HENDRICKS HEATH THEORY SUPPORT DOCUMENT #242 Here's a quote that suggests what I'm trying to do with my theory. Its from Biology, a textbook Neil Campbell "People like Newton, Darwin, and Einstein stand out in the history of science not because they generated a great many facts, but because they synthesized ideas with great explanatory power. Such ideas, broad in scope and supported by a large body of evidence, are known as theories." Now that is great company, and I am doing well to emulate that idea. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #243 ATP and my theory: "The processes of cellular respiration and fermentation transform chemical energy stored in food molecules into chemical energy stored in the high-energy phosphate bonds of ATP. ATP, in turn, serves as the immediate source of energy for all the energy requiring activities of the cell..." Cell Biology, Kimball The quote goes on to list some categories: mechanical work, electrical work (electric eel), active transport (the active transport of ions or molecules from regions of low concentration to regions of high concentration), bioluminescence (firefly etc.), anabolism, and HEAT. "Energy is also a source of heat for living things. (then it goes on to talk about mammals and birds and internally generated heat)... Generally, the production of heat occurs SIMPLY AS A BY-PRODUCT (my caps) of other energy transformations within the cell. As we have seen, no energy transformation is 100% efficient. For example, when chemical energy is converted into mechanical energy... a substantial amount ,70-80% of the energy is lost in the form of HEAT. (then it talks about shivering as an act to move muscles and warm the body) Thus although heat cannot do work for an organism, its production MAY BE vital to the organism in cold surroundings." I'm going to suggest something somewhat radical though it fits in with the rest of my theory. I'm suggesting that the production of heat was not SIMPLY AS A BY - PRODUCT, in first life BUT the evolved intent of first life. Specifically the heat from the sun (see my theory on how life began as the sun melting GC bonds) was the first HEAT, not chemical energy. Later life evolved to the second HEAT, not chemical energy yet. And it got this 2nd heat source from ATP. ONLY LATER did it turn out that chemical energy was a good follow up idea for the sun's heat. So in a sense the quote above is turned around. It was ATP as a source of chemical energy that occurred SIMPLY AS A BY-PRODUCT. At least at first. It is important that we understand that even though ATP is the key to all life energy NOW. That it may not have always been that way. And first life may have been as I have suggested. I'll repeat this pesky quote yet again (that seems to stir up people so much) "Natural selection CANNOT INDUCE CHANGES THAT IN THE FUTURE WILL BRING BENEFITS. THE BENEFITS HAVE TO BE IMMEDIATE." (Thread of Life, The smithsonian Looks at Evolution, Levin) Therefore the first use of ATP must have had an advantage to whatever used it. And the odds are that the advantage was the 70-80% heat that came off of it, not the measly ATP chemical energy produced from it. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #244 Beer, Dinos, and Trilobites. Replication is the key to change - right? Descent with modification - right? Well yes and no! This one just for fun. The flavor of beer depends on its strain of yeast. When brewers get a good-tasting strain of yeast for their beer , they want to hold on to those cells. "Because oxygen is excluded, the yeast cells are dependent on fermentation for their energy....Fermentation is an inefficient process. This restriction, coupled with the low temperatures used, markedly limits the rate of cell reproduction.... (side note - here is another instance supporting my idea of all life slowing down in low energy, speeding up and reproducing in high) Even so, after four or five days, the quantity of yeast in the vat will have increased 3 or 4 fold. A portion of this population is removed from the mixture and carefully saved to be used to start the next batch of ale or beer. At all times, great care is taken to see that the yeast strain does not become contaminated by other microorganisms. Thanks to such precautions, a single strain of yeast may be used for decades to produce a unique ale or beer. Even with the slow growth rate that takes place under anaerobic conditions, after some twenty years the cells being used are the PRODUCT OF AS MANY AS 3000 GENERATIONS - YET THE TRAITS OF THE ORIGINAL YEAST CELLS HAVE REMAINED UNCHANGED!" Cell Biology, Kimball 3000 generations and virtually no genetic change to speak of. Yet I contend that if that same batch of yeast did NOT have its human handlers protecting it in every way, that it would face some severe strains living outside of the artificial world it is in now. And I would contend that only a very few generations 'in the wild' would bring genetic change. So wait, why would 3000 generations bring no change, and 1,2,3,? bring big change (note how quickly the dark colored Pepper moths took over in sooty industrial England). It's because of the changes the yeast would face. And I have suggested that there are 2 main directions. Change that forces the fittest to survive, and change through some type of symbiosis or other lucky breaks, that makes it easier for the organism to survive. And isn't this yeast story , the very same thing that happened to trilobites, and the dinosaurs, each in their own epics? Replication is the mechanics of life, but it is far from the complete story. Life is energy moderation with modification through descent. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #245 Stanley Miller Interview #1 In the textbook, Biology, Campbell c 1990 is an interview with Stanley Miller whose '53 experiment was so important in chemistry of pre life earth. I'd like to quote some passages and give comments: "The essential difference between life and nonlife is replication. There are other differences, but this is the essential one. In addition to replication, there has to be mutation, with the mutations transmitted to the progeny. Thus the origin of life is the origin of replication with mutation. Another way to state this is that the origin of life is the origin of evolution, since reproduction or replication, mutation and selection result in Darwinian evolution..." I disagree, and I think this approach is what has stymied first life research. And to some degree even Miller disagrees with himself. "...But after some discussion, it was felt that if methane, ammonia, and water were combined and just left to sit, organic compounds would not be made. ENERGY MUST BE ADDED (my caps). And for the source of energy, the choices would be ultraviolet light or electrical discharge." Now I agree with him. Life is energy moderation with modification through descent. Darwin has had such a profound affect on biology that it is hard not to consider his every word as gospel. Yet replication is the mechanics of life not the reason for life. Here he is talking about the organic material in the Murchison meteorite: "...when the meteorite was analyzed by a team at the NASA Ames Research Center, it turned out that amino acids were present at the parts per million level. These amino acids were very similar to the ones that had been made in the electrical discharge 15 years earlier....I was able to show that all the amino acids in the Murchison meteorite were also obtained in the electrical discharge apparatus... Sugars do not occur in Murchison, so some of the prebiotic synthesis must have occurred on the Earth. And I think that all but a few percent of the synthesis was done on the earth." I agree. I think panspermia is not the reason life began on earth. I think the evidence clearly shows that life most likely began on earth. more to come from this fascinating interview. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #246 Miller interview 2 Here is more of the interview of Stanley Miller, and my comments (see first part first - all caps are my doing) Here he is talking about the problem of amino acids occurring in 2 three dimensional forms - left and right handed versions that mirror one another. Only the left-handed molecules are common in life. How does he explain this. "If life arose only once, then it was by chance that it used L-amino acids, but it could, with equal probability have used all D(right) amino acids. If life arose many times, there would have been both D and L organisms. In the course of time, one of these would have acquired a selective advantage and would have outgrown all the others." I have been asked this question too, and I had no suitable answer. I agree with Miller's reply. When did life begin? "Nobody really knows. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. And the earliest evidence for life is about 3.5 billion. So there's a billion year period in between. There have been various proposals about the temperature of early Earth - that it was cold when it formed or that it was molten. but pre biotic synthesis did not start until the Earth got down to a low enough temperature for the organic material to be stable - that is below about a hundred degrees. We're not sure when that happened, but we assume maybe 4 billion years ago. That still leaves hundreds of millions of years in between the origin of suitable conditions on the Earth and the oldest known fossils..." I agree on time and temp. Though I tend to think the temperature was much warmer than today. Specifically because I suggest that GC bonds preceded an RNA world, I would suggest that the GC won out because their melting temperature and their re-bonding temperature, best fit the temperature range of Earth when life began. So we have a backwards clue to the specific temperature of first life (if I am correct) it had a range from a high of GC bonds denaturing or melting, down to a low of them re-bonding. Now for the first time we have a very accurate temperature chart for first life. Where did life begin? "The usual assumption is that it began in the ocean. But you can legitimately propose that some of the processes occurred in different areas. For example, SOME OF THE POLYMERIZATION REACTIONS THAT MADE LARGER ORGANIC MOLECULES PROBABLY OCCURRED ON BEACHES THAT HAD DRIED OUT AND HEATED UP, and some may have occurred in hot springs. But the oceans form the bulk of the area where organic reactions could take place, and I think most of the chemistry too place there." Again I agree. I think that his point about the dry beaches is important. I have suggested tide pools would have both the wet and dry cycle, (as well as the needed sun-hot, night-cool cycle), moon tides cycle, etc. more to come from this fascinating interview. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #247 Miller interview 3 Here is more of the Stanley Miller interview (see 1 and 2 - caps are mine) On life starting around volcanic vents. "The problem with this hypothesis is that organic compounds cannot be synthesized at 359 C - they would be destroyed. We did an experiment to illustrate this by taking some amino acids and heating them up in a test tube to 350 C. They decomposed before we even got them to that temperature. Furthermore, you can make polymers by heating amino acids, but you have to heat them dry. Well, in a submarine vent, it's obviously not dry. Even if you get these polymers of amino acids, that is not a living organism by any means - it has no genetic material. so on 3 of 4 counts the hypothesis is invalid." I agree. Also because the earliest life that we are sure of used photosynthesis, the impact of the sun was most likely strong from the start. Though that in itself only loosely points in that direction and photosynthesis was obviously not the first method for getting energy. "Making organism molecules such as amino acids, pyrimidines, purines, and sugars is easy. But how to organize them into the first living organism has not been worked out." But I think I am very close, and the key was to look for an energy reactor evolved to moderator, NOT a replicator. Energy moderation with mofidification through descent. "RNA is thought to have preceded DNA as the genetic material, but there was some precursor polymer to RNA." Again I agree and that precursor was the GC bond that could withstand higher temperatures because of its 3 hydrogen bonds instead of the 2 of AU (though AU soon evolved from stop codons, to a symbiotic partner) "One of the problems is that methane and ammonia are decomposed by ultraviolet light rapidly. So the question is could we have had that kind of atmosphere? And if the atmosphere was different, did ti still lend itself to organic synthesis. We've been doing experiments using carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. You can make organic material with these kinds of atmospheres, but only if there is molecular hydrogen around. IT's not that easy to get molecular hydrogen in large amounts into the atmosphere because it tends to escape from the atmosphere into outer space." Hydrogen is such a key player in first life chemistry that I almost hope he can find a way to make this work. I'll wait and see. Full text: Pages 15-19 Biology, Campbell 2nd edition. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #248 2 Laws of Physics There are 2 laws of physics that strongly support my 4 options of energy moderation. They show that all matter reacts to energy in the same way. 4 options of energy moderation 1 move toward 2 move against 3 hold in 4 excrete out HEAT When molecules heat up they becomes agitated, bump against other molecules and begin to spread out and separate (option 2 and 4). When molecules become cooler they become less agitated, and begin to move toward each other and clump together. One result of thermal motion is DIFFUSION A substance will diffuse from where it is more concentrated to where it is less concentrated (option 2 and 4) A substance that is less concentrated will become more concentrated till it reaches a dynamic equilibrium (option 1 and 3) (Diffusion does not work at absolute zero) What this suggests is that any matter that is subjected to HEAT will follow the rules of energy moderation above. What this also suggests is that first life that began in water (or any matter that is in water or air, etc.) will follow the law of DIFFUSION, again the rules of energy moderation. I believe that these 2 laws prove that the 4 options of energy moderation are a basis of all matter and energy. I also believe that these 2 laws make a sound foundation for my theory, Hendricks Health Theory. How then does a living organism differ from inert matter? I suggest that life is different from non life in being able to some what regulate the 4 options. There are numerous ways organisms regulate HEAT and DIFFUSION. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #249 Ribosomes evolved later? I have suggested in my theory that it seems to me that mRNA and tRNA both evolved to their 'lock and key' forms, and that I thought that they began as perhaps identical strands much like two complementary strands of DNA look today. What about ribosomes? "...ribosomes themselves can be regarded as giant enzymes composed of both RNA and proteins. " Biology, Campbell . If this is true it suggests to me that the RNA aspect of the very sophisticated ribosomes (part RNA, part protein) has evolved later than the other 2 types of RNA. And that their purpose though vital now, was perhaps the least necessary for first life or the pre-first life, RNA world. What about small nuclear RNA ,snRNA that 'plays structural and enzymatic roles in snRNP particles, which help carry out mRNA splicing within spliceosomes" (ibid.) Again I would suggest that the snRNA evolved later. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #250 Two theories that WON'T work. Here are 2 theories of how life began, that IMO won't work . FIRST The theory that says that IN ONE JUMP non life primordial soup shifted to first life using CHEMICAL energy for metabolism. That's like saying one brick layer turned flat ground into Paris in one day. It just isn't so. I suggest (Hendricks Health Theory) that nucleotides in the primordial soup (of Miller , Fox, and others) began to react to HEAT energy (the Sun), that led to a GC world that led to an RNA world - as protein maker, enzymes, etc - and that this step evolved perhaps to a 2nd step - HEAT energy from ATP, that led to a third step HEAT/CHEMICAL energy from ATP that had the advantages of energy that could be used at lower temperatures, and stored for future use, etc. etc. Thus chemicals reacted to HEAT, moderated this HEAT, and moderated another source of HEAT from ATP, and then moderated another type of heat - CHEMICAL ENERGY from ATP. Nothing I've said here is written in stone or proved beyond a doubt, yet it makes sense that there were a number of intermediate steps between primordial soup and life using CHEMICAL energy. SECOND The magic-chemical-wand theory of first life. This states that a chemical wand touched down on this bunch of chemicals and that this reaction led to a 2nd chemical reaction that led on to ____ number of reactions and at the other end out popped life - single life, the one and only time it would, could, or should have happened life, the long shot, the fluke, etc. There is no driving force behind this haphazard type of theory. It makes no sense. It comes out of thin air. It follows no laws of physics. And IMO, it won't stand up to any theory that uses energy as the force behind life. I have suggested that not only life, but non organic matter follows the 4 options of energy moderation of my theory. This suggests that life was NOT a fluke, or one shot, but a reasonable outcome of any time and place that had the conditions that early earth had. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #251 Traffic of large molecules Traffic of Large Molecules and the Cell, and how they relate to the 4 options of energy moderation from my Hendricks Health Theory: "During EXOCYTOSIS, vesicles fuse with the plasma membrane and dump their contents to the outside of the cell." (This relates to option 4 - excrete out , of the 4 options of energy moderation "During ENDOCYTOSIS, extracellular substances are incorporated into the cell in vesicles formed by an inward budding of the plasma membrane" (This relates to option 1 and 3 - take in and hold in , of the 4 options) Note , if the cell blocks out the large molecules and keeps them from crossing the plasma membrane, that is option 2 - block out. Quotes from Biology, Campbell SUPPORT DOCUMENT #252 An idea for the evolution of the cell membrane If I remember correctly, the cell membrane is much like spagetti and meat balls with meatballs the protein and spagetti the lipids (or another analogy is strawberries in a thin layer of jello). That suggests that first you had to have a protein maker, before the mostly protein cell membrane could evolve, though you could possibly just have the lipid membrane in first life. Many seem to think that that was the case. But what if it was the other way around and the protein layer was there and the lipids formed around that? Either way I agree with those who suggest that first life came before the cell membrane. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #253 Asexual vs. Sexual I have suggested in my Hendricks Health Theory the idea that an organism will (if it has the choice) use asexual replication in times of high energy and good conditions, and sexual replication in harsh times. A bacteria is a perfect example: OPTIMUM CONDITIONS: "Under optimal conditions, some bacteria can divide as rapidly as once in 20 minutes..." This is asexual replication. Yet bacteria 'have 3 mechanisms for transferring genes from one individual organism to another. These mechanisms of gene transfer are called transformation, transduction, and conjugation. In nature, these mechanisms increase the variation in a population..." And this variation would be most needed when the bacteria is under STRESSFUL CONDITIONS. Now on to bacteria plasmids: "One interesting class of plasmids, the R plasmids, carries genes that code for antibiotic-destroying enzymes. A bacteria strain carrying particular R plasmids will be resistant (hence the designation R) to specific antibiotics, such as tetracycline. Some R plasmids carry as many as seven genes for resistance to different antibiotics. Furthermore, some R plasmids can , like the F Factor, MOBILIZE THEIR OWN TRANSFER TO NONRESISTANT CELLS, EVEN CELLS OF OTHER BACTERIAL SPECIES. Hence, R factors carried by pathogenic bacteria can cause severe medical problems by making it difficult to treat a bacterial infection with antibiotics. " (Both quotes Biology, Campbell) This suggests to me that bacteria under the stress of tetracycline have non-asexual ways (yet its not quite sexual reproduction) of dealing with those stressful conditions. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #254 Asexual vs. Sexual 2 Because terrestrial animals, plants, fungi, are faced with such hardships (more than marine) they may tend to sexual reproduction more than asexual and "... one of the main trends in plant evolution (is) toward reduction of the haploid generation and dominance of the diploid...." and "Reproduction in the animal kingdom is typically sexual, wiht the diploid stage usually dominating the life cycle." both Biology, Campbell SUPPORT DOCUMENT #255 Asexual vs. Sexual 3 : fungi and plants I have suggested in my theory that if an organism has the option of asexual or sexual reproduction, it'll choose asexual in good times of little stress, and sexual it tough times: Here is an example "Fungi reproduce by releasing spores that are produced either sexually or asexually. For many fungi, sex is a contingency mode of reproduction that occurs when there has been some unfavorable change in the environment. When conditions are habitable and stable, fungi generally clone themselves by producing enormous numbers of spores asexually." Biology - Campbell "Many plants are capable of both modes of reproduction, and each offers advantages in certain situations. Sex generates variation in a population, an asset when the environment changes. An additional benefit of sexual reproduction in plants is the seed, a stage in the life cycle that can disperse to new locations and can also wait until hostile environmental conditions have improved. On the other hand, a plant well suited to a stable environment can use asexual reproduction to clone many copies of itself. Moreover, the progeny of vegetative reproduction, usually mature fragments of the parent plant, are not as frail as the seedling produced by sexual reproduction. A sprawling clone of prairie grass may cover an area so thoroughly that seedlings have little chance of competing. But in the soil is a pool of seeds, waiting in the wings for some cue to germinate. After a fire, drought, or some other disturbance clears patches of the turf, seedlings can finally get a foothold when conditions improve." Biology - Campbell One side note of this idea is that you could use it in a very general way to help determine the difficulties the organism has faced - little sexual reproduction - little stress, versus all sexual reproduction - many conflicts to survival. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #256 Land ho - animals In my theory I have suggested that life moving onto land was one of the most difficult adaptations of all: "Animals inhabit nearly all environments of the biosphere. The seas, where the first animals probably arose, are still home to the greatest number of animal phyla. The freshwater fauna is extensive, but not nearly as rich in diversity as the marine fauna. Terrestrial habitats pose special problems for animals as they do for plants and few animal phyla have made successful evolutionary treks onto land. Earth worms (Phylum Annelida) and land snails (Phylum Mollusca) are confined to moist soil and vegetation. Only the vertebrates and arthropods, including insects and spiders, are represented by a great diversity of species adapted to various terrestrial environments." Biology - Campbell. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #253 Water balance in cells Plants and animal cells both have many ways of achieving water balance in their cells. Too hyperosomotic and animal cells shrivel, and plant cells are plasmolyzed - Both of which match option 1 and 3 of my 4 options of energy moderation). Too hypoosmotic and animal cells lyse or bust (though plant cells with the cell walls become turgid) - both of which match option 2 and 4. And think about a busting cell. Wouldn't it be better if it could do something before busting? Wouldn't it be an advantage to the cell to replicate into 2 half sized parts? That way neither one would bust? Perhaps this is a key to some aspects of how cell division came about. Yes an oversimplification yet there may be a very strong clue to first life there. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #258 Asexual vs. Sexual Tom Hendricks: > : I have suggested in my Hendricks Health Theory the idea that an > : organism will (if it has the choice) use asexual replication in times of > : high energy and good conditions, and sexual replication in harsh times. Tim Tyler : > There's some truth in this. > > For example water fleas reproduce asexually, except when winter arrives - > and winter could be interpreted as a time of stress. Aphids do much the > same thing. > > The maintenence of sex appears to be largely due to pressure from > parasites. Some populations can control how much they engage in sexual > recombnation - and heavily parasitised populations do appear to have sex > more often (in a study by Curtis Lively at any rate). Parasites might > well be considered a source of stress. > > Many suggest that the machinery for sex arose out of machinery devoted to > gene-repair - indeed, sex is - in part - a form of gene repair. > > Gene repair is only necessary in the face of mutagens, and the connections > between mutagens and environmental stresses is well established - so here, > we see that stress causes genetic errors, and that sex is (in part) a > mechanism for repairing genetic errors. > > However, there are also a few "counter-examples": grass in a field of > sheep does not normally have sex very much - instead it reproduces > asexually. However, take away the sheep and the grass grows tall, > sprouts flouring heads and has sex with gay abandon. Few would > attribute this to environmental stress ;-) > [smiley to indicate there's no need to take this last point too seriously.] SUPPORT DOCUMENT #259 Impact of regulatory genes: I have suggested that the mechanics of energy moderation (the key to all life in my theory) may well be the regulatory genes. Quotes from Biology, Campbell "The development of an animal depends not only on the structural genes that program the production of proteins, but also on a system of regulatory genes that coordinate the activities of the structural genes, guiding the rate and pattern of development. The slightest alteration of development becomes compounded in its effects on the adult. Let us apply this principle to the body proportions of a plant or animal. Differences in the relative rates of growth of various parts of the body, which is called allometric growth, help to shape the organism. change these relative rates of growth even slightly, and you change the adult form substantially. Altering the parameters of allometric growth is one way that relatively small genetic differences can have major morphological impact. Genetic changes that alter the timing of development can also produce novel organisms. A subtle change in timing that retards the development of some organs compared to others produces a different kind of animal ... Because each regulatory gene may influence hundreds of structural genes, there is a potential for some of the evolutionary novelties that define higher taxa to arise much faster than they could by the accumulation of changes in the structural genes themselves. Unfortunately, we still know too little about regulatory genes and the control of development to understand their connection to phylogeny." I tend to rate the importance of regulatory genes even much higher. I tend to think they are the key to all life and its diversity (in that they are the way all organisms moderate energy). SUPPORT DOCUMENT #260 An interview with Niles Eldridge The following excerpts are from an interview with Niles Eldredge from Biology - Campbell "Dr. Eldredge is one of the principal architects of a theory of evolution known as punctuated equilibrium. Its central point is that most anatomical change is compressed into bursts of evolution that punctuate longer periods of relative stasis." I agree with Dr. Eldredge, and I think his work suggests more support for my theory. "The theory of punctuated equilibrium ... accounts for the rarity of gradual transformation by emphasizing stability in the history of each species. The morphology of a species changes little after that species becomes established. Second, the theory implies that most anatomical change is compressed into the relatively short time it takes for speciation to occur. Of course, the changes aren't sudden from a genetics point of view; we are talking about 5000 to 50,000 years, ample time for the kinds of changes we are talking about...." "For example, if you look at the marine forms of the Paleozoic era, you see that during several periods of time the ecosystems are fairly well established. Certain communities of species keep moving around geographically because the environment keeps changing, but pretty much the same species are forming the same sorts of communities over and over again through millions of years. Then all of a sudden the whole community disappears and you get another community with new species. And the greater the precipitating disaster, the greater the difference between the old and new forms. apparently, there has to be a relatively severe ecosystem collapse before anything truly new accumulates. And that is what evolutionary history really is like." I say yes but add this. Not only does life change drastically due to 'severe ecosystem collapse' because of the harm it causes. But also life changes due to fortunate changes in the climate. The clearest example is the bloom of life AFTER both of the major extinctions. Those that survived blossomed in the new empty spaces and took advantage of the opportunity. Also symbiotic relationships in species, between species, and even from species to some aspect of nature can also alter the genome drastically. Therefore we have, not one but , 2 causes of the evolutionary jumps. "But extinction due to an environmental crisis has nothing to do with how well an organism has adapted to its normal living conditions ( it's fitness) it is just bad luck who goes and who doesn't go." Thus we have a new take on evolution. Survival of the fittest? Yes and no. Survival of the symbionts? Yes and no. Survival of the unlucky ?- seldom. Survival of the lucky? Often. I'd like to suggest an adage, " Replication, the only vehicle for change, is seldom a vehicle for change." All this suggests that replication and the comparatively small amount of mutation in most species most of the time does little to change the species BY ITSELF. It is other factors that when taken together with replication, cause the punctuated equilibrium. And all this suggests how energy moderation is the key to every aspect of life. Energy moderation with modification through descent (a descent often spurred to modification by changing energy conditions) SUPPORT DOCUMENT #261 Lab Life (stalk of celery) I have suggested in my theory of health a specific way life began. It is supported by the similar work of many others: Quotes from Biology - Campbell DNA COMPARISON: "Whole genomes can be compared by DNA-DNA hybridization, which measures the extent of hydrogen bonding between single-stranded DNA obtained from 2 sources. After DNA is extracted, it is heated to separate the complementary strands. Single stranded DNA from 2 species is then mixed and cooled to re-form double-stranded DNA. How tightly the DNA of one species can bind to the DNA of the other depends on the degree of similarity, as base pairing between complementary sequences holds the 2 strands together. The hybrid DNA is again heated to separate the paired strands. The temperature required to do this is correlated with the similarity of the DNA from the 2 species; the more extensive the pairing, the greater the heat energy required to pull the strands apart.. Using the temperature needed to pry apart double stranded DNA from a single species as control for complete homology, the temperature at which hybrid DNA separates measures phylogenetic distance." This common place lab procedure is the key to how life began. Pre-life nucleotides followed the heat cooling cycle of nature (Sun - hot, night - cool) At high heat mostly GC bonds (not DNA like in the lab) would separate. In the cooling process these would reform with other nucleotides in new novel arrangements that would build complexity from day to day. Thus we have NOT an isolated incident of a single instance of life, but A SEA OF NUCLEOTIDES MELTING IN HIGH HEAT THEN REFORMING AS HEAT COOLS DOWN. Kelly Kissane even mentioned that this lab procedure is something she does. It is a common procedure, and it works now and it began life. "In the living cell, specific enzymes catalyze the dehydration reactions. Abiotic synthesis of polymers would have had to occur without the help of these efficient enzymes (in first life) and the dilute concentrations of the monomers dissolved in an excess of water would not favor spontaneous dehydration reactions that form more water. Polymerization does occur in laboratory experiments when dilute solutions of organic monomers are dripped onto hot sand, clay, or rock, a process that vaporizes water and concentrates the monomers on the substratum. Using this method, Sidney Fox of the University of Miami has made what he calls proteinoids, which are poly peptides produced by abiotic means. It is possible to imagine waves or rain splashing dilute solutions of organic monomers onto fresh lava or other hot rocks on the early Earth and then rising proteinoids and other polymers back into the water... Microspheres are made by cooling solutions of proetinoids, polypeptides created abiotically from amino acids polymerized on hot surfaces. Microspheres grow by absorbing free proteinoids until they reach an unstable size, when they split to form daughter microspheres. Of course, this division lacks the precision of cellular reproduction." In this case Fox is doing a procedure that is similar to the lab procedure. And he like the lab is getting real results. All this STRONGLY supports my ideas of how life began. At some point it is obvious that this is the way life began. If those reading this (who have read my text files, or most of my posts and are familiar with the endless times and ways I've explained this) STILL DON'T SEE THIS. Please do the following experiment. Ask the person closest to you to get a stalk of celery and BEAT YOU ABOUT THE HEAD UNTIL YOU COME TO YOUR SENSES! SUPPORT DOCUMENT #262 A third kick in the pants If science does one thing consistently, it's to kick the puffiness out of humans: 1. Copernicus theorizes Earth not the center of the universe 2. Darwin theorizes humans are not separate from other life 3 Hendricks theorizes that life and non life are connected = energy is the key. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #263 Virus evolution and bacteria parallels Viruses are parasites, they are also very very small. But where did they come from? What did they evolve from? A clue may be in parasitic bacteria. Note 2 things: they are some of the smallest bacteria, and they are parasitic. "Rickettsias ... Among the smallest bacteria, rickettsias are parasites that can grow only within cells of another organism. Nearly all are transmitted to humans by the bites of ticks and insects..." "Mycoplasmas, the smallest bacteria, ...lack cell walls and inhabit the body fluids of plant and animal hosts... Having diameters of only 100-250 nm, the mycoplasmas are even more minute than rickettsias, in fact they are believed to be the smallest of all cells. They are also unique as the only prokaryotes that lack cell walls." (both quotes - Biology, Campbell) SUPPORT DOCUMENT #264