SUPPORT DOCUMENT #80

Your theory seems to over-generalise, mistakenly putting together
> analogous strategies in wildly differing organisms as if they were somehow
> related by some higher purpose.  (From Sci.bio.evolution newsgroup)

But what you are missing is all the complicated evolutionary survival
mechanims you mentioned, can be traced  back to 4 simple ones - the 4
options. And that ALL behavior of all organisms is -  can only be one
or more  of the 4 options. To begin to point you in that direction, I'll
challenge you to find any behavior of any organism that has ever lived
that is outside of the 4 options - specifically these 4. Either take in
or not take in something from the outside of the organism. Either hold in
or not hold in something inside of the organism.
Once you admit that that covers all life. Then I can show you that a.
that was in first life, and b. all life evolved out of those 4 options.

How then is there such variety? Because each organism accented some of
the 4 options while not accenting others. A simple analogy is this - life
is a computer code with not 'O's and '1's but 0,1,2,& 3. And that is more
than enough for complexity. It is NOT the only way to look at evolution
any more than algebra is the only way to look at math. Yet it can answer
many questions that natural selection, mutation, etc. cannot.
Specifically it is most instructive a. describing how and why life began
(react to energy evolved to moderate energy) and b. the mind body
connection and how social and psychological behavior in humans evolved
out of those 4 options in first life. (As did everything else)

And remember the whole concept of evolution is that it evolved. That
means that everything IS related and everything DID evolve out of first
life. So that no matter what aspect of any organism you talk about it
must have somehow evolved out of simple first life. You can't begin
evolution in the middle of evolution. And no evolutionary step fell down
from the sky.

SUPPORT DOCUMENT #81

Answering some specific questions about the 4 options:

First of all the obvious, everything that any organism does is FUELED by
its energy source. But that's far from the end of it.
If you look at most of life's history it was one celled life. In that
time period energy moderation was the key and the rest of life evolved
out of that time (Evolution didn't begin in the middle of evolution!)

Now to specifics, how could time, space, mate, evolve out of energy
moderation/ 4 options. Let me begin with a simple analogy concerning
mobility: (and remember this golden rule:

 Any natural selection that
favors more than one option is more likely to be naturally selected

Option 1 take in, evolved to all means by which organisms take in energy
which evolved to all ways organisms moved toward energy to take it in
which evolved to all ways organisms move toward or are mobile for the
purpose of taking in energy which evolved to moving toward ANYTHING that
is beneficial to the organism. (Ex. move toward mate behavior in females)
Option 2 block out evolved to all means by which organisms block out
excess energy when there is too much, or bad energy that harms the
organism, evolved to move against energy to block it out, which evolved
to all ways organism is mobile and moves against enemies - attacks, which
evolved to all ways organisms are mobile to attack and defend themselves
from all dangers.
Option 4 excrete out digested energy that is waste evolved to excrete out
waste of any kind, evolved to seperate from waste evolved to the mobile
behavior of moving away from waste, evolve to any strategy of any
organism to separate itself from anything harmful.

(and all these connect up to specific human behavior as well)

So energy moderation evolves to mobility - with a specific mobility for
each of the 4 options.

You mentined time, time is granted to an organism by staying alive. It
stays alive by moderating energy.

Space, energy moderation is the key to allowing the organism to find
enough space: to fight for space (option#2), to become social an share a
space (#1), to separate from the species and find your own space (#4) 
And (#3) the space inside your cell wall,skin, bark, etc..

Mates is social behavior. That evolved out of option 1 and 2. Move toward
others and move against others. (Option 3 and 4 are the 'self' options
with #3 move toward self, #4 separate from self (separate from waste
within self, separate from waste, separate from others.

As I said before life didn't begin evolving in the middle of evolution.
And what I often hear on this newsgroup (sci.bio.evolution)is billions and
 billions of little examples of how natural selection occured. Life is not billions
and billions of unrelated natural selections - it is only 2: low energy/
slow down,hibernate,etc. and high energy become active (Low energy
evolved to option 1 and 3, high energy evolved to 2 and 4)

What I'm doing may sound like no more than semantics at this point. But
if I can lay the foundation for energy moderation I can then build on
that theory to show everything from why the dichotomys of herbivores/
carnivores , plant/animal, male/female, social/ non social  which are all
the 2 ends of energy moderation Plus I can show how life may have begun -
it must have first been energy REACTIVE and somehow it began to regulate
energy. And how replication began (a sort of waste out) And finally the
biggest part of the theory and the most exciting for me - is resolving
human conflicts (the cerebrum way ahead of the medulla) and end a layer
of both physical and psychological diseases caused by conflicts of energy
moderation ( most likely in large part set up by breast feeding option 1
and 2/ toilet training option 3 and 4 in early childhood)

How about them apples! You didn't see any of that in those other theories
did you? (The questioner had suggested that what I was saying had been said
and done by others already)

SUPPORT DOCUMENT #82

I suggested that Male/Female were the 2 ends of energy moderation.
One critic, Drox challenged  the idea, and I wrote this:

Drox. Here's some proof that may more directly relate to this post.
Most scientists say that humans respond to stress with the 'fight or
flight' behavior.
Yet I suggested that that directly corresponded to option2 and 4 of the 4
options of energy moderation
1 Move towards   2 Move against (fight)
3 (move towards) and take in and hold
4 (move towards) and take in and excrete out as waste or separate from or
flee from.

And that option 2 and 4 is directly related to MALE .
I then suggested that women would respond to stress in the option 1 and 3
manner which corresponds to FEMAņE in my theory
(male and female being to ends of energy moderation)

THEN I heard about the UCLA study that says "stressed out women are
likely to seek social contact rather than indulge in the fight-or-flight
behavior ...After compiling data from thousands of biological and
behavioral studies of humans and animals, UCLA researchers identified a
broad pattern, they termed "tend and befriend" (which directly relates to
tend ( tend self and children - option 3) and befriend (option 1)) that
women use to cope with stress. The study has been published in an issue
of American Psychological Association's Journal.
"Oxytocin is generated like adrenaline, by the bodies of both genders
when faced with stress, but it is enhanced by the female hormone estrogen
and appears to be inhibited by male hormones. Animals and people with
high levels of oxytocin are calmer more relaxed, more social and less
anxious. In several animal species, oxytocin leads to maternal behavior
and to affiliation. (Info from Deena Beasley/Reuters)

SUPPORT DOCUMENT #83

More stuff on how rats out foxed the dinos:

Subject: Re: Dinos vs. Rodents
From: arne315@my-deja.com
Date: 2000/08/13
Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution
   Rats. Think of the place of rats in our world.
   There really are very few creatures which are able to fend them off.
They dig burrows; feed nights; breed incessantly.
   We shoot them, use gas and other poisons, and where have they been
exterminated?
   Rats killed off the dodo and can strip an island of ground-breeding
birds in a few months.
   Rats love eggs and they are not too good at climbing trees, so that
is where birds must nest to avoid them.
   Even the eagle and falcon do not nest on the ground.
   Rats can burrow into a nest and eat all the eggs while the mother is
still sitting. Ask a farmer about rats in the henhouse.
   Why must we look for gigantic Hollywood-esque disasters?
   By "rats" I mean rats and also all the other opportunistic placental
mammals.
   And what makes them so dangerous to other vertebrates?
   They out-breed the others.
   They are reproduction machines and the fastest breeders of the land
vertebrates.
    Placental mammals don't go through any of that courtship "nonsense".
    When a female goes into heat, they breed immediately. And the
fertility cycles of those little mammals are a lot more frequent than
the once-a-year cycles of the birds.

SUPPORT DOCUMENT #84

Human Odor. I comment at the end of a very smart post by Laurie in answer
to a question from Richard.

Laurie" <Xlaurie@the-beach.net> wrote:
> "Richard James Panturis Giuly" <no@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:8op2k8$fch$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
> > I read that certain odors that humans emanate were sexually
> > attractive and that certain hair remained to trap the odor. Why
> > do modern humans find this odor and (usually) hair sexually
> > repulsive?
>     There are profound differences between natural, purposeful odors, such
> as pheromones, and culturally-created ones, such as the offensive
> rotting-meat odors common to humans that eat animal flesh and other
> concentrated proteins.  These odors result from putrefaction in the
> intestines and are an indication that such cooked, concentrated proteins are
> not digested properly.
>     These odiferous compounds, such as indole, skatole, cadaverine, and
> putrescine, generally are amine compounds and indicate that the proteins
> were not digested/assimilated properly.  Others, such as H2S result from
> eating concentrated proteins that contain lots of S.
>     The experience of humans that are interested in their health enough to
> abandon the local cultural diet and adopt one that is closer to the
> fruit/veg diet of our frugivorous ape species is to quickly realize that
> such offensive odors are diet-generated.
>     Those who find hair "sexually repulsive" also are expressing their
> cultural conditioning, not their biological heritage.

I agree. I also suggest that the smell of female pheromones will be found
to be much much much stronger than humans now admit or are aware of. I
think social conditioning has suppressed the conscious awareness in males
of the female scent though subconsciously they smell it and respond to
it. (And possibly vice versa too). I also contend that this leads to a
level of psychological problems of repression that we have yet to
address.
To prove it I would suggest that this smell be introduced into a room of
men and watch their change in behavior as compared to a control group of
men in a room with no smells introduced. I tend to think that after the
female pheromones were introduced, it would lead to male aggression
(option 2 and 4) even if none of the men consciously can smell any change
while there would be no noticeable change in the behavior of the men in
the control group.

SUPPORT DOCUMENT #85

Clothes as subconscious symbols.
Someone suggests that ties have no meaning. And I respond:

>  I see. The genes have given us the trait to conform? I think about
> this every time I put on a tie. It serves no purpose. In fact it is
> functionally a handicap. It can get caught in machinery or dip into a
> soup bowl. However everyone else is programmed to associate certain
> characteristics with tie wearers so I have to go along with the
> charade. It is in my own best interest. But how did it start in the
> first place? It is all so arbitrary.

A tie is far from arbitrary. It is clearly a phallic symbol, just as
tight skirts are an unconscious symbol for a vagina.
Sexual desire, though often subjugated in human social behavior, is still
extremely strong and unconsciously projected in endless variations.

SUPPORT DOCUMENT #86

Another sum up of some main points. One person had suggestd the brain
was a key factor in evolution, another digestion. I suggested that they
were connected and brain evolved out of digestion:

Y'all are leaning on the flying saucer, and not taking notice - i.e.
missing the obvious.
In my health theory I suggest that the brain evolved out of a nerve net.
The nerve net exactly parallels the digestive tract. No brain animals are
without an alimentary canal. Brain development went into high gear when
lungfish crawled out of the water. Every step forward (though forward is
a deceptive term in natural selection) every step to more energy
moderation is accompanied by bigger brains. the tougher conditions of
being out of the sea pushed evolution faster on land. The top dog /
biggest carnivore always seems to have the big brain - and even more so
with social animal top dogs.
Yet digestion is just a form of energy moderation. All life does it. It's
what started life on day 1. It is the reason for life - it first REACTED
to energy, then began MODERATING energy.

Later on in this thread is the argument that RNA/DNA is the chief mover
and shaker. Yet I have problems with that.

1. Energy moderation is the key to life not replication (which is just an
outgrowth of energy moderation - one way of better moderating energy)
2. Though natural selection is the key to the survival of the species,
energy moderation is the key to the survival of the organism - and both
count. If you think replication is all, then stop breathing for an hour
while your having sex. Your lungs will help stress the importance of
having the necessary energy source.
3. There is a natural selection that is outside of gene mutation or replication
that I call "learned behavior natural selection". See below for more
4. RNA was preceeded by G-C bonds that natural selection gathered
together. See  above.

SUPPORT DOCUMENT #87

I suggested some questions to the newsgroup to show the importance
of energy moderation to evolution. Here follows the questions and some
interesting responses:

Which is the stronger evolutionary trait?

> 	1. The desire of the organism to replicate (Mechanisms for
> reproducing the organism)
>
> 	2. The desire of the organism to stay alive (Mechanisms for keeping
> the organism alive)
>
> [moderator's comment: Sure, I'll bite. When I was a wee sprat I was
> fortunate enough to be taught from a NSF-developed curriculum titled
> "Man - A Course Of Studies" (which I initially thought was something
> titled "manacoursive studies", but when I couldn't find manacoursive
> in the dictionary...), where I was taught the three rules, in order,
> which guide a critter's life:
>
> 1) Eat,
> 2) Avoid being eaten,
> 3) Reproduce.
>
> Three of the four F's of animal behavior. I suppose one might roll
> two of 'em into number three there. - JAH]

When I first wrote this post I wondered if I should divide it into
segments and ask for responses for each. Most of us think of life as
mammals all over the place. But the bulk of life is the 3.8 billion to 1
billion ago - the period that preceeded eukaryotes. That also means it
preceeded sexual replication (so no mates to consider in my question) and
probably no predators (I contend that the cell wall around the nucleus of
eukaryotes is there to block something out - that means something is
trying to get in, predators.) So back to the problem, and remember we are
considering ALL life not just animals, plants, fungi. So 'avoid being
eaten' is out for THIS period as there were no predators (and remember
whatever it is that's trying to eat our example is eating too!)
So what we're reduced to is replication and 'energy moderation'. I use
that term because I've been reprimanded by others for using 'eating',(I
couldn't get away with that). And it means all aspects of any organism
taking in the energy it needs to survive, blocking out excess that would
kill it, utilizing that energy and excreting out any waste.

Now 2 trick questions:

Question #1
 	So, after all that could we agree on the following:
1. Replication is the key to the survival of the SPECIES
2. Energy moderation is the key to the survival of the ORGANISM

(Note: don't forget too that all aspects of any organisms replication is
fueled by its energy source)

Question #2  Which of those 2 came FIRST?

SUPPORT DOCUMENT #88

More responses to the questions posed in #87:

evolutionarily speaking, the motivation to reproduce has a stronger
> influence on the species change over time.  however, without eating well,
> fitness of any young would be very low and the ABILITY to reproduce would
 be > hampered.

You are fudging a little bit in this first part. You're saying
reproduction is the key to the species but I could turn the tables and
say taking-in energy is the key to the organism. You are looking at it
from the "Let's save the species angle - which is common due to Darwin's
theory answering so many questions.

Editor's note: Now people try to answer EVERY question with natural selection.
It's like when everyone started saying "If we can send a man to the moon
why can't we _____. Which led to absurdities like ...why can't we shut my
mother in law up!  Darwins' brilliant theory does not answer everything.
And there was hardly any natural selection before there was replication because
replication had to proceed natural selection. (Though a footnote to that - see
my "First Life a 2nd Draft"  #79)

 And I'm looking at it from "Let's save
the organism angle. The last sentence makes an important point. Every
aspect of every organism, including every aspect of reproduction is
'fueled' by its energy source (and more I have claimed). To those who
claim reproduction as more important this quick test:
Tell your body that replication is more important than energy moderation
(energy moderation is all aspects of taking in and utilizing needed
energy). Then tell it that you are going to have sex for the next hour
instead of breathing. I think your body will answer back loud and clear
after a minute. WE WILL BREATHE AND WE WILL BREATHE OFTEN. (and note
every ounce of your body said breathe not breed!). Your body has taken
sides dramatically. Energy moderation is the key to YOUR survival.
>
> i think its really a matter of scale, both time and population-individual.
> chicken and egg thingy too

I agree with that (but remember these are all trick questions so be
careful when you answer the next 2)

Question #1
Can we say then (and lets limit ourselves to pre-eukaryotes period - see
first post) that
1. Replication is the key to the survival of the species (which is
elegantly explained by Darwin's natural selection plus all the follow up
related discoveries.
2. Energy (energy moderation) is the key to the survival of the organism.

SUPPORT DOCUMENT #89

More discussion on the questions posed in #87:

Matt Hodgkinson" <matt@hodgkinson9.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> An organism must stay alive long enough to replicate, but it must replicate
> in order for similar organisms to be maintained in the population.  So it's
> really the best strategy for reproducing that is selected for, and this will
> include staying alive long enough to reproduce...

More fudging here. You are saying that because reproduction is the key to
reproducing,  or you're saying because the survival of the species is most
important reproduction is the most important. But I could say the
opposite, 'because the survival of the organism is most important, taking
in necessary energy is most important. We're back to our standstill.

And in a sense you and others who stress this aspect are saying that
nothing is alive until it reproduces (which says that children, old
maids, mules, and worker bees don't exist) but carried to its extreme you
are saying that "A" is not alive until it reproduces B, but B is not
alive until it reproduces C, and C is not alive until it reproduces D,
etc. And if you take this to it's 'logical' (but misguided) conclusion
then as long as the species continues no organism is alive (A waiting on
B waiting on C waiting on D ... to reproduce). Matter of fact the only
time the species becomes 'alive' is when the last memeber does NOT
replicate. Then it exists, so it's father exists so its' grandfather
exists etc. Yet to put a cap on this absurdity. The species is now alive
but also extint, because it's final member can't reproduce!

SUPPORT DOCUMENT #90

I give the point to all the questions from #87:

Bare with me, I'm getting to my point in this and the next post. Thanks

every organism replicates to keep the species alive
every organism moderates energy to keep the organism alive.

Seeing evolution as survival of the species instead of survival of the
organism is seeing the forest for the trees.

Seeing evolution as survival of the organism instead of survival of the
species is seeing the trees for the forest.

There is a natural selection in replication .

There is ALSO a natural selection  during the life of the organism
(energy moderation). And more so when the organism has more options.

"Environment selects those organisms best adapted to it."

Now for some examples to prove this:

"Environment selects those organisms best adapted to it"

Here are some examples:

Ex. 1. A dog has a litter of 5 pups. They all die but 2 that have
virtually the same genetic makeup. The mother is sickly and can only
breast feed one. One lives and one dies. This is natural selection
outside of replication.

Ex. 2. Pea plants. Look at Mendels classic experiment with pea plants.
We cross a yellow and a green plant. Yellow is dominant. And we get
YY Yg gY and gg , and the first 3 are yellow.
But note that plant Yg and gY are genetically identical. Yet what if Yg
seed falls in a crack in a rock with no sun, water, soil, etc.; but the
other gY falls in perfect conditions for a pea plant and grows into a
healthy pea plant. Again natural selection outside of genes and
replication.

Some of you may be thinking ahead of me and saying 'what difference if
one pup or pea plant survives and the other doesn't. They both have
identical genes so either way the same genes are carried forward.

But not instances of learned behavior. (or instinct that doesn't kick in
until after birth , ex. (I think it's) ducks that bond to the first
moving object as its mother). Ex. 2 ducks, one bonds with a moving hungry fox
looking for a dinner, the other with its mother. Which has the best
chance for survival. Genes have programmed both to act the same. But
environment, not genes determines who survives. The fastest horse
survives, and part of that ability to run fast comes from outside it's
genes (the genes give all horses the ability to run fast - the
environment may help in dictating which HORSE runs the fastest - again
we're talking organism versus species - in a sense)


Here the key phrase is:
"That species that allows for learned behavior natural selection may have
an advantage."

Note that humans have the longest growing up period. The longest period
of learned behavior. The largest opportunity of any species for natural
selection of learned behavior.

Ex. 3. identical twin boys are born to a woman who dies in childbirth.
Twin #1 is raised in a healthy social environment with a nurturing
responsible family unit.
Twin #2 is a street kid, runaway, irresponsible thief and drug user.
Both get women pregnant.
Learned behavior natural selection will favor the children of twin #1.
(and all his children and their mates and children etc.) They will have a
healthy 2 parent family and larger family group to learn from and to be
protected and supported by.
Twin #2 is just the opposite. He's already run away and mother is sole
family for child.
Both genes are identical yet natural selection outside of replication has
taken place (and will continue through generations to follow).

Note:  humans , whose genes have remained relatively the same
during the era of its brief existence, have changed dramatically.
Look at my quote again, "Environment selects those organisms best adapted
to it". In humans we have better adapted to our environment  NOT by  replication
but by learned behavior and knowledge passed down from
generation to generation. Let's look at my 2 twins example again
And lets make the differences dramatic soit's more obvious what I'm saying.

Twins are born near the birth of the human species. One twin is raised in
a group that discovers fire, that social group changes over generations,
travels across the globe, learns through generation after generation how
to better adapt to their environments - among his descendants is Bach,
Newton, Shakespeare, Einstein, and everyone who got a man to the moon and
back, etc.
On the other hand the 2nd twin escapes to a remote island. Lives and
breeds in the jungle - all descendants remain hunter/gathers to this day.

Are not both twin lines virtually the same genes (as you pointed out,
gene change is very sloooooow). Yet one line is much much much much more
adapted to its environments. If twin 2's island has a banana plant
disease invade his main food, his whole line/group is over. If twin 1 has
a banana plant disease invade his crop in one tiny part of his world, it
does little damage to the group as a whole or the people that live in all
the places on the earth that don't depend on bananas at all.

Here's another example. There are city rats in Chicago and country rats on
farms in Illinois. The humans in Chicago find a way to kill every rat in Chicago.
The farmers don't care and leave their rats alone. We now have a specific group
of rats destroyed not by their inability to reproduce but by their location.
Thus a natural selection outside of replication.

The point again is this. Replication  is one way of natural selection.
Humans are a good example of another version of natural selection based
on what knowledge is passed down and added to. Plus I haven't even gotten
into the evolutionary aspects of love (option 1 and 3) that helps instill
a desire in children to ape their parents, to stay with them for
protection, to WANT to be with them and learn, and emulate them etc. plus
all the other aspects of social behavior.


The biological basis of the learned behavior natural selection , in my
theory, is energy moderation.
And I contend that this energy moderation, though more subtle perhaps in
its effects in organisms without learned behavior is STILL operating and
important and always present from 1rst life on.

Therefore we now have 2 forms of natural selection.
1. Replication  natural selection
2. learned behavior natural selection.

And that was what I was getting at.

SUPPORT DOCUMENT #91

My response to the idea of the Baldwin effect:

> "Learned behavior natural selection" looks like it normally goes under the
> name of the Baldwin Effect: http://ai.iit.nrc.ca/baldwin/bibliography.html

I took a quick look and I say sorta. I disagree in that I don't think
that the learned behavior becomes instinctual over time. Matter of fact
the constant conflict between the genetic behavior and the learned
behavior, in my opinion is the key to a layer of human physical and
psychological problems. And I think the therapy I have designed to
resolve conflicts in energy moderation (4 options) helps resolve this
dilemma that is too often submerged in the individual subconscious - to
help placate the needs of social behavior in human.

A quick example is the learned ability to speak english. According to
the Baldwin Effect this should become instintual over time. I don't think
it will be.

SUPPORT DOCUMENT #92

Strategies for Survival


	Let's go back in time to that bulk of history of life, that 2/3 - 5/
6 of life's lifeline when life was prokaryotes (and archaebacteria).
There were no eukaryotes, little or no predators yet, no sexual
reproduction, etc
The main threats to life were problems with enough energy.

	IN LOW ENERGY, those organisms that managed to survive were those
able through natural selection to find ways to take in more energy, move
toward energy, and hold in/ store energy for times of need and thus
survive times of low energy.

	IN HIGH ENERGY, those organisms that managed to survive were those
able through natural selection to find ways to block out excess energy or
other non nurturing elements, and/or to excrete out excess energy or
waste or separate from excess energy, and thus survive times of high
energy

	These 2 main strategies of survival: survive low energy, survive
high energy, DEFINE LIFE and make up the basis of my Hendricks Health
Theory.

And these 2 main strategies can further be divided into 2 sets - the 4
options of energy moderation.
#1 Take in
#2 Not Take in (Block Out)
#3 (Take in and) Hold In
#4 (Take in and) Not hold in (Excrete Out)

Note that , no matter the time in history, natural selection tends to be
intense in geographically marginal areas, AND climates, or environments
where the species barely maintains a foothold. Thus prokaryotes, 'sunk or
swam', died out or evolved, when their energy supply was either too much
or too little.

SUPPORT DOCUMENT #93

Growth and reproduction - two sides of a coin:

In my Hendricks Health Theory, I have suggested that life began as
chemicals reacting to energy that evolved to chemicals that moderated
that reaction to energy that evolved to chemicals that moderated energy.
 And that those chemicals that could excrete out excess energy would
better survive. And that replication evolved out of this process of
excreting out excess. (For the step by step process of how life may have
begun from the natural selection of G-C bonds, see post "First Life a 2nd
Draft")


There is now some evidence that may support this. Again this is from the
experiments of Sydney Fox (Univ. of Miami) who I have mentioned before.

This article is talking about Fox's microspheres.  It is from Thread Of
Life "The Smithsoniam Looks at Evolution" "The structure of the curved
wall of the experimentally formed sphere and the cell membrane of the
microorganisms have important features in common. If these microspheres,
as Fox calls them, become too large through accreting more protein
molecules, they split to form two "daughter' spheres, just as
microorganisms do. The spheres are not microorganisms, but it is apparent
that it is the chemical nature of the proteins to behave in this way."

This suggests to me that at some point the organism has an excess of
protein molecules and excretes out the excess.*

You can see how similar the process of excreting out excess energy
(protein molecules) and replication are.

Another angle:

Growth and replication are 2 sides of the same coin.

Growth is when cells divide and stick together
replication is when cells divide and break apart.

What's the difference between  Growth and replication? The answer is the
same as it is for what's key to real estate - location, location,
location.
In other words if the cell division is within the organism it is growth,
if outside the organism it is replication.
A couple of examples:
1. A yeast cell buds out. When it is still attached to the organism it is
yeast cell growth. When it separates from the organism it is replication.
Difference? Location.
2. A cell divides and sticks together = cell duplication = growth. A cell
divides and breaks apart = replication.
3. DNA in a bacteria divides into 2. The 2 daughter cells stick together
(this is growth) the 2 daughter cells break apart (this is replication)

Now make a giant leap. Reproduction today is endlessly complicated and
has evolved to endless varieties, yet you can see how they all evolved
out of simpler life in which growth and replication were very similar and
at some stage were the same.
For some reason that first life had a better chance for survival by
replicating (excreting out growth instead of keeping it inside)
This is the key to how and WHY replication began. - option 4.

And finally note the 4 options of energy moderation (specifically option
3 and 4)

Option 3: (take in and) hold in = growth within the organism
Option 4: (take in and) excrete out = growth excreted out of the
organism (which later evolved to excreting out all excess or waste of any
kind)

* footnote: I believe Fox had the right recipe, wrong ingredients. He was
very close.

SUPPORT DOCUMENT #94

Another round of summing up some of the main points of the theory.
(These are related to the questions posed in #87)

In other posts I've stressed that both replication and energy
moderation are important to life. Replication insures the survival of the
species, energy moderation (the means that any organism gets the needed
energy it needs) insures the survival of the organism.

And sometimes the question is NOT which in a species can replicate
but which in a species can LIVE to replicate.

After all that, here's the big points I was going for:

Life is NOT a fluke that turned into a replicating mechanism.
(The  phlogiston theory made more sense than that)

1. Life began as chemicals REACTING to energy. This led to chemicals
MODERATING energy. (See my post "First Life a 2nd Draft" for the specific
step by step ways life may have begun.)

2. All life slows down in low energy
   All life becomes more active in high energy

3. All life replicates in high energy (There are obvious exceptions that
do not follow this rule, but they have evolved from this pattern into
better ways to survive. Ex. insects who, through natural selection, have
altered their replication periods to better fit the growing season of the
plants they depend on for food.). See new post for how replication
evolved out of high energy moderation called "Growth or Replication"
what's the difference?

4. All life slows down in low energy. Then , those who survive such harsh
times, compensate or evolve  by
a. Finding ways to take in more energy. This is option 1
b. Finding ways to hold or store in more energy when it is available.
This is option 3.

5. All life speeds up and replicates in high energy. Those who survive
such excess times, do so by compensating for the excess or evolving means
to deal with the excess by
a. Finding ways to block out the excess energy. This is option 2
b. Finding ways to excrete out the excess energy already inside the
organism. This is option 4.

The 4 and only 4 ways any organism can deal with energy (which evolved to
dealing with anything outside or inside of it) are
The 4 Options of energy moderation:
1 Take in
2. Block out   (both 1 and 2 deal with what is outside the organism

3. (take in and) Hold in
4. (take in and) Excrete out.  (both 3 and 4 deal with what is inside the
organism

We can now look at all life as energy moderation to gain answers to many
questions we have been unable to solve before.

SUPPORT DOCUMENT #95