SUPPORT DOCUMENT #95 A New System of Classification of all Living Things: In my Hendricks Health Theory I've suggested that all life and all aspects of life evolved out of the 4 and only 4 options of energy moderation. 1. Take in - move toward 2. Block out - move against ( 2 options dealing with outside the organism 3. (take in and) hold - digest and hold, store, use to grow 4. (take in and) not hold - digest and excrete out as waste - separate from waste (2 options dealing with inside the organism) Now jump forward 4 billion years. If everything evolved out of these 4 options (through natural selection) then it follows that all behavior of humans evolved out of those 4 options. We now can see all behavior as one or more of those 4 options. Examples Male = 2 and 4 (fight and flight) Female = 1 and 3 (befriend and tend) Hunters = male = 2 and 4 Gatherers = female = 1 and 3 K. Horney's 3 basic inner conflict personalities (+ one more) correspond to the 4 options (See her classic "Inner Conflicts") Move toward others = option 1 Move against others = option 2 (Move toward self - self involvement, excess self nurturing) = option 3* Move away from others = option 4 (note; option 3 is not listed in Horney's classic text "Inner Conflicts" Social behavior = option 1 and 2 = outside the organism Self behavior = option 3 and 4 = inside the organism. We now can look at any behavior of ANY living thing (not only humans) and see that it is one of 4 specific behaviors. Therefore you reading this will respond to this post or to any aspect of life by 1 moving toward it = hungry for it = desire it 2 move against it = not hungry for it = anger against it = protect self 3 move toward self = block out outside world 4 move away from it = separate from it = flee it to protect self The next time you see a cat, it's behavior is one of the 4, a dog the same, a clerk in a store, a butterfly on the wing, a plant reaching for sunlight, a mushroom shooting mycelia underground, an algae or bacteria using its flagella to move itself, etc. Thus we have a new form of classification of living things. We have 4 specific classifications for all behavior of all living things that live now, have lived in the past, will ever live. The 4 options of energy moderation. 4 specific (not random) evolutionary threads that cover all life. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #96 This document discusses the 4 options and how they relate to human behavior Here's the info we have, Female = befriend or tend Male = fight or flight Karen Horney's groundbreaking psychology classic "Inner Conflicts" (published about 1947) Suggests 3 main categories of psychological problems in humans: 'move toward others (dependency) 'move against others (violence) "move away from others, separate from others (run away) 4 options of energy moderation in the Hendricks Health Theory Take in (move toward and take in) = female Block out = male (Take in digest and ) Hold in = female (Take in digest and ) excrete out = male. Now put all these pieces together: Option 1 Take in (HHT = female) Befriend (befriend and tend = female stress reaction) Move toward others - K. Horney Option 2 Block out (HHT = male) Fight (fight and flight = male stress reaction) Move against others - K Horney Option 3 Hold in (HHT = female) Tend (befriend and tend) No K. Horney designation. I call this move toward self Option 4 Excrete out (HHT = male) Flight (fight and flight) Move away from others,Separate from others - K. Horney designation And all these 4 were in first life when it began to moderate energy. Then 4 billion years later they have evolved to all aspects of living things. including these behaviors in human psychology SUPPORT DOCUMENT #97 Cat behavior as an example of the 4 options. Response to Laurie's post. >I can easily observe emotion in my cat, ... > Emotion is a state of consciousness. > Just how does one 'easily observe' the state of consciousness in another > human, or non-human, being? Mental telepathy? Can you teach me how?? > Now, you may observe physical behavior, or physical facial distortions, > but trying to attach specific 'emotions' to external behavior is little more > than projecting your own ego/beliefs on the outside world. > > Laurie I disagree. If emotion is a state of mind then it (like everything else in living organisms) evolved out of first life. NOTHING that exists in living organisms fell down from the sky. It all came from something before it. And that came from first life. Evolution did not start in the middle of evolution. In my theory of health I have suggested that first life began as energy moderation. (First chemicals REACTED to energy then moderated it ) There are only 4 ways of energy moderation. These have evolved to all aspects of all living things through natural selection (both ways of natural selection - see my post) Each of the 4 options of energy use have a very specific psychological behavior that can be determined now by its relation to energy moderation. Specifically in the cat behavior (or human behavior - which is similar enough and smart enough to see it in another species): Option 1 (take in energy/food) evolved to states of contentment Option 2 (block out excess energy) evolved to move against evolved to states of anger Option 3 (take in and hold in - similar to 1) Option 4 (take in, digest and excrete out excess or waste) evolved to separate from waste, evolved to states of fear Each of these 3 specific emotional states can best be seen in the work of psychologist pioneer, Karen Horney's classic "Inner Conflicts" So for one to see the basic emotional states of a cat as contentment, anger, or fear is highly reasonable with any acute observer. And now there is a specific methodic reason for it. Matt responds: Emotions are a little more complex than Hendricks would make out - you can > feel frustrated, upset, wary, uncomfortable, confused, happy, ecstatic etc. > etc. These haven't evolved from Tom's 4 'basic behaviours' but from putting > the organism into a state that is probably appropriate to the situation it > is facing. My response: And what was the first situation life faced (of which all others evolved)? It was energy moderation. Yes emotions are complex NOW. Yet they evolved out of something simpler (remember evolution didn't begin in the middle of evolution) And as to your examples. Most of those are take in digest and hold = happy, ecstatic, or take in, digest and excrete out as waste = frustrated, upset, wary, uncomfortable, confused. In RESPONSE to those emotions the organism can move toward what it loves for comfort (option 1) or move against what is causing the paint (option 2) or run away from it all and separate from, (option 4) or isolate themselves from the world (option 3). All this is clearest in the most complex of animals. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #98 This deals with the many posts that challenge my theory. Each time the author suggests a differen reason - other than energy moderation - for a certain evolutionary change. I challenge the idea of disproof by a 1,000 challenges: You seem to suggest that there are billions and billions of individual reasons for each and every evolutionary step - reason a. for sex, b. for predators, c. for.... But I say they all evolved out of energy moderation the key to all life. The death of my theory by a billion separate cuts - each a distinct reason for that evolutionary trait MAY be true, if so it suggests that all life is random and every aspect of evolution is roped off and separate and in no way evolved from anything else. Yet all this flies in the face of "The Origin of the Species" a single theory that covers each and every aspect of life of every species. Darwins theory suggests my method of evolution beginning at day one - and evolving through energy moderation; is much more likely than the billion separate reasons that you suggest. Time will tell. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #99 Enzymes suggest how life began. In mitochondria "enzymatic control prevents the build-up of high temperatures that would be destructive to the cells" Life in every way mimics non life except in one way. Life, like all matter slows down in low energy Life, like all matter speeds up in high energy The one difference that separates life is this. At some point as the energy continues to increase the 'almost life' that survived to reproduce, was able to block out the high energy while the rest of the 'almost life' that did not survive, continued to heat up until it was destroyed. I have suggested in my post "First life a 2nd draft' that the high energy moderator could have been the inhibiting aspect of A-U bonds on a string of naturally selected G-C bonds. (And that the melting bond when it did divide due to the heat, was the first replication - another aid in reducing energy - note, most life replicates in high energy.) Further support for this theory is the opening quote. The first enzyme - (perhaps some of the first RNA or first protein) probably re-inforced this in some way by also inhibiting the build up of high temperatures perhaps in other RNA strings in the pre-cell stage. And this later evolved to the enzymes in the quote on mitochondria that opened this post. Life may be finally explaining its intricate mystery. Part 2 "Each amino acid displays a different chemical grouping that determines its unique functional role when it is in a protein. Some amino acids are water rejecting; others seek out water. Some are acid, some are alkaline, some cause the chain to bend, some bind readily with other proteins or molecules. There is thus a whole world of chemical reactivity in a protein molecule determined by the amino acids it contains." - Discovery, The Search for DNA's Secret, Mahlon Hoagland. The reason I quoted the above was this. I tend to think that these dichotomys of proteins evolved to better moderate energy/heat in first life. Thus that first life or 'pre-first' life that was able to survive extremes in temperature and/or energy (specifically the high end of heat/ energy) were able to build up complexity that further protected it from excess heat/energy. Today we're left with living things that in every way have evolved to moderate their energy source, thus better surviving their environment. The key to first life then, is to find how pre-life chemicals were able to distinguish themselves from non life chemicals in that they someway found a way to moderate the high end of energy/heat SUPPORT DOCUMENT #100 The physics of the 4 options: a.Add heat to any mass and the motion of the molecules speeds up. The velocity of the molecules increases and vibration of the molecules increases. The molecules bump against each other and move farther apart. b.Take heat away and the motion of molecules slow down. As the vibration of their molecules slows down they move closer together. Though this applies to all mass, it also defines life. 4 Options (Hendricks Health Theory) 1. Move toward and 3 hold in (clump together) 2 Move against and 4 excrete out. (scatter apart) a. add heat/energy to life and it becomes more active and the molecules scatter. This is equal to option 2 and 4 b.Take heat away and the molecules slow down and move closer together. This is equal to option 1 and 3. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #101 First Life, Revised Version in multiple parts. Part 1 I've revised and enhanced my version of how life began as energy moderation. But first some facts (in 2 posts) then my interpretation of the facts as a theory of first life in the 3rd. The info is about DNA though I tend to think that it works for both first life nucleotides, and first RNA. All the quotes are from "General Genetics" a textbook, except where marked. Hydrogen bonds are very special kinds of bonds. Though strong enough to hold the bases together they are weak and easily broken. All the other bonds in DNA are strong, permanent, and unbreakable. - Discovery, M. Hoagland ...the percentage G+C is constant in all cells of an organism and within a species, though it varies between species.... Higher plants and animals all have a deficiency of G+C compared to A+ in their DNA, with a base composition between 38-47% G+C. The base composition of viruses, bacteria, and lower plants shows significant species variation, ranging from about 31 percent G+C (high AT) to 72% G+C (high GC) . Generally, the base compositions of closely related organisms are similar. Often thermophiles have a high G+C content in their DNA such that the melting point of the DNA, the temp at which the strands of the double helix separate, is at least as high as the organism's maximum T for growth. But this is not always the case (other factors invovled). K Todar U. of Wis Dept of Biology. Adenine and cytosine are usually unable to pair, but a shift in the hydrogen atom at the 6 amino position in adenine to...would permit hydrogen bonding... the normal paring of cytosine with guanine in the next round of replication would result in replacement of the original AG base pair by a GC pair. (Mutation) Although hydrogen bonds that hold the strands of a parental double helix together are highly specific, they are weak and easily broken by a variety of agents. Hydrogen bonds will also form spontaneously under the proper conditions. However, within cells the conditions for spontaneous breaking and reforming of these bonds are not met and a BARRAGE OF ENZYMES AND OTHER PROTEINS IS NEEDED TO ASSIST IN THESE PROCESSES. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #102 First Life Revised Version Part 2: Here are some more facts (see part 1 first) Most DNA molecules have local regions in which either AT or GC base pairs predominate... Exposure of DNA molecules to high temperature or high alkalinity causes hydrogen bonds to break and the single strands to separate. At a temp. or pH at which unwinding just begins, preferential unwinding of regions rich in AT pairs (WHICH HAVE 2 HYDROGEN BONDS) Those regions in which GC pairs predominate remain intact, because these pairs are more strongly hydrogen-bonded (THEY ARE JOINED BY 3 HYDROGEN BONDS) Such a molecule is said to be partially denatured. If the temp of pH is lowered, the denatured regions of a partially denatured molecule will again form the double-stranded structure. When solutions of DNA are exposed to temp considerably higher than those normally encountered by most living cells or to excessively high pH, the hydrogen bonds break and the paired strands separate. Unwinding of the helix occurs rapidly, the time depending on the length of the molecule. When a DNA solution is slowly heated a curve called a melting curve is obtained ... The value of melting temp increases with G+C content, because GC pairs, joined by 3 hydrogen bonds, are stronger than AT pairs which are joined by 2 The single strands in a solution of denatured DNA can, under certain conditions reform double stranded DNA. The process is called renaturation. For renaturation to occur, 2 requirements must be met 1, the salt concentration must be high enough to neutralize the negative charges of the phosphate groups, which would otherwise cause the complementary strands to repel one another and 2, the temp must be sufficiently high to disrupt hydrogen bonds that form at random between short sequence of bases within the same strand, but not so high that stable base pairs between the complementary strands would be disrupted. A temp. about 20C below melting T is usually optimal. Renaturation is a fairly slow process and its rate is limited by the initial step in the process - namely a precise collision between 2 complementary strands - which permits a short sequence of correct base pairs to form. This initial pairing step is followed by a rapid pairing of the remaining complementary bases and rewinding of the helix. Rewinding occurs in a matter of seconds and its rate is independent of DNA concentration. In contrast, correct initial base pairing of all molecules in a sample is concentration dependent and may require several minutes to many hours when standard conditions are used. Another important point is that because a solution of denatured DNA usually contains a large number of identical molecules, a double stranded molecule formed by renaturation is rarely composed of the SAME 2 STRANDS THAT WERE PAIRED BEFORE DENATURATION. - and is called MOLECULAR HYBRIDIZATION. ( I call it first replication) - continued in post 3. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #103 First Life, Revised Version Part 3 Here are some more points to consider: 1. Early Earth was hot, heat came from both the earth and the sun with the highest heat in the mid day- afternoon. 2. G+C bonds concentrated through natural selection - see related posts 3. G+C concentrate (amount of G+C versus A+T) is highest and lowest in viruses, bacteria, and lower plants. This matches the fact that viruses bacteria and , lower plants also are those organisms that best withstand the highest and lowest temperatures on earth. (A+T in DNA) 4. I have suggested that thermophiles were probably closest to first life. Evidence supports it. Also note their high G+C content. This also supports the theory of very warm earth conditions at first life. - see related posts. 5. Today, organisms have a barrage of enzymes and other proteins to PREVENT the breaking of hydrogen bonds. At first life there was no such inhibitors. 6. A strand of nucleotides would melt first at the A+U bond (U=uracil in RNA instead of T in DNA) That suggests that all G+C bonds would be the least likely to melt and most likely to stay bonded. (The reverse of my earlier ideas) Yet a string of G+C nucleotides only, is as useless to developing life as the Poly U codon (see famous experiment by Marshall Niremberg and Henry Matthaei) and doesn't code for enough variety. BUT if you add A+U then there is enough variety to code for anything. 7. Yet if adding A+U, then strand more likely to melt apart there. Note the 3 start and stop codons are mostly A+U in 1 and 2 places of the 3 place codon. - see related posts. To be continued... SUPPORT DOCUMENT #104 First Life, Revised Version Part 4 Here's how life may have begun: G+C bonds are naturally selected and brought together (perhaps in a tide pool where both the hot earth and the hot sun would play a part) These G+C hydrogen bonds are stable and not likely to melt, so they can grow in length (yet not grow in variations) When A+U is added to the string the strands are more likely to melt yet the bulk of G+C (like today's thermophiles) keeps the strand from melting too often. Together the 2 pairs weather the hot sun of the afternoon more than other assorted bonds. Plus when they do melt they reform as the day cools, into DIFFERENT AND LONGER bonded strands. With unlimited VARIATIONS. The climate at this time is so favorable to these bonds that they can both grow in length yet also melt/divide and regroup/cool down and re-bond on what could likely be a daily basis. This allows for almost infinite variety in a reasonably short period (by geological standards). The melting becomes the first replication and those G+C with A+U sprinkled in - bonds that survived, began the RNA world that led to life. This first melting was the first replication The natural selection of the bonds to inhibit that melting was the first energy moderation. "If a solution of DNA is heated slowly, the rod-like quality disappears and the DNA behaves like tangled, collapsed single strands. Separating the strands is called denaturation or melting. The increasing temperature sufficiently agitates the weak hydrogen bonding between the bases so that they break apart. The separated chains of DNA become randomly tangled coils, their hydrogen-bonding capacity frustrated. The transition from helix to coils can be accurately measured. What is truly astonishing is that DNA can renature. Those tangled single chains can find their partner chains, pair up their nucleotides in perfect register, and reconstitute a perfect double helix! All that is required is to lower the temperature very slowly, to allow time for hydrogen bonds between complementary pairs of bases to re-form." from Discovery The search for DNA's Secrets. M. Hoagland. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #105 First Life, Revised Version Part 5 "Since the first successful simulation experiments, reported in 1953 (by Stanley Miller), many other studies have repeated the abiotic synthesis of every essential kind of monomer needed by life as we know it." Process & Pattern in Evolution C. Avers IF my theory is true, then in Stanley Miller's experiments there would likely be more G-C only amino acids and fewer A-U only amino acids Again from the same text as above: Table 2.2 Biologically significant organic molecules produced in 2 of the experiments on abiotic synthesis conducted by Stanley Miller and reported in 1953: I've listed all the amino acids listed, from the most micromolecules down: Glycine experiment #1 = 630 #3 = 800 (yield in micromolecules) Glycine is coded GGG, GGC, (plus GGU, GGA) Alanine #1 = 340, #3 = 90 Alanine is coded GCC, GCG, (plus GCU, GCA) Aspartic Acid #1 = 4, #3 = 2 Aspartic Acid is coded GAU, GAC Glutamic Acid #1 = 6, #3 = 5 Glutamic Acid is coded GAA, GAG Note the high level of micromolecules in the first 2 (with all G-C) and the low level of micromolecules in the second 2 (wtih A-U added) This chart supports my theory. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #106 First Life, Revised Version - more info: Here is some more information that supports or expands on my theory of how life began (see the other parts) Q. How did the all G-C bonds add A-U nucelotides? A. The key is uracil. It can bond with guanine (G) as well as adenine (A) "Crick suggested that in the 5' wobble position of an anticodon, uracil can pair with guanine as well as adenine..." Q. If life began replicating due to nucleotide strands melting from the heat of the sun and/or the cooling earth; how could it switch to the metablism systems we know today? A. This is beyond my understanding. But I can suggest some clues to those who know more about the subject. This quote suggests a possibility, "Just consider that a pinch of sugar in solution may take years to be rendered into its ultimate end products of carbon dioxide and water, whereas this change may take place in seconds or minutes in living cells. We could heat the sugar solution and cause its constituent molecules to move faster, collide more frequently and with greater kinetic energy; and thereby be converted to CO2 and H20 more quickly. The same resolution of the activation energy problem cannot be carried out in living cells because elevated temperatures denature (melt the hydrogen bonds) their molecules and destroy their systems" BUT in my theory of first life that is exactly how life BEGINS. So as the nucleotides heat up and melt, (which in first life would not be threatening to their existence - just the opposite. It's what started life (see my other posts)), it would coincide with sugar heating. Another quote: "The fermentation processing of organic molecules is the (most) ancient heritage in ... organisms Put all our clues together and we have melting nucleotide bonds with sugar being heated along side, and fermentation being the first metabolism. Somehow they all are connected in some way. Quotes from Process & Pattern in Evolution C. Avers. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #107 First Life, revised Version - yet more info "Two major difficulties must be dispensed with in order to understand how polypeptides, polynucleotides, and other polymers were assembled from their monomer precursors. 1. An adequate source of energy is required for covalent linkages between monomer units in a polymer, ...." In my theory this source of energy is heat from the sun and/or the still hot and cooling earth. `2....and water must be removed so that reactants will be concentrated and their polymerized products will not be hydrolyzed in an aqueous environment that thermodynamically favors depolymerization... These polymers might ... have been synthesized in tidal pools from which water evaporated, and local clays might have served as centers for polymerization in primeval situations, just as they do in the laboratory. The preserved polymers could then have leached back into solution." In my theory I too suggest tide pools so that the day/night change in heat is somehow related to the high/low tides and the necessary high heat alternating with a slow cooling process that seems to be required. (All this would require our Moon which may have been an important ingredient in first life) Quotes from Process and Pattern in Evolution C. Avers. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #108 Second Stage of Life (the other 2 options: #1 & #3) I contend that in first life First there developed a heat inhibitor that allowed the pre-RNA strands to build up complexity without their hydrogen bonds melting from the combined heat of the cooling earth and the sun. (option #2 and #4) I also suggest that somewhere down the line the second main life development happened: Pre-life, through natural selection evolved ways to get more energy and to get alternative sources of energy (both option #1) And found ways to begin storing that extra energy for use in times of low energy (option #3) These 2 ways helped the organism survive times of too low energy - just as the heat inhibitor process helped the organism survive times of too high energy. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #109 Evolutionary Catch 22: NATURAL SELECTION CANNOT INDUCE CHANGES THAT IN THE FUTURE WILL BRING BENEFITS. THE BENEFITS HAVE TO BE IMMEDIATE. IF this is true then: no organism acts to save or preserve or insure the survival of its species, unless it brings immediate benefits to that organism. Now that is a fierce catch-22 for evolutionary theory, UNLESS... Unless you look at first life (or the first 3 billion years of life) with the understanding that when a cell divided it must have brought some immediate benefit to its parent organism. I contend that it did, that it helped that parent cell release excess energy, that in doing so it allowed that parent organism to survive to divide again, and again, as energy excess required it. This led to 1. the survival of the parent organism, and 2. replication. And those that were most adept at this evolutionary strategy replicated the most and had the best chance of survival of their species. So perhaps the biggest footnote to history is this survival technique of early life that always brought immediate benefit to that parent organism led to replication and the survival of its species and evolved to all life. Replication then is a way first life survived harsh conditions. Those other 'pre-first-life' that did not divide did not get the benefits to themselves and their line ended with them. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #110 Sexual odors and psychology: Interesting concept; however, I can not understand how 'social > conditioning' could suppress awareness of pheromone odors. I tend to think that it does cause a number of problems. I specifically think that a number of 'colds' or allergies or other nose blocking ailments (those outside of bacterial infections - and it seems to me that more and more colds and allergies are NOT infections or pollen or, etc. but body responses or over responses to stimuli - the so called stress diseases in which there is a subconscious conflict between biological needs and learned behavior) are attempts to subconsicously 'block out' that which we are conditioned not to accept consciously. And sexual stimuli is one of the strongest biological drives we have due to our hormones. It is also the one that is most repressed or taboo. Also if this is true then there would be stronger discomfort for those sexually repressed in areas where a lot of humans gather. And there are a number of psychological problems covering fear of crowds or social intereaction of any kind, etc. 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. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #111 Sex: Part 1: The biggest difference in humans is the difference between Male and Female. And that this biological division is as old as eukaryotes so it's got some serious evolutionary history to vouch for it. Part 2: Matt: > There is in nature no actual intrinsic difference between 'male' and > 'female' - some organisms are asexual, others hermaphroditic... . Male or female is just a> tag that we use to categorise the sexes, male being that with the smaller> gametes. Tom: And why smaller gametes? Egg takes in and holds in = stores (option 1 and 3) and sperm moves against or excretes out (option 2 and 4) - another example of the fact that sex evolved out of the 4 options. Yes some species show evolved differences that better serve their environments but even if they don't exactly match every aspect of my description (each option covers 1/4 of all life activities) they too evolved out of the 4 options. So you contend that just as often the egg goes looking for the sperm in plants as the other way around? Of course not. And the reason is the same reason for all life: energy moderation. No aspect of any living thing came down on a pillow on a cloud - ALL came from first life and first life was an energy moderator - a simple one that has become vastly complex in the 4 billion years since. So complex and so diverse that you and most others do not see the thread that caused it and all its variations through natural selection . Part 3: NATURAL SELECTION CANNOT INDUCE CHANGES THAT IN THE FUTURE WILL > BRING BENEFITS. THE BENEFITS HAVE TO BE IMMEDIATE. IF this is true then: no organism acts to save or preserve or insure > the survival of its species, unless it brings immediate benefits to that > organism. Quote from "Discovery the Search for DNA Secrets" M. Hoagland on Sex in bacteria: In conjugation, or mating, the chromosome of the donor enters into the recipient linearly and at a steady rate, gene by gene, through a tube that transiently forms between the 2 cells. The amount of chromosome injected by the donor is variable, but is usually much less than its full length. This is because the donor chromosome breaks off long before its full length has entered the recipient. IF the first quote 'Natural selection..." is true then in the ex. of sex in bacteria - there must be some benefit for the donor bacteria to get rid of genes specifically it had too much (option 4 excrete out = Male = excess energy - see related posts on Male/Female) and there must be some benefit for the recipient bacteria to take in genes specifically it had too little (option 1 take in, option 3 hold in = Female= too little energy). This example ties in some of my ideas: the idea that replication is an advantage for the parent cell in that it helps energy moderation, and that sex in bacteria shows the same male/female dichotomy that I suggested was the cause for Male/Female = opposite ends of energy moderation = the male excretes out what it has too much of, and the female takes in what it has too little of, thus benefiting both. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #112 2 Types of Natural Selection: I have suggested that there are indeed 2 types of natural selection the first and main one of natural selection of descent with modification, and the second the almost exclusively human one of 'learned behavior' natural selection. Others call this culture natural selection (Ex. you can learn English as a child, but you don't inherit the genes to speak it or any other specific language. And even if you could you'd be speaking the langauge - or grunts spoken thousands and thousands of years before- i.e. totally out of date lingo!) So in that I agree with you, The key winners of the Cenozoic era are not only mammals, but social insects, birds, and angiosperms. They all seem to be alike in having some type of social behavior. And that seems to be the clue. With Angiosperms highly dependent on the other 3 groups to help pollinate) (Side note: this all suggests a 'direction' of evolution. More on that later) In humans, who have the longest period of child rearing - there is also the longest period of training. This compounded with our other ape-like advantages leads our social structure to move a lot faster than the slow slow natural selection method of gene modification. (And all the above is energy moderation as always) SUPPORT DOCUMENT #113 Competition Plants and Option 2, Block Out, Move Against The first 4 options start with first life. Blocking out evolved to all the ways an organism protects itself. Don't take the phrase as if it's a specific scientific fact when that option of the 4 must cover all evolutionary behavior of keeping everything out of the organism that in any way harms that organism, which evolved to every technique to prevent and/or protect harm before it came about. To put it more exactly, everything outside of the organism is either something it can use option 1, or something it cannot use option 2. And all behaviors to keep out something that cannot be used is option 2 or evolved out of that first option 2. Let's talk about how competition evolved out of the 4 options. And because we've talked mostly about animals, I'm going to make this example in plants. 4 options again are: 1 take in (move toward) 2 block out (move agains) (1 and 2 deal with outside the organism 3 (take in and) hold in to store, grow, etc. 4.(take in and) excrete out as waste, separate from waste, separate from. (3 and 4 deal with inside the organism) Now back to plants. It is easy to see how plants - 1 take in, they take in sunlight, water, minerals, etc. AND 3 take in and hold in, they use these to grow and nurture the plant. AND 4 take in and excrete out as waste, can easily be seen as the Oxygen plants release. But how do plants block out energy evolved to block out anything outside of the plant that it doesn't want. This is competition. "Competition is the principal interaction among plants. Plants of the same species are the most strongly competitive, because they have the same needs and the same structures for obtaining them. They then interfere with or prevent each other from getting sunlight, water, and minerals" ( from a Botany text) Here are 2 specifics: "Roots of the desert Creosate Bush, secrete toxic substances that kill young seedlings that germinate nearby. This results in the natural wide spacing of the bushes." "Leaves of the gray-green sagebrush give off a gaseous chemical that kills the grass where it is creeping towards the shrubs" (botany text) These are dramatic examples, with perhaps the most mundane the bark of the tree and the sap that oozes out. Also consider the minute cell wall. All these evolutionary defenses have evolved out of first lifes need to moderate energy. Specifically one of the 2 ways to moderate excess energy. Specifically option 2 of the 4 options - block out. I can do the same with any action, reaction, or behavior of any organism. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #114 The role of ice ages in accelerating intelligent life? It is my contention that climate changes (as one example of harsh imposed conditions) is a key to intelligent life. As life left the comfort of the sea the climate challenges pushed it in a live or die struggle to better process its energy - so a nerve chord parallels the alimentary tract, and then soon a ganglia of nerves - the brain + the senses begins to circle the mouth where the food comes in, (plus other ganglia in other spots - example along the jumping back legs of grasshoppers) Also note that all brain animals have a digestive tract - therefore I contend that thinking began as a way to better digest food. Thus the brain is just a sophisticated stomach that later evolved to other forms of 'digestion' (we digest what's good or bad for us). Soon climate changes has pushed some of the land animals to some form of warm-blooded ness and the ability to live free of the sea (same with the angiosperms and gymnosperms that no longer need water for fertilization). Hominids develop big brains "had it not been for temperature based environmental changes in the habitats of early hominids, we would still be secure in some warm and hospitable forest, as in the Miocene of old, and we would still be in the trees" Homo erectus comes into its own and travels out of Africa facing all kinds of new temp. ranges. And finally the human brain reaches its big size at the last ice age which it has remained since. " There are no human fossils that date from before the Great Ice Age. Our wonderful brains evolved from ape size to human size just then, and seem not to have evolved since." "The Evolution Book" Sara Stein. I suggest there is a relationship between the brain development and the harsh weather conditions (though brains in my theory evolved as 2nd stomachs or mouth ganglia) With every step of brain development there has been first some harsh condition to push it along. Though it's important to add that it is an overgeneralization to say it is always climate - ex. predators make their prey smarter and vise versa. But in my opinion the key ingredient to natural selection is never the organism bored and ready for something new, its the species being challenged. And that forced change leads to evolutionary changes. (Though one exception may be the 'learned' natural selection that is peculiar to humans only - the natural selection that is learned not gene directed.) Most evolution happens in 1. isolated communities of that species, and 2 on the fringe of conditions. 'In fact life's history has been distinctly episodice with major extinctions and radiations punctuating the passage of time." The other species, not isolated but connected and not in fringe weather but in pleasant weather are content to stay the same. A perfect example of this land climate argument was seen by Darwin at the Galapagos Islands - the sea lions that circulate freely among the islands are much the same but the giant tortoises that are isolated on each of their particular islands, vary from island to island, they are an island unto themselves, if you'll pardon the pun - each suited to its islands particular environment. Same with Darwins famous finches and their variety of beaks) (and P>S> all of the above is energy moderation) 2000/09/23 From Brett Aubrey Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution Well, looking more into this (cold climate affecting intelligent life), I came across "Androgens in Human Evolution - A New Explanation of Human Evolution" Copyright © 2000 by James Michael Howard, at: http://www.naples.net/~nfn03605/dheaandr.htm . At least this source agrees Tom Hendricks about cold (likely ice age type cold) affecting evolution towards our (humans) current state more than I would have thought. For a glimpse, see the following paragraph< >; and try the web site above for more... < The cold periods of the Pleistocene epoch directly caused changes in hominid evolution. Homo and the robust Australopithecines are the results of the first, large cold increase around 2.5 mya. A common phenomenon occurred in both. This particular cold selected for individuals that produced more DHEA. Increased DHEA is an advantage during cold. DHEA treatment in rats "affected body weight, body composition and utilization of dietary energy by both impairing fat synthesis and promoting fat-free tissue deposition and resting heat production." (Tagliaferro et al., 1986). SUPPORT DOCUMENT #115 Life versus an Ice Cube: Matt: > To comment on Hendrick's theory of the origin of life, I can't see how this > 'catch-22' even applies. The 'immediate benefit' is obviously that there > will be more of the replicator about than a non-replicator, or a replicator > that is less efficient. ...Why would any organism have arbitarily built up too much energy? Tom: Heat - Here's the difference between life and an ice cube. In low energy/ heat both slow down, in high energy (if it's high enough) both melt - the RNA or DNA string melts and the hydrogen bonds break apart. BUT life is different from non life in that it - through chemical action - found a way to stop melting in high heat/energy - by dividing in half =replication. Now to find HOW life began, we have to just find how life began to stop melting. Example the longer the protein string the more it curves, the more it curves the more protected it is from heat and the less likely the RNA strands are to separate from heat and more likely to survive. Therefore, once life began to 'knit' up amino acids, the longer they got the more likely they were to get longer still. Replication is no more than the first energy moderation of excess heat. For the first time in history some chemicals were able to resist melting under the hot radiating sun or the still hot earth. It slowed down the melting process of the hydrogen bonds so that they could get longer thus leading to proteins, enzymes, etc. thus gradually leading to first life. Matt: > Here, Tom seems to be agreeing with me that replication is the key to > evolutionary survival, not energy moderation . Replication is the key to energy moderation at the high end which as a footnote also helps the 2nd generation - thus evolutionary survival. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #116 Sleep: There just doesn't seem to be much consensus on why we sleep. Here's my version (and it all is energy moderation) An alimentary canal began to evolve quickly when faced with the harsh and isolated conditions those organisms faced on land. Gradually a nerve net paralleled the alimentary canal. Ganglia formed around the mouth along with other senses. This ganglia is the brain. It's initial purpose being a 2nd stomach or stomach by the mouth - to help regulate energy in, same with the senses - nose and eyes above the mouth, ears along the side, taste within, teeth to both block out and help digest, etc. That's why voice began here too, to better take in or block out energy. Sleep is either a way to shut down conscious behavior to better conserve energy and/or a way to better absorb digested energy. IF so: only organisms with alimentary canals should have brains. And only organisms with alimentary canals should sleep (perchance to dream). I tend to think that the most active part of sleep digestion is in the absorption of nutrients in the intestines. If so the time it takes to digest in the intestines may be close to the time it takes to sleep and for examples those who fast should need less sleep, those with more protein and other hard to digest foods, more sleep. And all this is the 4 options of energy moderation. Another version: I believe sleep (like brains) evolved out of the digestion system. Specifically sleep is perhaps both of the following: 1. Slow down in cold temperatures, when to supply the necessary energy would demand more energy - fuel than is available - ex. bears hibernate through the winter - a protracted sleep in low energy times - 2. A part of the cycle of digestion. A sort of mini-coma to allow the digestive system to digest the day's energy intake. I tend to think that it is specifically the absorption of nutrients out of the intestines - which takes a number of hours. This is unsubstantiated. To prove or disprove this should be easy enough. Just test the activity of the intestines during sleep, etc. (other ideas such as - if you fast do you need less sleep) etc. And just for fun - why do we dream in black and white? Perhaps when we began dreaming we did not have color vision. If this is true perhaps someday we can pinpoint when dreams began (and again I think dreams are no more than an evolved form of digestion - this time digestion of the days conscious events). And finally this note, only a very small percentage of human activity is conscious. "Only 1 percent of what goes on in your head is conscious, that is, thoughts you are aware of. Scanning techniques that show brain activity indicate that microseconds before you are aware of a thought, it has been formulated in a part of the brain that is beyond your awareness. Your brain decides what to think before you think it." The Evolution Book S. Stein. Another version: Tom: > >I believe sleep allows the body to go into a sort of coma to allow the > >body to digest the day's food intake. > >(Sleepy after a meal) Bruce D. Winningham: > I understand that the sleepiness after a meal is caused by the > arteries to the digestive tract dilating while other vessels > throughout the body constricts. This is to afford more blood flow to > the digestive tract to aid in digestion and absorption. In turn, this > decreases the oxygenated blood flow to other parts of the body, > including the brain. Hence, the drossiness. That seems to support my idea. Sleep then is an advanced form of this drowsiness. Also a recent study showed that bad sleep led to more fat intake and that > >middle aged men with trouble sleeping had more stored fat - which would > >further support my theory. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #117 Warm blooded humans as bio-incubators: When people talk about the advantages of being a warm-blooded animal the usual reasons are: 1. It helps the organism better survive changes in climate and temperature. 2. "More active muscles need more food, more food produces more heat, more heat favors a higher metabolism; higher metabolism provides more energy to get food; more food feeds more muscle, fuels more motion, makes more heat" etc (this quote from S. Stein, The Evolution Book) Yet in mammals (and marsupials) there is another I have yet to see mentioned 3. A warm blooded female is a constant temperature incubator for its fetus. What better way to insure the unborn's survival than it being in a womb at a constant comfortable temperature for maximum safety and development. It beats seeds or eggs in a nest.