HENDRICKS HEALTH THEORY by Tom Hendricks copyright Tom Hendricks 2001 DEAR READER: Here are assorted notes that 1. Summarize my health theory, and 2. add evidence to support it. Thanks to Josh Hayes for posting it. Any questions or comments please e-mail me at Tom Hendricks 112374.474@compuserve.com. (An update , February 2001. A revised summary of my theory is at the opening of text #10. I made all these text files at the same time as I was working out some of the details of my theory. Therefore some of the earlier support documents are out of date. Specifically the support documents that mention enzymes up to #24 (1,9,14), are out of date. Please skip them. In most ways the later support documents are closer to the theory that has evolved since I began these texts. There's a lot of discoveries coming in once you accept life as an energy moderator! I've also modified many of my ideas, as new information has come in from discussions about my theory on the sci.bio.evolution newsgroup. Also please bear with the jumpiness of these support documents. I shift from one topic to another. You may want to read from the back to the front to start with the latest versions. Thanks, enjoy reading, and let me hear your comments, Tom Hendricks) SUMMARY DOCUMENT: Here's a summary of my Hendricks Health theory. If correct it answers: how and why life began, how and why the variety of life, and how mind and emotions evolved. The summary is new and large.I am presenting it from the general to the specific. It is somewhat like a collection of bones that is dug up and you try to flesh out what kind of creature it was. In my case I will try to present my general theory and then add details as I go. Some have complained about a lack of evidence. I am not sure what evidence can be expected at this early stage. I will present observations, interpretation of facts already known, and ideas on experiments etc. First the basic principals: A.All organisms require a source of energy: B. Every aspect of every organism is fueled by that source of energy. Every aspect of every organism evolved from that energy moderation. C. There are 4 and only 4 ways for an organism to use that source of energy, (or react to anything in its environment). These are the 4 Options They are to take it in or not take it in: 1. Take In 2. Block Out And IF taken in to 'digest' it and keep it in or excrete it out 3. TAKE IN and Hold In 4. TAKE IN and Excrete Out Overview of the theory: 1. All life is energy moderators (Note, #2 later revised ) 2. First life began in 2 stages. The first is a catalyst/enzyme-like stage. And like a catalyst, first life took in substances, acted upon them and excreted out another product. At first, life was - like a catalyst- unchanged. But at some point the substances that came in were an energy source for this first catalyst. This evolved to the 4 options of energy moderation - life 3. The second stage of life is replication. At some point first life excreted out/ broke off, another product - waste out, that contained enough genetic material for this first born to keep living. One reason replication was so successful was that it allowed the parent first catalyst to live on. Replication may have been an evolutionary step to allow the parent to live longer. 4. There are 2 stages of all life. They mimic a catalyst/enzyme. They are either inactive (no energy to moderate) or active (energy to moderate). The inactive energy state is seen in such examples as winter, or night, when most organisms hibernate, sleep, or shut down. The active energy state is seen in such examples as spring, or day when most organisms are most active. 5.The 4 options of energy moderation have evolved to all the aspects of living things. Example: mobility allows an organism to move toward food - option 1, move against enemies - option 2, or run away from predators - option 4. How these 4 options evolved to all aspects is easier seen in plants and animals. Examples: animals have evolved by stressing the set of Options 1 & 2. Plants have evolved by stressing the set of Options 3 & 4. Also females have evolved by stressing the set of Options 1 & 3, while males the set of Options 2 & 4 (the so called fight -2 or flight-4 options). The more social animals stress the set of options 1 & 2, the less social animals stress the set of options 3 & 4. etc. etc. 6. Mind/body connection. Mind evolved out of digestion as a 2nd stomach situated by the mouth. Note virtually all the main senses and the brain, surround the mouth. Note that there is no thinking organism that does not have a digestive system. Also note how the evolution of the nerve chord parallels the alimentary tract. 7. Freudian disciple, Karen Horney, in her groundbreaking classic 'Inner Conflicts" suggests that all human behavioral problems can be reduced to 3 types. These 3 - plus one of my own - match the 4 options of energy moderation: (K Horney's are 1,2, & 4) Option 1 move toward people (take in), Option 2 move against people (block out), Option 3 move toward self (take in and hold in), Option 4 move away from others (take in and excrete out). 8. How inner conflicts begin. The basic inner conflict is this- the child wants to do what please him, the mother/father/social group have rules of behavior that might conflict with those of the child. This sets up inner conflicts in the child. Specifically breast feeding may correspond to the childs inner conflicts about option 1 & 2 (take in food, block out food) and toilet training my correspond to the childs inner conflicts about option 3 & 4 (take in and Hold in, take in and Excrete out) 9. Each of the 4 options has both a postive and negative aspect to its physical, psychological, and social behaviors in humans. Example: the postive aspect of option two (block out ) is that a. it blocks out physical, and psychological harm and can act as the defender or protector for the social group. Negative aspect is that it may force the body to overreact, over respond to physical dangers leading to self harm, and lead to human behavior that is violent against the social group. etc. 10. I have developed a therapy that alters the 4 patterns of energy moderation in humans. It cures the human health problems, and human social problems that come from inner conflicts. (This includes among others, many diseases and health problems now considered stress related or psychosomatic) 11. Sleep seems to be a part of the cycle of energy moderation. The human body wakes up at it's lowest temperature of the day and is at its highest (on average) just before sleep. Sleep then helps in the digestion process, and is essential to moderating energy in all sleeping animals. 12. (this one just for fun) If all life on earth is energy moderators then IF there is life - example bacteria on Mars - then it too must follow the same 4 options. IF my theory is correct we know now the rules for all life that exists anywhere. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #1 (Note this idea later revised. Please skip all but the quote on the work of S. Fox) > 2. First life began in 2 stages. The first is a catalyst/enzyme-like > stage. And like a catalyst, first life took in substances, acted upon > them and excreted out another product. At first, life was - like a > catalyst- unchanged. But at some point the substances that came in were > an energy source for this first catalyst. This evolved to the 4 options > of energy moderation - life I'd like to comment on this section. I believe that we may already have experimental data pointing to this first life. Sidney Fox, at the U. of Miami heated a mixture of dry amino acids to a TEMP. WELL ABOVE BOILING POINT OF WATER. The products he obtained he called proteinoids, because they were protein-like but had a matted instead of a chainlike structure. When these proteinoids were dissolved in warm water and cooled slowly they formed cell-like structures called microspheres that had the following characteristics: electrical activity, sensitivity to light, response to stains used for bacteria and the ability to catalyze reactions and hold substances in membranelike structures. What I contend is that what is missing in Fox's experiments was a catalyst/enzyme (possibly in the atmosphere of early earth) that would cause the necessary chemical reaction that Fox got with his proteinoids but without the great heat. And this catalyst substitution would make not proteinOIDS with their matted structure, but proteins with their chainlike structures. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #2 Note that what we define as life, corresponds to the 4 options: ( key to list: Definition of life / 4 option counterpart) Takes in energy / option 1 Converts that energy to grow and develop / option 3 Energy or materials not used to grow, develop, etc. are excreted out as waste/option 4 Cell wall, and other devises to protect it / option 2 Mobility: move toward /option 1 , move against / option 2 , move away from or separate from / option 4. Reproduce / option 4 Molecular organization, complex structural organization, instructions for maintaining that organization and activities, ability to react to stimuli, etc. All this evolved out of the 4 options and is determined by which option is highlighted and which downplayed. It's like a computer with not 0 and 1 but 1,2,3,4 options. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #3 Note that the hydra, one of the earliest organisms with a nerve system, has a nerve network. A key fact in this is that this 'nerve net' is denser near the mouth than elsewhere. That would suggest that the nervous system evolved to better moderate energy in / food in. It would suggest too that the nerve chord was a type of nerve net that also helped moderate the energy-in system in arthropods and vertebrates. It's not hard to see how that nerve net/chord system could extend to nerve chord with brain at the mouth entrance and that finally, thinking, or mind evolved out of the energy in/digestion system. (See #7 below) SUPPORT DOCUMENT #4 There are 2 things that psychologists take for granted in the development of children. I believe both are incorrect. The first is this: the child knows from birth that it is a separate identity/person from its mother. I do NOT believe that is so. There is no evidence to suggest it is so. I believe a child must LEARN that. And if we accept that it is NOT inate, it suggests a reason why the child would have such inner conflicts between his desire and those of his mother (or the social group). He may have mistakenly thought he and his mother were the same person. The second is this: the child knows that dreams and reality are 2 different things. I do NOT believe that is so. Again I believe that that is something the child must learn. And in doing the therapy to resolve conflicts of energy moderation (see below), the effects of early dreams must be taken into account. It is my opinion that these earliest dreams are subconsciously motivating, and often steer humans throughout their lives. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #5 Mammals and birds have the largest brains. They are also the warm blooded animals. Is there a connection? Yes after the mild temperatures of the Mesozoic period, there followed the colder temperatures of the Cenozoic era.This is the era of climate zones. This is also the era when mammmals expanded and increased. I believe that it took additional brain power to regulate body temperature in these colder years. Therefore it took bigger brains to evolve to a warm blooded system in birds and mammals. I also contend that this helped moderate energy: warm blooded animals could search wider areas for food, search for food year round - and in winter they now have the earth to themselves with all cold blooded animals hibernating, migrating, etc. - therefore their only enemies are the cold and other mammals (though some birds migrate, and some mammals hibernate too). These are just some of the advantages of being warm blooded. Therefore it is highly likely that the ability to think evolved, at first at least, as moderating body temperature in mammals and birds, - which is a form of energy moderation. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #6 If mind evolved out of energy/food moderation - specifically - it took more brain power to maintain a warm body in the colder Cenozoic era, therefore warm blooded animals (mammals and birds) are the largest brained animals - which they are for their size-; then there should be some clues inside the inner brain - the oldest part of the brain. There are in the medulla, hypothalamus, and thalamus. Of the 3 largest parts of the brain: the cerebellum, cerebrum, and the medulla; the medulla is probably the earliest to evolve. It should then show signs of controling aspects of energy moderation/digestion. The medulla regulates automatic unconsious activities. It is the basic brain. 4 activities it regulates specifically relate to digestion and my 4 options (see #6 below). The medulla controls swallowing (option 1 taking in food). It also controls coughing, sneezing, vomiting - all ways to block out bad food, germs, etc. (option 2 block out). The medulla also controls heartbeat rate, contractions of the blood vessels, and depth and rate of breathing. The medulla also keeps the body's vital functions operating properly without interference from the conscious mind. That suggests that the cerebellum and cerebrun, evolved as secondary, or later parts of the brain (perhaps to refine the senses). Also in this basic part of the brain is the hypothalamus. This too plays a key part in digestion/energy moderation/temperature moderation. It controls the homeostatic mechanisms (nervous and endocrine systems - those that are most directly responsible for the overall control in the body). Also hormones which determine male or female (see snipped out part in original post on sex determination and energy moderation) Also in this part of the brain is the thalamus, a way station for integrating sensory imput. These clues suggest that the first object of the bigger brain in warm- blooded animals was to assist energy moderation/digestion by refining the ways of moderating that energy/digestion system. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #7 > Note that the hydra, one of the earliest organisms with a nerve system, > has a nerve network. A key fact in this is that this 'nerve net' is > denser near the mouth than elsewhere. That would suggest that the nervous > system evolved to better moderate energy in / food in. > It would suggest too that the nerve chord was a type of nerve net that > also helped moderate the energy-in system in arthropods and vertebrates. Correction. I should have said arthropods or chordates (which include the vertebrates). Also I'll add this, note how on the grasshopper the ganglia (mass of nerve cells) on the nerve chord, is most prominant along the main organs of the digestive system - and near the strong back leg for jumping. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #8 Here's a possible chronology of brain evolution. An alimentary system is set up in mobile water animals with a nerve net paralleling the digestive system, and a brain near the mouth opening. Fish. Some of these move onto land but also exist in the water. This move requires adaptive measures to the new land environment and a larger brain size - Amphibians Next, animals evolve to exist on land. More brain power. Now active in seasonable weather, hibernate in cold - Reptiles. Next animals that exist on land but are warmblooded. More brain power. Now active in all weather - Birds and mammals.(though there still is migration and hibernation) If this is correct then brain size (in relation to body size) should be bigger in this order: fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, mammals/ humans. And the evidence supports it. Mammals develop evolutionary traits that require further brain power: the social group, longer period of child with mother, breast milk, that evolved to love (an important evolutionary step in supporting the social group), walking upright, thumbs/tools, language/writing, etc. Each step (the order may or may not be chronologically correct) required more and more brain power. Yet all this came from animals adopting to the non-water environment of earth. According to my theory, each used some version of the 4 options to better moderate energy in. This led from energy moderation to brain power. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #9 (Note this idea later revised. Please skip.) Here's some more evidence to support my theory. This note is on the first enzyme. Let's start with protoplasm, the living matter of cells. It is vital to all cells. Boiling kills protoplasm (this point is also an important clue for the temperature of the early days of earth. If there was protoplasm the temp. of earth must not have been too hot. Yet thermophiles seem to disprove that theory - more later). How then can protoplasm carry out its activities in the cells at these lower temperatures? Protoplasm is able to carry on its life activities because of one kind of organic substance, enzymes. Enzymes are necessary in the synthesis of carbohydrates, fats, proteins, and nucleic acids. Enzymes are, in my opinion, such a key ingredient to all life functions that they must have been there at the start of life, and I contend they are the reason for life. And led to energy moderation, which is the key to life. But there is a catch-22, a chicken and egg problem in that enzymes are proteins. So how can the first enzyme make the first protein when it is protein? Well not all enzymes/catalysts are proteins. There is an important exception, RNA. In the 1980's biologists learned that RNA serves as the catalyst in a chemical reaction that occurs in small unicellular organisms called protozoa. Later RNA was found to serve as a catalyst for the same reaction in other cells. RNA is a single stranded molecule than can assume a variety of 3 dimensional shapes and is highly folded (maybe the precursor of the cell wall). Short strands of RNA can self-replicate, and RNA stores information, directs the synthesis of proteins, and has that limited ability as a catalyst. Also in certain viruses, RNA directs the synthesis of DNA. And some of the precursor molecules of RNA are common ingredients on meteorites and coments, and may have been present in the primitive oceans. All this suggests that the first enzyme, that I believe began life was RNA. And that it began the system of life - which is no more than a catalyst that promotes reactions between other chemicals, may take part in the reaction, and by taking part in the reaction lives to do it again, (and later replicates a 2nd generation catalyst/enzymes) SUPPORT DOCUMENT #10 Here's more evidence to support my theory: Mutation rates are higher in species with high metabolic rates, suggesting that metabolic rate (how species moderates energy) may also act as an influence on mutation rate. Example: The metabolic rate is five to tenfold higher in mammals than in sharks of the same size. Mammals have changed dramatically, sharks have not. (Source, Patterns in Evolution, by Roger Lewin.) SUPPORT DOCUMENT #11 If life is inactive in times of low available energy, then it should explode in times of high available energy. These should coincide with times of moderate temperatures. Therefore there should be major changes in life forms when there are major changes in temperature on earth. The Cambrian explosion seems to suggest this very fact. Preceeding the Cambrian period, was the Proterozoic era that had cool climates with possibly some glaciers. Following the Proterozoic was the Paleozoic era of which the first period was the Cambrian which brought an explosion of diversity of marine invertebrates. The Cambrian climate was a time where the temperature became warmer and warmer, with the following period, Ordeovician, having uniformly warm climates (and the first fish). Throughout the Paleozoic, and the following Mesozoic era, the climate was mild, energy was plentiful. Life florished. The next era, the Cenozoic had temperatures that began to cool. That means less energy available. It should also mean a change in life forms. It was. It was the period of a decrease of reptiles, and the highpoint of dinosaurs. And as the cold climate came in, the rise of the warm blooded mammals and birds. Also note that this temperature change changed plants as well. At the end of the warm Mesozoic, gymnosperms decreased, and at the beginning of the cooler Cenozoic, angiosperms began to rise. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #12 Another note on the above: land plants began in the more temperate Silerian period of the Paleozoic era. More evidence: If times of moderate temperature in the history of earth caused a flourishing of life, and colder temperatures dampened that somewhat, THEN it should follow that in our present day those parts of the earth that are in moderate temperature zones should contain most life on earth. They do with the richest plant life in the warm wet tropical regions of Africa, Central and S. America, and Southeast Asia. These rain forests contain more diverse species of plants than any other of which some have flourished for more than 40 million years. These areas are also rich in animal life - teeming with insects, birds, etc. plus rich marine life in the oceans, lakes, and rivers. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #13 Snakes, fish, lizards, insects, frogs, turtles, and all other animals (excluding the warm-blooded birds and mammals), plus all plants slow down in cold weather, and heat up and become lively when it is warm. For example, note how the tundra blooms with plant and animal life in the short summer period. (Though extremes of heat without lots of water - deserts - are somewhat different. Note that when water IS present - after rain - desert life blooms.) This is evidence that shows that all life activity (excluding those species who have evolved to being warm blooded) is based on the energy available in its environment, and the temperature of their environment. If the organism becomes much warmer than its environment the excess heat radiates away from the organism and it cools down. If the organism becomes much cooler than its environment the environment radiates heat to the organism and it warms up. All organisms (excluding warm-blooded) then inhabit an energy level, and temperature level that is set by their environmental temperature. All organisms react to changes in that energy level, or the temperature level of their environment. These environmental changes are the greatest for land animals and plants, and least for water organisms. IF an organism wants to live it must adapt and evolve to the demands of that energy level or the temperature level of their environment. When the earth changes temperatures drastically, there should be a 'sink or swim' change in most of the species then living, and there should be the greatest changes in life forms in times of major climate changes. Also those organisms that live in zones where there is the most climate and environment change, should experience the most evolutionary change I believe this is another clue to the theory that all life is energy moderators. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #14 (Note, enzyme idea later revised into idea of GC world.) The book, Blueprints, Solving the Mystery of Evolution, chapter on the work of Manfred Eigen; takes the RNA - as first life idea - further. It says that the Miller experiments produced small bits of RNA about 12 or so nucleotides long. It adds that adding lead would produce 50 units, zinc a nucleotide chain 150 units long. Though small, in comparison with a protein, that 150 chain was at the size that held enough information in the sequence to code for very simple protoenzymes. And that it MIGHT be possible to code for a useful enzyme if the sequence in the RNA didn't change. Unfortunately the RNA is often NOT stable. (At least as of this books printing in 1990) Yet this takes life forward quite a ways. No life in a primordial soup, to amino acids and snippets of RNA (Miller Experiments) to RNA large enough to sequence protoenzymes. Now combine this with my theory of enzyme as first life (that led to the 4 options, that led to reproduction, see my theory above) and it is theoretically conceivable that we have a reasonable theory of how life began The next questions are, why didn't the Miller experiments, or the Fox experiments (mentioned earlier) lead to life? And if RNA starts life, how? and what does it need to do it? Very tough questions. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #15 Here is another aspect to the Cambrian explosion. One scientist suggests (and I don't know his name) that the explosion may have started with the first predators. During the first 2 billion years of life there was only prokaryotes. Then the eukaryotes for 1 billion more before the Cambrian explosion. During this era of one-celled life there were no predators - no cells eating cells. He suggests that somehow cells began to combine (eating one another, colliding into one another, etc.) and predators began. Then A. they began to grow large. And B. they began to have to defend themselves from other predators - thus the bony shells and other protective (and often weird to our eyes) aspects of the cambrian organisms. Thus the beginning of one species getting its energy source from another - eating - began the Cambrian Explosion. (When coupled with the changes of Earth's climate that began in the Cambrian. see above.) Yet what if we took this back a step. Looking at a Prokaryote side by side with an Eukaryote a couple things stand out. The Eukaryote has a membrane enclosed nucleus and organelles, and it is generally larger and more complex. The membrane enclose nucleus and organelles suggest 2 things. A the membrane is there to defend the nucleus and organelles (perhaps the rudimentary beginnings of predators) OR B.the membrane was - at first- the outer membrane of a separate organism that somehow was 'swallowed' by the Eukaryote. The size also suggests it took in other organisms and grew from the process of doing it. Perhaps then the evolution of the Eukaryotes began the predator stage of life that then exploded in the temperate waters of the Cambrian. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #16 This post may be the most challenging to strict Darwinists. The evidence:Some bacterial cells which are grown in a nutrient rich laboratory culture can divide every 20 minutes. This suggests that the nutrient level in the environment (energy available) is the factor that determines rapid growth and division. (Also see my posts that suggest that all life are more active in energy rich times) There are 2 explanations for this evidence. Both fit the facts: Darwinists would say: in prokaryotes, suvival of a species is best ensured by rapid growth and division. In my theory of energy moderation, I would say: the evidence points to a method that bacteria have evolved to, to moderate excess energy. And that this suggests that before replication ( there were probably a long period of time in earth's history when we cannot determine if something is yet living or not) there was a time when enzyme-like pre-life reacted to the nutrients in its environment in one of 2 ways: when the nutrients were low, it - like an enzyme - slowed down or stopped chemical activity. When the nutrients were high it increased chemical activity. But what if the nutrients were too rich, and there was too much chemical activity - too much cell growth? Then you have the options of 1. bursting apart like a balloon. This would probably end the organism 2. or bud and/or break off some of the cell, thus reducing the size of each of the 2 parts. This would allow both parts to continue their enzyme like behavior and continue to grow, with the parent half, now, half the size that it was before the budding/break off, or division. Therefore the pre-life enzyme that survived was the one that could - not only slow down and survive in low energy times, but increase to safe levels then divide, to increase again, in high energy times. Now lets look at the evidence of, bacteria dividing in high nutrient times much quicker - in this new light. We can then explain the same evidence by saying: The bacteria have evolved a defensive ability to - when nutrients are too rich and chemical activity is too high, to raise to a certain level, then divide into two, thus allowing the parent cell to grow again. And as we see in the bacteria evidence at the top, it does grows and elongate to a cell volume that is approximately double its size, then divides in binary fission. As I said both theories explain the evidence. But the Darwinist theory does not explain how or why reproduction began in the first place. My theory of energy moderations suggest a very clear reason why. Replication in bacteria, (and all life) began as a defensive method to protect the parent cell in times of high energy. Those that didn't have this defense mechanism, didn't survive. Those that could divide, survived. (Which in a catch 22 goes to support that aspect of Darwin's theory). SUPPORT DOCUMENT #17 More on plants and energy. The rate of photosynthesis depends upon these factors: Increase in light intensity - up to a point, then levels off and stays the same (Note, when low in winter - plants slow down, loose chlorophyll, drop leaves, 'hibernate') Increase in temperature - up to a point then drops like a bell curve. Carbon dioxide - When rich will increase photosynthesis up to a point Oxygen level - increasing amounts will inhibit the rate of photosynthesis, but this too levels off. All this suggests that like all organisms, plants are more active in times of rich energy, and less active when energy is scarse. But it also suggests something EXTREMELY important. And that is that plants have a defence mechanism that protects them from excessively rich energy periods (also see post before on bacteria) And when they reach these super rich periods of high light intensity, warm temperatures, lots of CO2 and low levels of O2, they do NOT increase activity but level off. This is another example of energy moderation (in this case option 2 & 4) which is the key to my theory. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #18 A note here. Imagine a stream of nutrient rich water, going from left to right. In the middle is a - let's call it a nucleus. The water streams by the nucleus. The nucleus reacts to 'food' in the stream , becomes active, and excretes out 'waste'. The nucleus does not react to the rest of the stream and it passes by and goes on. The nucleus also is more active in warmer temperatures - up to a point - and less active in cooler temperatures. Now a question. Have I described A. an enzyme in a primordial soup with a current and/or tide, B. an alimentary canal in a living organism, or C. both? What I'm trying to show is how much life is like an enzyme. All this SUGGESTS enzymes are a key to life, though it proves nothing beyond that. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #19 Some more evidence. Warm blooded animals require much much much more energy than cold blooded animals. Example: a 2 pound rabbit, which uses 80% of the energy from its food just to maintain its body temperature, must eat more than an iguana - a type of lizard that weighs 10 times as much. What this suggests is that all that extra energy that's needed by mammals, also requires extra brain power - to get the extra energy, store it, use it, moderate its use, etc. All warm blooded animals should have bigger brains (if size is reasonably similar). Brain evolution should in turn depend upon the energy moderation requirements of the animal. See above. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #20 Here's some more ideas on replication. What if the first replication was not done by the organism but an outside source? What if the mechanics for the first replication came from a source outside of the organism? Let me explain. CATALYST. A catlyst 'eats' chemical A and chemical B and out of that union, comes compound AB (and each compound that comes out of the catalyst is a replica of that same AB) ENZYME. An enzyme 'eats' amino acids A and B and out of that union comes compound AB (and every compound that comes out of the enzyme is a replica of that same AB) Now a huge jump to: ORGANISM. An organism 'eats' food A and B as his energy source. That energy souce and the enzymes inside of him, allows the organism to live and replicate in the way we are familiar today. What this strange analogy suggests is that the first replication was not of the catalyst/enzyme/ itself, but instead the first replication was BY the catalyst/enzyme/ OF the compounds it catalyzed. In other words possibly this first enzyme (I call it a pre-enzyme or prenzyme) was like a baby machine. It took in A and B and excreted out or replicated, first child, AB. And though a somewhat different version of how first replication began, than the post above, they both may have some truth to them. And are worth exploring. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #21 I noticed in my notes that someone challenged the idea of temperature moderation evolving to brain. Specifically my comment that no organism has a brain without a digestive system. Tapeworms, and hookworms, were suggested as the exception in that they have nerve cords but no digestive system. I don't think that disproves my theory. Here's why. These parasites probably had a digestive system. When they began to get their nurturing from their host organism, this digestive system was no longer needed and it withered away. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #22 Here's a simple experiment that may have profound implications. I've suggested that energy moderation - led to temperature/food regulation - led to thinking and emotional behavior etc. Try this. Pretend you are eating your favorite food. Now exaggerate the movement of your mouth muscles as you chew. What you'll note is that the same muscles you use for chewing food is the same muscles you use to smile. And now try the reverse. Exaggerate the movement of your mouth muscles as you spit out food or water or make a face, like babies do when they are full and don't want anymore food. You'll see that these facial movements are the same as humans make when they frown or snarl. The implication is this. Smiles evolved from good food in (option 1 and 3) and frowns evolved from bad food blocked out or excess food blocked out or anything disagreeable blocked out (option 2) SUPPORT DOCUMENT #23 A recent study has confirmed my theory on why there are 2 sexes (in almost all species) Each sex is one of the opposite ends of energy moderation. Women less. Men more. That means that women under stress, would compensate by striving to take in and hold in more And men under stress would compensate by blocking out and excreting out more. These correlate with the 4 options listed above. Women 1, take in (also move toward), and 3, take in and hold in (also nurture) Men 2, block out (move against), and 4, take in and excrete out (also separate from). Note that the 2 options related to men: 2- block out (move against) and 4- take in and excrete out (also separate from), relate directly to the stress response syndrom of FIGHT (option 2) and FLIGHT (option 4) I surmised that women would deal with stress by NOT fight or flight - the male response, but by responses connected with females take in/move toward; and take in, hold in, and nurture. A recent University of California, Los Angeles study (soon to be released in an upcoming issue of the American Psychological Association's Journal) confirms my theory. They say that the FIGHT OR FLIGHT syndrom is male, while women under stress TEND AND BEFRIEND. They TEND or nurture their young, and BEFRIEND or seek social contact and support from others - especially other females. Tend & Befriend relate directly to the 2 options I assigned to the female sex. Befriend is Option 1 - take in or move toward others Tend is Option 3 - take in and hold in/nurture This is strong support for energy moderation as the key to life, the 4 options of energy moderation, how energy moderation determines the 2 sexes, and the psychological connection between energy moderation and human behavior. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #24 In a previous post, I suggested RNA was the first enzyme. I've since changed my mind. Now I believe that before RNA ( made up of both G-C bonds and A-U bonds) there was just the G-C bonds in a sort of pre-enzyme stage, I call prenzyme. Here are my reasons: The G-C bond is a strong bond, and it's considered stronger than the A-U (remember in RNA, U replaces T) "In the random process of molecules getting stuck and unstuck, natural selection would already be at work, operating at the level of chemical laws. Strips of RNA made primarily of G-C combinations, which are stronger than A-U would tend to win" From Blueprints - Edey & Johanson. Now look at the 64 combinations of triplets or codons possible with the 4 bases. Many things are very odd here. Many of these triplets code for the same amino acid. Arginine for ex. is represented by 6 sets. Yet other amino acids can only be made with one triplet (methionine AUG, the starter) or tryptophan: UGG) or 2 (there are a number: phenylalanine UUU or UUC, lysine AAA or AAG). Those occuring more frequently are used more often in making proteins (6 each of leucine, orginine, and serine). If you have a chart of these, note that the C-G bond is much more often in the bigger sets, and the A-U bond is much more often in the smaller sets - this seems especially true if they are in position 1 or 2. I'm most interested in those with the C-G bond. You can get 4 amino acids with just the C-G bond. They include Proline with CCC or CCG. But you can also get proline with CCU or CCA. It's as if the first 2 are the only ones that count. And no matter the third (C,G,U,A) you still get proline. What first struck me is that perhaps the first pre-life began with not the 4 bases but 2, the C-G. Then as they are being enzymed together into a peptide, the knitter (our prenzyme) ran out of both C's and G's. But a U swims by and works just as well - CCU (though at first it stopped it see below). You still get proline. Same with an "A" swimming by (CCA). You again get proline. Then I thought that maybe this substitute 2nd pair of A and U stayed, and from then on, the single pair of bases C-G, began to be 2 - C-G and A-U. But wait let's look at the other 3 amino acids that can be made with just C's and G's. Strangely enough they all can be made in multi different ways just like proline ALANINE GCC or GCG or GCU or GCA ( in other words GC+ any of the 4) GLYCINE GGG OR GGC OR GGU OR GGA ( GG+ any of the 4) ARGININE CGG OR CGC OR CGU OR CGA ( and 2 more AGA or AGG) in other words CG+ any of the 4 - with even 2 spares) PROLINE (again) CCC OR CCG OR CCU OR CCA (CC+ any of the 4) Something also stands out. The first 2, that seem so important, seem to have very important positions with the 3rd almost needless. Significance??? Now when I looked at those triplets that started with (what I contend were the 2nd generation bases) of AU, I found just the reverse of the above. ALL of the AU or UA in the first 2 places seemed minor in importance to those codons above. They aren't as often used and they can only be made with 1, 2, or 3 sets: Ex. LYSINE AAA OR AAG ONLY PHENYLALANINE UUU OR UUC ONLY There seems to be no logical reason why some amino acids would be made 6 different ways and others just 1 or 2, except that those with 6 started one way (G-C) then later changed incorporating the A-U bonds later in time. And the later A-U bonds being made as needed - only once or twice. Now some further information. The start and stop codons are Start: Methionine AUG Stop: UAA or UAG or UGA. Note the preponderance of U's and A's. It suggests to me that at first these U-A bonds were close enough to their counterparts (G and A both purines / C and U both pyrimidines) to connect up, but when they did they ended the chain. Stopped it cold. Like blank spaces at the beginning and end of sentences. But for that analogy to be true, first you have to have the sentence. In this case the G-C bonds were the sentence that the A-U bonds began and stopped. That means again that the G-C bond probably came before the A-U bond - which joined later. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #25 In this post I'd like to talk about inner conflicts. First please read message 1 in this thread, point #8 Here is a little experiment. Purposely try to irritate a friend by raising your voice, getting angry at nothing, etc. What you'll notice is that he/she is likely to scratch! Scratch his head, rub his eye, or scratch his arm. What this little experiment suggests is that the body can only respond to PSCYHOLOGICAL stress with PHYSICAL responses. In other words the body has no way to respond to pscyhological stress other than the responses it has for physical stress. So it does what it can and reacts to being 'irritated' with the body's response to skin irritation - it scratches! Why is this important? It suggests that there is a layer of human ailments and diseases that are no more than the body OVER COMPENSATING in physical ways to pscyhological stress. It's hard to see how a simple scratch can be of much significance, but let's change it to an extremely stressful irritation - some type of psychological stress that is so frightening that it puts the human body in high alert - heart races, hormones are pumped, muscles coil, etc. Now imagine all this happening on a regular basis with the added irritation of a bad childhood, or specific instances of extreme hardship. Now you can see how the bodies physical overcompensation for a non-physical threat could tip the balance of the body to unhealthy levels. Thus there is a layer of ailments and diseases that have no physical cause. But by resolving these psychological inner conflicts and stress, we can resolve the body's, quite natural but damaging over compensation. I believe this layer of problems can be solved by resolving the conflicts of the 4 options of energy moderation. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #26 In this post I'm going to suggest how these 4 options began. All organisms require a source of energy (see point A above) When that source of energy IS TOO LOW the organism will only survive if it can in some way TAKE IN the energy it needs. and/or HOLD IN or store more energy to help it in lean times. These 2 correspond to option 1 - TAKE IN and option 3 - TAKE IN AND HOLD IN When that source of energy IS TOO HIGH the organism will only survive if it can in some way BLOCK OUT the excess energy and/or EXCRETE OUT the excess energy already inside of it. These 2 correspond to option 2 - BLOCK OUT and option 4 - EXCRETE OUT These 4 options have evolved to cover every aspect of every organism. And every aspect of every organism is some aspect of one or more of these 4 options of energy reaction and/or moderation. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #27 WHY IS SUGAR SWEET? Why our craving for sugar? Part of the answer is the craving to recreate lactose, the sugar found in breast milk. Eating sweets may be a substitute for mother's milk (and the love associated with it) - in other words - the next best thing. AND ailments and diseases (both physical and psychological) from lactose intolerance to diabetes to insatiable craving for sweets (and possibly also the insatiable craving for the 'sweet' life that seems denied), MAY have a psychological component in the patients relationship to his mother in childhood during breast feeding. I believe that by resolving the energy/food/love inner conflicts, the patient may resolve - not only the problems with sweet foods - but the psychological and physical problems that are causing them. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #28 I have suggested that all life is the same in that those organisms that have survived have developed strategies to deal with extremes in energy availablility. LOW ENERGY. When energy is low all life slows down. For illustrations of this look at the behavior of any species during night,winter, or cold climates. HIGH ENERGY. When energy is high all life becomes active. And I've suggested that when energy is extremely high life replicates as an evolved strategy to modify the constraints of very high energy. Here are 2 examples from nature that suggest this high energy replcation. Note they both are relatively simple organisms that may not be that far from first life organisms. Therefore they can suggest how first life may have been. 1. brewer's yeast. They form new cells, unlike other plants, by a process called 'budding'. New cells arise by the origin and development of a bubble like protrusion on the parent cell. Nuclear division occurs and 1 nucleus moves into the enlarging bud which is ultimately cut off from the mother cell - thus 2 separate cells. Though the process has highly evolved into a sophisticated system of replication, it's not impossible to suggest that early replication may have been a cell that grew like a balloon in very high energy conditions, and popped out a daughter cell, like a very primitive version of brewer's yeast. 2. Chlamydomonas - a simple and perhaps primitive form of green algae. It is small in size, rapid growth rate, and minimal requirements - CO2, water, light and a few inorganic ions. The cell enlarges to a certain size, then in asexual reproduction, the nucleus divides twice to form four separate protoplasts within the parent cell. Each cell then secretes a wall about itself and develops flagella. Then the parent cell wall ruptures and releases the 4 daughter cells. Except in size, each mitospore is identical to the parent cell. They enlarge and repeat the process. Again this suggests a very sophisticated form of replication that may have been based on a cell reacting to extreme high energy by first growing as large as it can, then, when it can grow no more, bursting like a balloon and sending its genetic material flying. These 2 examples suggest that replication MAY have evolved out of organisms that evolved systems to react to periods of extreme high energy. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #29 If replication is a strategy to modify the constraints of very high energy then, replication should be very quick in organisms living in or around hot springs. Procaryotes living in hot springs in Yellowstone "grow surprisingly rapidly. A population can double in as few as 2 hours." and ""algae, bacteria, and invertebrates all grow faster and to higher numbers in the heated portions of the river (Yellowstone hot springs) Both from K. Todar U. of Wisconsin Madison plus this: A look at the temperature tolerances of organisms shows us something interesting. The scales of tolerable temps seem to grow hotter as we go from plants/animals back down to bacteria. Specifically (all in C.) Animals and Plants up to 50/ Eucaryotic microoragnisms up to 56 for protozoa, 60 - algae, 62 - fungi. And in Procaryotes: Bacteria cyanobacteria and other photosynthetic bacteria - 73, and heterotrophic bacteria - 90. Then Archae with methanogens - 110, and sulfur-dependent bacteria - 115. This list suggests that going back in time means going up the temperature tolerance scale. For reasons, I've stated in other posts I believe that this list also shows how life began (but in opposite order) with first - methanogens using atmospheric H2, which, when it ran out, survivors got their H2 made from water - the first part of photosynthesis. If the archae was first (note thermophile enzymes can withstand, even tolerate heat at boiling water temperatures) that suggests this: Now that we know how quickly procaryotes divide in hot springs - that would suggest that first life (if thermophiles) would divide very quickly too. This would be a great boon to survival, with the population doubling every hour. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #30 Question There are 2 aspects to photosynthesis. In the 'light reaction light energy is transformed into chemcial energy bound in the chlorophyll molecules that is used for splitting the water molecules in to H2 and O In the 2nd part, the 'dark reaction' the broken off H2 combines with the CO2 to form water and CH2O. Then 6 CH2O's combine to glucose, C6-H12-O6 On the other hand methanogens obtain energy by combining CO2 and H2 to produce methane gas CH4. Looking at these 2 examples one sees a similarity in that the 2nd part of photosynthesis energy comes from CO2 (carbon dioxide) + H2 AND methanogens get their energy from the same CO2 + H2. But here's my question. How come that when green plants put CO2 and H2 together they get sucrose, but when methanogens do the same thing, they get methane? Now an observation about first life. It looks as if photosynthesis came about when H2 was no longer in the atmosphere (early earth had plenty of H2 and CO2. Now earth atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen and Oxygen. This suggests that H2 and CO2 were somehow used up) In order to survive, with H2 gone,organisms must have evolved the system of photosynthesis to get their H2 out of water - which is the 'light reaction' - the first step of the 2 part photosynthesis process. That suggests that photo synthesis should be dated to when H2 began to run out. It also suggests that before that time organisms got their energy, probably like methanogens, by using the H2 in the atmosphere. Also that suggests that when H2 began to run out, methanogens, to survive, may have had to creep into the strange temperature corners that it now occupies to survive the H2 drought. It also suggests that photosynthesis was NOT the first system of getting energy, but an evolved 2nd. And that probably it's highly likely that first life got it's energy from H2 and CO2 (hydrogen and soda water) SUPPORT DOCUMENT #31 If the theory of life as "4 options of energy moderation" is true, then a number of discoveries can be made. Please remember: #1 Take in #2 Block out #3 Hold in #4 Excrete out. This post concerns why there are 2 sexes and not more. The 4 options of energy moderation are, in their simplest form, 2 choices for the organism. Either to increase energy (#1 take in and #3 hold in and utilize) or it can decrease energy (#2 block out and #4 excrete out) Therefore all life is linear and can only either increase energy or decrease energy. That suggest 2 and only 2 opposites: increase energy and decrease energy. These (for many reasons that I can only suggest here) have evolved to correspond to the 2 sexes with MALES utilizing, more energy (which corresponds to the #2 & #4 options) FEMALES utilizing less energy (which corresponds to the #1 & #3 options) Therefore I define sex as the evolution of opposites of energy consumption with males more and females less. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #32 It's my contention that thinking evolved from digestion. Look at the nerve chord in in a grasshopper. It exactly parallels the digestive tract. Note that in virtually all organisms with a brain the nerve chord parallels the digestive tract. It's my contention that the nerve chord evolved along with, or out of the digestive tract to better control the energy moderation of the organism - that is the food in/waste out system of using energy. As animals evolved the nerve chord developed a brain at the end nearest the mouth - where the food enters. Also note how the senses, like the brain, surround the mouth - eyes , ears,nose, sense of taste, etc. Note also that there is no organism that has a brain that does not have an alimentary canal. I believe thinking is an evolved form of food in/waste out moderation. And that what was first helping to decide good food from bad, evolved to thinking good moral behavior versus bad moral behavior. That what was first helping to decide proper amounts of food in and waste out evolved to thinking of (for example) proper restraints on the social behavior of the group - what's too much freedom vs too much restraint.And I could go on with thousands more such examples. If this is true then every aspect of human thought should have evolved from one of the 4 options: Take in, Block out, Hold In, Excrete Out. And I cannot find any that could not. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #33 I have suggested this catch-22 before, but perhaps hearing it from a noted scientist in the proper lingo will have a stronger impact: "If natural selection can only act when there exists a self- replicating system that, also, necessarily bases itself on the same nucleic acids, how could it be explained that RNA evolved to acquire its genetic material?" (Leslie E. Orgel) That is why my theory, Hendricks Health Theory, says that energy use did not come AFTER the system of replication, - that's the cart before the horse - and looking for such a solution is a scientific dead end - INSTEAD reacting to energy led to: IN LOW ENERGY a dormant stage IN HIGH ENERGY an active stage IN HIGHEST ENERGY (something must give) and the heat/temperature/high energy levels (something) caused first life, or first enzyme to melt/ divide/replicate/excrete out excess energy - they are all a similar boat. (All life follows these reactions to energy, and all life replicates in times of high energy) All this came about, in my opinion, because Darwin's theory was so groundbreakingly instrumental in explaining so much phenomenon. Now everyone tries to explain EVERYTHING by it (Mary Shelley - in a time where electricity was all the rage said IT started life and Frankenstein created a Monster). But in truth Darwin's theory does NOT explain the rings around Saturn, or why chords tangle under my desk. There are limits to his brilliant theory. And one is first life. REPLICATION: long term survival of species ENERGY REACTION/MODERATION; short term survival of species. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #34 Just for fun: The January/2000 issue of National Geographic has a story "Life Beyond Earth" that talks about what alien life (if it exists) might be like or not be like, and the more down to earth question of how life began here. I think my theory of the 4 Options, answers many of the questions posed in the article. Please first see sci.bio.evolution forum, 1/14/00 post "Revised 4 Options" NG asks: 'How can a collection of chemicals form themselves into a living thing'. I think that IF you accept my theory that all life is energy moderators, THEN to find how life began, find how life began to react and later moderate energy. NG asks: If there are aliens what will they look like. I answer that IF all life is energy moderators and there are only 4 ways to moderate energy (and no one has found anything outside of the 4 options) then ALL life here or wherever it might be MUST be built on the same 4 options of energy regulation. Yet, life on earth shows that those 4 options can evolve to unlimited variations. See next question. NG asks: If there are aliens will they be able to think. Please see the 1/14 post "4 Options, Digestion to Thinking". I answer not unless they first evolve a digestive system (which evolved to thinking). NG asks: Can you manipulate life. I answer this, now that we know that all life is energy moderators and that there are only 4 ways to moderate energy, we can alter life (as evolution does) by strengthening one or more of these 4 options. And what may be the most exciting aspect is this, by altering the 4 options in humans I believe you can cure a wide range of psychological problems, physical diseases and ailments, etc. Please see the 1/14 post "Human Behavior & 4 Options". SUPPORT DOCUMENT #35 Solving these questions will give us clues to first life: 1. If RNA can act as an enzyme in certain instances, does that mean that not only can it create compounds, but that it can break them apart - that is RNA has the ability to catalyze both ways 2. Could it be possible that the G-C bond preceded RNA and that at first the A-U bond was just a stop and start bond for the G-C? For reasons for this idea please see above. 3. What happens in extreme heat to RNA as a single strand, and as a double strand? SUPPORT DOCUMENT #36 As to life coming from elsewhere. I agree with those that say that just puts the problem somewhere else. Then we ask how did it start THERE! I think it's easier to start life here than to get it here from somewhere else. If it did come from somewhere else, it would be somewhere else in our solar system and what better place is there in our solar system then here. Earth has water, it's in the right temperature zone, it's the largest rock planet so it can hold the most atmosphere, and it has an almost equal size Moon (that probably played a part by how the Moon was formed, the gravitaional pull of the Moon , plus effects we may not yet know) And because life is so abundant here, I contend that it was probably very easy to start. (The 4 options of my theory can easily account for the complexity of life once it begins) SUPPORT DOCUMENT #37 In my posts on early earth conditions, I got a lot of differing opinions: I began this post to see if there was any consensus on conditions of Earth when life began. There seems to be more conflicting opinion than I would have supposed. One said CO2 atmosphere caused it to be quite hot due to greenhouse effect and that it didn't cool at night much. Another said that it was probably colder - young star - lower luminosity. My bio text says "The surface of the young Earth was too chaotic, temperature variations too extreme. Anybody care to sort this out? Then too there was different opinions on radiation - didn't effect life in heavy atmosphere, versus radiation a factor, to a textbook version that said: radiation too intense for life to survive in its present form. Then too "Bubba" said "the original life forms on earth were simple RNA strands that coded for enzymes. Yet my post suggesting the very same thing was soundly questioned by another, and I have revised my own thinking to push back the original life forms to a simpler version of RNA that coded only the G-C bonds (see my post on why a study of the 64 triplets that code amino acids clearly indicate the G-C bond came first and then evolved to add the A-U bond later). And finally one suggested the Moon was pulled out from the Earth. I thought this too was theory not proven fact. Also , just for fun, an older book on the stars said that the Moon probably was pulled out of the earth where the Pacific Ocean now is - anyone heard of that? Anyway the point being is there seems to be less than a consensus on all these issues. Yet, determining conditions on early earth would be important clues to understanding how life began. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #38 > U-M Scientists Date Origin Of Moon In > Earth's "Big Bang" > NASA > Sunday January 31, 1999 > > ANN ARBOR---University of Michigan geochemists have made the most accurate > estimate yet of the age of our moon and discovered that it formed later in > the > development of the solar system than many scientists believed---almost > certainly as > the result of a collision between Earth and another planet at least as large > as Mars. > > The interplanetary "big bang" between the Earth and another object occurred > about > 50 million years after the start of the solar system, according to Alexander > N. > Halliday, U-M professor of geological sciences. > > In a study published in the Nov. 7 issue of Science, U-M scientists > Der-Chuen Lee > and Halliday, with Gregory A. Snyder and Lawrence A. Taylor of the > University of > Tennessee, explain how they analyzed isotopes of tungsten in rock samples > from the > lunar surface to unlock the secrets of the moon's origin. > > "Our data indicate the moon formed within the time window of 4.52 billion to > 4.50 > billion years ago. The tungsten isotopic composition of the moon is > consistent with > the hypothesis that the moon was derived from the Earth itself, or from a > large > object colliding with the Earth which had a similar chemical composition," > Halliday > said. > > "Simulations of the giant impact indicate phenomenally high temperatures of > more > than 10,000 degrees K., which triggered planet-wide mixing and melting of > the > rocky material in the young planet Earth," said Der-Chuen Lee, a U-M > postdoctoral > research fellow in geological sciences. "The heat and energy associated with > the > moon's formation were also responsible for producing its magma oceans." > > Scientists believe the planets in our solar system began forming about 4.57 > billion > years ago from a huge cloud of interstellar gas, dust and debris leftover > from the > birth of the sun. The Earth and other rocky planets in the inner solar > system built up > gradually over millions of years as their gravitational pull attracted > larger and larger > chunks of material from the cloud. > > Halliday and Lee used a technique called multiple-collector, > inductively-coupled > plasma mass spectrometry to measure extremely small amounts of tungsten > isotopes > in 21 lunar samples. "Since hafnium-182 decays into tungsten-182 with a > half-life of > 9 million years, it is possible to determine relative ages of materials > based on their > isotopic ratios," Halliday said. > Quoted by "Pumpkin" SUPPORT DOCUMENT #39 What I'm looking for is an enzyme. Because an enzyme works like life in that it takes in energy (chemical A and B) 'digests them' and excretes out waste AB compound, OR replicates AB offspring. So with that very loose model we have sorta life. The obvious problem is that none of this means anything in the lab unless you deal with RNA, amino acids, bases, laws of energy, etc. What I'm looking for is just a system to set up that energy reaction/ moderation that is my model for all life. An enzyme by itself might be enough, but how do you get that first enzyme or is it something else, I'm looking for? Here are some clues/theories: 1. what if before RNA there was just the G-C bonds? It is a very strong bond and for a number of reasons (see above) it seems that the G-C bond preceeded the 2 pair bonds of RNA. That would take everything back a step. And it may supply some more clues. 2. What if the first replication system was heat. At some point heat will be so high that it will break/melt the G-C bonds So that whatever bits of RNA formed during the cool of the night on primitive earth (if there was such a thing) would 'melt apart' during the day and those 2 broken strands would reform 2 strings of G-C bonds the next night - then melt apart at day - then 4 strands the next night make 4 G-C bonds - then melt apart at day then 8,16,32, (the old 1-grain on each square of the chess board - bit) 3. What if the amino acids line up according to heat? That there natural order is related in some way to the temperature. That by lining up by temperature - somehow leads you to the system of life today? 4. What if the pre-RNA strand was single G's or C's, not double? Would that be easier to make. And only later at a certain length did it double on itself and then began the G-C bonds? SUPPORT DOCUMENT #40 This, in response to evolution ideas that begin towards the beginning of human evolution (why we think) instead of the beginning of life. Language, tool use, etc are important. But you can't begin the argument of 'why this' anywhere you choose. It all must be in that first cell of first life - or rather, it must all evolve out of that first cell. Other conditions that favor brains are 1. Brains had to evolve to handle the excess biological needs of warm blooded animals. And following the brain developement of fish to amphibians to reptiles to birds and mammals we see an increasing level of sophsitication in moderating temp./energy which requires an increasing amount of brain power. Also the long period of a human child's growing up time allowed for much knowledge to be learned from the mother/group. Yet carry this back further and you see that the child mother bond was first a child/mother's milk bond (clearly energy moderation). Also love is an important aspect of evolution. The child love for mother's milk evolved to child's love for mother, evolved to child's love for learning, mimicking, pleasing, etc. All this supports the vast brainpower of humans and must also be considered along with the standard tool, language, etc. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #41 I suggested that Dinosaurs were not warmblooded if the weather didn't call for it. Here's my post and an answer: > As to the dinosaurs being warm blooded. I don't see the point if the > earth wasn't that cold. The Triassic & Jurassic had worldwide warm and > humid climates. In the Cretaceous there was some change. Then the weather > turned colder in the Cenozoic Era with the rise of animals evolving to > meet the weather change (and increasing their brain size to handle the > warmblooded ness). Unless these were late dinosaurs I don't know why they > would evolve to warm-blooded. Though, if birds did, that would suggest > that dinosaurs may have done it before them - at least those that led to > birds. There were all kinds of dinosaurs in very wide time period. It is highly possible that some of those were warmblooded and some were coldblooded and some somewhere between those two. Evidence for both cases exist: bonestructure that indicates bursts of growth and slow growth rate (coldblooded) and fossils that indicate very fast growth rate (warmblooded). Recent fossil findings have indicated that at least some later types of dinos had feathers (which makes perfect sense because feathers must have existed before wings could develop). Those feathered types of dinos were very likely warmblooded. Timo PietilŠ Mr. Pietila is correct, and his answer shows how the gaps were probably filled between cold blooded early dinosaurs and warm blooded birds.