bible talks of a new heavens and earth coming, trees that grow new fruit every month, no decay, sun and stars lasting forever, as well as us, and our new bodies, and all kinds of things this temporary universe could not see.
In the past, plants were created days before man and beast that ate them, the heavens opened, flooding the earth, people lived near a thousand years, etc etc etc etc . So, why would anyone assume it was the same?