SUPPORT DOCUMENT #118 Darwin's theory was: DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION Hendricks Health theory is: ENERGY MODERATION WITH MODIFICATION THROUGH DESCENT SUPPORT DOCUMENT #119 The key experimenters in first life are Miller and Fox. I've based much of my first life theory on their work. Here are 2 additional bits of information "Miller's experiment has been successfully repeated by a number of investigators; amino acids can also be enerated by irradiating a similar mixture of gases with ultraviolet light." (I had suggested that ultraviolet light, though deadly now, may have played a part in denaturing the nucleotide bonds in the specific way I'd mentioned in my theory) "(Fox)...heated a mixture of 18 amino acids to temperatures of 160- 200C for varying periods of time" which led to proteinoids that when cooled formed what he called microspheres." I have suggested that Fox had the right idea wrong recipe. I have also suggested that the first mix was more like Stanley Miller found in that it had much much much more G-C pure codons than codons with A or U in them. Thus a mix of 18 amino acids would NOT work because the mix would be too even between the 2 pairs. Instead, my theory calls for a mix of almost all G-C coded amino acids with only a few A-U's in the mix. Thus I suggest an experiment recreating what Fox did but with the mix of amino acids found in Miller's experiments. Quotes from "Understanding Evolution - E. Peter Volpe 2 Quotes of background information: And here's a quote from http://www.excellence.com talking about the work of Stanley Miller (I don't have the exact url - that's just the main one) Primordial Soup Experiment Let us go back to Stanley Miller's experiment because he's so important. He found that at least 10 percent of the carbon was converted into a small number of organic compounds and about two percent went into amino acids. Hydrogen, cyanide, and aldehydes were also produced. Glycine was the most abundant amino acid produced. You go back to Darwin's 1871 letter, the experiments of Stanley Miller and the first one reported in 1953 and subsequent experiments. It appears that proteins, or at least getting amino acids, getting them to polymerize, you have all the basic structure there that goes on. Juan Orowin, in 1961, took some of the materials that were produced in the Miller experiments and he took hydrogen cyanide, one of these compounds produced, along with ammonia and left out the aldehyde. So he kind of organized the experiment in a certain way. He produced some amino acids but he also got some adenine, one of the nitrogen containing bases. Later experiments by him and others were actually able to produce THE OTHER NUCLEIC ACID BASES. Also this quote, "Blueprints,Solving the Mystery of Evolution, "When in further experiments he (Stanley) found more amino acids: when others duplicated his work and found even more; when they found that one didn't need electricity to trigger the reactions in the apparatus, that one could do it with ultraviolet light as a substitute for sunlight; when they began finding short strings of NUCLEOTIDES , the building blocks of DNA and RNA, there was a rush to proclaim that life had been - or least could be - produced in a test tube. Not quite ..." SUPPORT DOCUMENT #120 First life temperature: IF what I have suggested in my other posts on my Revised Version of First Life Theory is correct, THEN We may now have a clue to the temperature of the Earth (specifically the sea in tide pools) when life began. IF my theory is correct and the hot earth combined with the hottest daytime temperature of the sun is NOT hot enough to melt pure G+C bonds, yet it is hot enough to melt all other nucleotide bonds (probably near the temp that melts the A-U nucleotides which as I have pointed out before would melt earlier than G-C strands for 2 reasons) then we know what temp first-life earth was. Experiment. Take G-C nucleotide strands and find their melting point. (Remember thermophiles have very high G-C content so it is bound to be very hot!) Then take G-C nucleotides mixed with a few A-U or only U, and find that melting point. The temperature of earth at first life should probably be less than the melting temp of pure G+C strands, but higher or close to the melting temp of G-C + some A-U strands. In many ways this experiment recreates that of Sydney Fox and his proteinoids and microspheres. By the way, a side note of this experiment is that you might be recreating how life began. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #121 There is a form of DNA analysis where the strands are melted then reformed with melted strands of other species to help determine genetic relatedness. The process of doing this analysis suggests another aspect to my first life theory. "The basic principle of DNA-DNA hybridization is that single strands or single stranded regions of DNA form stable duplexes only by hydrogen bonding between the complementary bases, G-C and A-U. THE BETTER THE MATCH BETWEEN SUCCESSIVE COMPLEMENTARY BASES IN THE 2 STRANDS THE HIGHER THE TEMPERATURE REQUIRED TO MELT THE DUPLEX INTO ITS SINGLE STRANDED COMPONENTS, BECAUSE MORE ENERGY IS NEEDED TO BREAK MANY HYDROGEN BONDS THAN TO BREAK FEW BONDS." (PROCESS AND PATTERN IN EVOLUTION) Now combine this with the fact that G-C have 3 hydrogen bonds, and A-U only 2, and we begin to get a clearer picture of how different combinations would behave under melting temps (I have suggested the differences are instrumental in how life began) New in this post: IF the above is true then an all G-C strand would more easily attach and attach more firmly to another G-C strand than a mixed nucleotide strand. And such a firmly attached duplex would be extremely hard to melt. Yet that by itself hardly codes for anything (though it should be pointed out that G-C strands alone codes for 5 of the 20 necessary amino acids which may be enough to code for first life processes) If G-C would be the strongest strands ( it has most hydrogen bonds = 3 AND most formed or matched-up hydrogen bonds in the 2 strands Then A-U by itself would probably be the 2nd strongest AND/OR A strand of mostly G-C with occasional A-U would be 3rd ? strongest strands. Yet a point here. If you had say 50 G-C nucleotides and only 1 A or U, it would be hard to find an exact match from another strand. So it is highly likely that the strand would melt at that point. So melting would come at the end of a G-C strand because 1. there is no U on the other strand to match it, and 2. The A-U bond is limited to 2 hydrogen bonds instead of 3 like the G-C. Now if we add a U (Uracil can bond with both G=guanine and A) Then with now 3 instead of G-C alone, we can code for 10 amino acids (G,C,&U) And finally adding the A = the last 10 amino acids. Also note that all stop and start codons have A and U in them. (AUG start, UAA,UGA,UAG = stop , which is another clue to all of this) Now putting this together we know that 1. G-C with 3 hydrogen bonds is less likely to melt/reproduce (see other posts) than A-U with 2 hydrogen bonds 2. G-C strands are more likely to line up and attach to other G-C strands because more nucleotides would line up with their necessary other. Altogether it strengthens the idea that first life was nucleotides that by natural selection were those that bonded stronger (see 2 reasons above) which would slow down or retard or in some places stop the melting of these bonds (hot earth, hot daily sun) to thus allow for complexity to build leading to the RNA world, and later life. Pretty cool how it's all starting to fit huh! SUPPORT DOCUMENT #122 The Work of Karen Horney and how it relates to the theory: Most of you have heard of Freud, and Jung and their theories. But few have heard of those of Karen Horney a disciple of Freud's, though she disagreed with him on a number of points mainly and strangely enough in that she emphasized environmental and cultural, rather than biological factors in neurotic behavior. A key component of my Hendricks Health Theory - is the relationship of the biological 4 options of energy moderation and their counterpoints in the 3 types of inner conflicts written in Horney's groundbreaking 1945 book, " Our Inner Conflicts". For a quick one page summary of her life and work visit: www.ship.edu/~cyboeree/horney.html The match of the 2 sets, suggests the specific way biolgical methods of energy moderation are directly linked and have evolved to all psychological behavior - both positive and neurotic behavior. To better understand my theory you would have to be familiar with this groundbreaking book. Is anyone on this group familiar with Horney's work? SUPPORT DOCUMENT #123 Ultraviolet light: The following quote may help support aspects of my ideas on how life may have begun: "It is notable that present-day blue-green algae are exceptionally resistant to high doses of ultraviolet radiation, as would be expected if they had had a long evolutionary history under such conditions." - The History of Life, A. McAlester. I suggest that radiation that seems so hazardous today, may have had a somewhat beneficial aspect in first life in introducing so much mutation - thus allowing a lot of variety - more variety means more chances to get a version that could survive. And if blue-green algae, one of the oldest organisms, could survive that radiation enough to evolve means to prevent its hazards; then other types of life that preceded it could probably survive those hazards too. AND/OR "It seems likely that, from a very early stage of evolution, microbes indulged in a primitive form of sex... not the sex that evolved far later in animlas and plants, involving the union of specialised sex cells. Rather it was exchange of genetic material between different species of bacteria... Studies of microbial communities suggest they have access to a common gene pool. ON THE EARLY EARTH THIS GENE SWOPPING WAS A POWERFUL PROTECTIVE MECHANISM AGAINST THE INTENSE SOLAR RADIATION. Ultraviolet light from the Sun is very damaging to DNA (RNA too I'm sure) ... The early microbe could repair ultraviolet damage to genes simply by borrowing a spare gene from a neighbouring microbe or using enzymes to make itself a fresh copy. This wholesale movement of genes from one cell to another does not happen in eukaryotes, where genes are wrapped up in chromosomes. THE GENE SHUFFLING ENABLED THE BACTERIA TO MAKE A GREAT DEAL OF EVOLUTIONARY PROGRESS." The Thread of Life, S Aldridge. The point of this long quote is to suggest that IF my theory on first life is true, then the emerging strands of nucleotides could, like bacteria today, when split by the melting temperature of the environment, re-configure into endless variety for natural selection; do this without the cell wall getting in the way, thus slowing down the exchange (as this stage perhaps preceded the cell wall in evolution); and help protect it against the harmful radiation. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #124 I disagree with Jack Monod. Jacques Monod showed that once there is enough biochemical energy in your cells, a chemical signal goes to the enzymes that break down glucose to tell them to stop working. For Monod, this chemical 'intelligence' had evolved through blind chance, as a result in DNA mutations that had served the organism well and so had survived. So Monod was scathing of those who thought there was any driving force to life - all could be explained by chemical bonding! (The Thread Of LIFE, S. Aldridge) I contend that there is a driving force to life - energy moderation and the example Monod uses helps prove how life may have begun as an energy moderator. Life evolved from G-C nucleotides that had some A-U nucleotides within their almost pure strands. The sun's heat melted all the nucleotides in the sea soup EXCEPT those with G-C bonds, thus their strands didn't melt or melted less quickly, or only melted at the A-U nucleotides (G-C = 3 hydrogen bonds, A-U only 2, both extremely strong bonds, with G-C in great abundance in Stanley Miller's amino acids, and in thermophiles that can withstand great heat) This evolved to inhibiting the melting/denaturing of G-C bonds which allowed for long strands, diversity of coding, enzymes, proteins, etc. This evolved to enzymes taking the place of the sun and determining when the strands would melt/denature/replicate in situations where Sun/ energy/heat was too high - as the very-evolved enzymes do in the example given by Monod. Thus life, unlike non-life could now, not only react to heat/energy, but moderate it in one way, slow down the melting process - which led to replication. Thus the Sun's heat melting/denaturing/ splitting into 2 strands/ replicating, mostly G-C nucleotides, evolved to enzymes under the control of this first organism, melting/ denaturing/splitting into 2 strands/replicating mostly G-C nucleotides (as DNA with the help of RNA does, today) SUPPORT DOCUMENT #125 Lynn Margulis is a woman. Lynn Margulis of Boston University who was one of the first to pioneer the theory of endosymbiosis, is a woman. If you look at those who post on this newsgroup, they are overwhelmingly men. If you look at the history of the theory of evolution in all its aspects, again it is mostly men. In my health theory male = 2 options of energy moderation Option 2 Block out, move against, FIGHT Option 4 Excrete out, separate from, FlIGHT And in most evolutionary theory you hear 'male' talk. What I mean is that most men talk of evolution in the 2 male options sense. Everything is a struggle or fight. Look at the lingo: 'survival of the fittest', predator and prey , fight or flight syndrome (the reaction of males under stress) pecking order, etc. Yet woman react to stress with befriend and tend, which relates to the other 2 options of energy moderation: Option 1 take in or move toward or befriend Option 3 hold in or tend to needs of self and children. So now back to Lynn Margulis. Is her theory all about fighting, struggle, nature's combat? No. As a female she looks at life differently than a male. She sees it as tend and befriend. She pioneered the theory of endosymbiosis - "2 organisms join to become one and in a very real sense, the new organism is more than the 2 that formed it. At least 3 of the components of modern cells - chloroplasts, mitochondria, and kinetosomes - are the result of endosymbiosis." (Quotes from The Thread of Life, by SUSAN Aldridge) The point being this. If only the male point of view is heard in evolutionary theory then the outcome will be a theory much like a close out sale item - ONE HALF OFF! More info on females and stress. I found the press release that I printed off the web on this story. It was by Deena Beasley from Reuters. Hopefully we can find the full study on the web. Until then here are some more facts as found in the study: "Stressed out women are likely to seek social contact, rather than indulge in the 'fight-or-flight' behavior that has long been considered the principal way both sexes cope with stress, researchers said in a report to be released on Friday (this was May 19 of this year) ...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' that women use to cope with stress. The study will be published in an upcoming issue of the American Psychological Association's journal. This patter shows that females of MANY SPECIES including humans, respond to stressful conditions by protecting and nurturing their young, and by seeking social contact and support from others - especially other females..." SUPPORT DOCUMENT #126 Moon's role in first life: I have long felt that having a relatively same-sized moon was a key element in why life developed on earth. Here's another reason why, it's a supportive quote from of all places a sci fi novel by Larry Niven called "World Of Ptaws" "The purpose of the moon is to strip away most of the planet's atmosphere, generally around 99% of it. Without its moon a habitable world becomes shockingly uninhabitable; its air acquires crushing weight, and its temperature becomes that of a 'hot' oven." a perfect example is to compare the moonless planet Venus, and our moon planet Earth. Question: if the moon was stripping away gas form the earth's atmosphere, wouldn't it > have acquired an atmosphere of it's own? -jilhad No. The smaller the planet the less it's gravity. The moon would counteract some of the earths gravity thus pulling away some gas (stirring up some of the water etc.), yet it would not have enough gravity to hold on to an atmosphere, thus that would be lost to space. Yet the pull by the moon would lessen the gravity hold that the earth has on it's own atmosphere, thus loosing some of it that a same-sized planet would keep. SUPP0RT DOCUMENT #127 No to the altruistic theory: I disagree with the Altruistic Behavior theory ( where individuals are benefited at the apparent expense of the altruist itself) But before I give my reasons I'd like to address ALL of what I call: the billions-of-unconnected-reasons-theory of evolution. Many scientists seem to think that there is a specific, roped off, unrelated to anything else, reason for every step or every aspect of evolution. The Altruistic Behavior theory, being one example. I suggest that this in itself is questionable - no matter what the theory - specifically in the study of evolution. IF a theory is to have merit in my opinion, it must connect with other aspects of evolution. It cannot stand out as one of many isolated, float-down-from-the-clouds, reasons for each and every aspect of evolution. The theory of evolution demands that EVERYTHING evolved out of something else. Perhaps it is time to see that isolated theories should evolve out of some bigger theory too. The basic examples of altruistic behavior can all be explained by the 4 options of energy moderation of my Hendricks Health Theory. These same examples are those often cited by those who favor this theory. I suggest that the altruistic behavior in every case is nothing more than an outgrowth (as every other aspect of life is) of energy moderation. Let's look at those examples then how they relate to the 4 options. (These are very brief so see my other posts if you are unfamiliar with the aspects of each option and how they evolved out of energy moderation in first life) 1. A bird gives an alarm to the flock thus putting itself in danger = Option 2 block out energy = block out anything dangerous to the individual = the protector/defender in social behavior groups. 2. Males protect their herd by placing themselves at risk. Same as above = option 2 (note option 2 and 4 are the 2 male options) 3. Mother may put herself at risk to save her offspring = option 1 and 3 = the 2 female options = the social behavior of females, tend and befriend. Under stress females are shown to react with the tend and befriend behavior. Tend means to tend to family and children. This all evolved out of the energy options of 1, take in, and 3 hold in (the child was once a part of the mother so the self-interest caring behavior of the mother toward herself (fetus in self) evolved to self-interest caring behavior of the mother toward herself (born child now outside of self) 4. Social insects. Their so called altruistic behavior is legendary, yet it too falls under the same 4 options as stated above. A major study in 1977 by Paul Sherman on Belding ground squirrels at first seemed to support the idea, yet on closer look it was shown that the beneficiaries proved to be related to the caller (sends the alarm) which most often was an adult female signaling to her offspring. Which then fits point 3 above. (quotes and info from Process and Pattern in Evolution C. Avers) SUPPORT DOCUMENT #128 My Classification System: We now 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. I think it'll be found to be very valuable when life is accepted as energy moderation. Not only male/female, but other sets represent other dichotomys, another example : social organisms (option 1 and 2) and solitary organisms (option 3 and 4). Also there are the dichotomys of plant/animal - with each a set of options, herbivore and carnivore, etc. (though I can't say with any certainty which options fit which) Also there is the dichotomy of a eukaryote cell and its symbiotic helpers: chloroplasts, and mitochondria which may well represent two sets. Also one division that is mapped out in some depth is the 4 specific human psychological behaviors mapped out by K. Horney. Please see that post. I think a period when most of this was formed was when prokaryotes were joined by eukaryotes and we first see sexual reproduction, perhaps the first predators and prey, the symbiotic relationship between the eukaryote cell and the chloroplasts and mitochondria, etc. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #129 How multicell life may have begun: I tend to think mulitcellular life may have begun this way. Perhaps a prokaryote budded into 2 parts (like yeast, etc.) or divided into 2 that didn't completely separate etc. and somewhere down the line a string or globe of cells began to operate separately. For example, if the outer cells took in and shared their water, energy source, etc. with the inner ones, then the inner cells would gradually loose that ability, and perhaps due to their protected postion within the cluster, gain another different advantage for the group - example storage of the genetic material. In a sense single or groups of cells would become organelles. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #130 Complex brains. Someone writes: There is no general trend towards complex brains. I disagree. The trend is clear. All life evolves in every step they take to better moderate their source of energy, to better find it, refine it, store it, utilize it, as well as better block out non-energy, or excess energy, and excrete out waste that cannot be used as energy, or excess energy etc. There is no step in evolution - even replication (see the Catch 22 of Evolution thread) that is not a step toward better energy moderation in all living things. I encourage anyone to find any aspect of any living thing that does not help that organism better moderate or expand its energy source or didn't directly evolve from that process. The most complex organisms are those that best moderate their energy source to preserve them in good times and protect them from bad And knowing this we now know the key to life. It began as chemicals that REACTED to energy, began to moderate that energy by 1. slowing down in low energy, and 2. becoming more active in high. The rest is history. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #131 Someone asked how the following could have evolved out of the 4 options: peacock tails, antlers, most other secondary sexual characteristics, mimicry, camouflage, alarm coloration............ Here are 2 replies: Reply One: 4 options of energy moderation: > Outside the organism (take in or not take in) > 1 Move toward energy (move toward anything that helps get energy, evolved > to move toward anything that is beneficial outside of the organism > 2. Move against energy (move against excess energy, evolved to move > against anything that is harmful outside of the organism > > Inside the organism (hold in or not hold in) > 3. Take in and hold in energy ( hold in energy evolved to every aspects > of storing energy or anything beneficial to the organism > 4. Take in and excrete out energy (excrete out energy evolved to every > apsect of excreting out waste energy, evolved to excrete out any type of > waste. Note any evolutionary step that helps in more than one option is favored. Example flying helps move toward - option 1 and move against - option 2 and separate from, flee - option 4. > > All sexual characteristics are as follows: > Female (befriend and tend = option 1 and 3 = low energy) > Male (fight and flight = option 2 and 4 = high energy). > That includes male peacock tail, male antlers, male secondary sexual > characteristics. Note a general rule is the smaller male gamete always > moves out towards the larger female gamete that takes and hold in, not > the other way around. > > mimicry, camouflage, alarm coloration, are all evolved ways of disguising > the organism. IF these > characteristics are used to disguise the organism from prey (ex. white coat on a hare in winter) then they are option 4 flight. > If they are used to help the organism take in food/energy - option 1, if > they are used to help the organims store energy for lean times (wheter > within body, or nuts in a tree trunk - option 3 > > But these 4 options also works for plants, and prokaryotes too. Reply two: This time lets move back in time to one celled life, the life that dominated this planet for most of the history of life It is so much more easy to see the 4 options in one celled life. Then I can say that all life evolved out of 1 cell life, therefore every aspect of every multi-cell organism is the same as 1 celled life and evolved out of the same 4 options that operated in one celled life. A cell has a cell membrane. It lets some things into the cell. This is option 1 of the 4 options of energy moderation. 1 Take in energy. The cell membrane does not let everything into the cell. What it blocks out is option 2 of the 4 options 2. Block out energy Once inside the cell the energy can be used or stored for future use. This is option 3 of the 4 options 3. (Take in energy) and Hold in That which is in the cell and cannot be used or stored for future use is excreted out. This is option 4 4. (Take in energy) and excrete out waste. Everything else evolved out of these 4. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #132 Even if the theory works, so what? Now a first time reader may say, yes this works but it isn't biology its logic, or semantics, or philosophy. It would be like saying the organism is either in Cleveland or not in Cleveland. And once there it either stays in Cleveland or it leaves Cleveland. True but meaningless. Yet by looking at life as energy moderation, clues and solutions to real problems of evolution, biology, etc can be found. Here is a partial list: 1. How and why life began as an energy moderator instead of a replicating system Specifically the symbiotic relationship of the higher melting temp of G-C bonds versus A-U bonds. 2. The Eukaryote divide. Life shifts into partners: male/female, multi- cells, endosymbiosis, social behavior, and opponents: predator and prey. 3. Brain evolved out of digestion. Nerve net parallels alimentary tract, mouth ganglia turns into 2nd stomach, turns into brain and senses surrounding mouth, (plus on land struggle, plus predator prey struggle, plus social behavior learned behavior, etc) 4. Male, Female = opposite ends of the energy spectrum 5. Human psychological behavior connects to the 4 options - K. Horney's psychological classic "Inner Conflicts" suggests 3 main psychological problems that line up with 3 of the 4 options of energy moderation. 6. Resolving problems in humans connected with the 4 options ends a layer of diseases, plus the psychological problems outlined in K. Horney's book (see above) SUPPORT DOCUMENT #133 Hypnotized students of Darwin: Many talk as if reproduction is the key to life and energy moderation is the footnote. That is the cart before the horse, and it's no wonder no one can figure out how life began when the cart is supposed to pull the horse. EVERY ASPECT of life is energy moderation. A footnote to that statement is that replication is one way for the pre life to moderate energy. And it is one big footnote in that it led to all life. Yet all life diversified in THE WAY they moderated energy. And replication is the mechanics of change in THE WAY all life moderates energy. When we ask what is fitness, it is clear to me, it is that organism that best moderates energy ( it has nothing to do with 30 generations down the road in the future); it best takes in enough energy, stores enough energy, blocks out anything that endangers itself (Excess energy) and excretes out waste. This is what keeps it alive. Matter of fact most definitions of what life is - pretty much agree with the 4 options of energy moderation with slight differences in each authors lists. I almost believe that the high degree of education on evolutionary principle has hypnotized many here to believe that A) before the first replication all was void (because no one will talk about this twilight zone period because, I believe, Darwin's amazing and insightful theory did NOT kick in until the first replicator, so hypnotized students of Darwin say before pre-replication there was nothing - which sounds more Berekely philosophy than Scientific reasoning. B) because Darwin was right on so many things, many here think, EVERYTHING is descent with modification. I don't agree. It's energy moderation modified through descent. And there is a world of difference. People think I am confused and wonder why I don't parrot back what they have learned in school. It's because I think it is flawed and I have some serious problems with many aspects. I do not agree that replication is the key to life. It is the MECHANICS of how energy moderation is achieved. And in a strange symbiotic way it was inbred with energy moderation from day one as G-C bonds melted/replicated in the heat. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #134 FIRE ANALOGY. We have a fire, a wood-burning campfire. It is a cool night and I need a fire to keep me warm. But it is not a freezing night so at some point the fire can get too hot as well. When the fire begins to go out, I go and get a log and add it to the fire and it begins to heat up again. At some point I save some time and get many logs and put them by the fire. As wood is consumed I push in that part of the logs that aren't yet burned, and/or add the logs I've stored. (this is option 1 take in and option 3 (take in and) utilize and/or store for later) of the 4 options of energy moderation. At one point I've added too many logs and the fire is too hot. The first thing I do is stop adding logs to the fire. I block out more logs. This allows the fire to consume what it has and thus reduce the heat. I also figure out that IF I take out a burning log and toss it away, the fire isn't as hot and the temperature is more to my liking. This is option 2 block out energy, and option 4 (take in and) do not use but instead excrete out the excess/waste as not needed; of the 4 options of energy moderation. Now, remember that log we took out and tossed away? Well that started a fire of its own - the first replication. And that fire - when it got too hot threw away one of its logs and started a 3rd fire, etc. All life then either runs out of fuel and goes out, or energy is so fierce it burns it all up, or the life excretes out some fire at high energy and lives longer to do it again. Thus we have the first fire (chemicals reacting to energy evolve to chemicals that can inhibit high energy and react to times of low energy) of energy moderation that replicated a 2nd fire. Metabolism caused the first life, replication the 2nd, and 3rd, and 4th, and etc. Yet each replication had some modification. What were they modifying? The fire or the energy moderation system. Thus my definition of life, Energy moderation with modification through descent." SUPPORT DOCUMENT #135 2 examples of options 1 and 3: Scientists Discover Oldest Living Creature > By Patricia Reaney > LONDON (Reuters) - Scientists in the United States have revived a 250- > million-year-old bacteria that is believed to be the oldest living > creature ever discovered. > http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20001018/ts/bacteria_creature_dc_2.html > --Paul This is a fascinating article. One thing that I haven't talked too much about concerning my theory is the 1 and 3 options. The above suggested one example: 1. a 250 million year old bacteria stays dormant until it finds its energy requirements met. and here is another: 2. "...many smaller plants or herbs survive the harsh winters of northern climates or high altitudes by dying back to their roots and becoming dormant during the winter months. If such plants are transported to a mild climate where little or no frost occurs, they will, nevertheless, become at least partly dormant during the winter."Process of Organic Evolution" G. Stebbins. Note in this quote that the plant seems to not only slow down or become dormant in low energy, but that when moved it has the ability to moderate that dormancy somewhat in the more mild climate. In both cases, the vastly different organisms react the same way (see my Hendricks Health Theory) they slow down or go dormant in low energy and become active (and reproduce) in high. An equally important evolutionary step to inhibiting the excess heat/ temperature/energy-in, that first life did; was its ability to wait out periods of low or no energy. There are 2 notable evolutionary threads that came out of this. All life began to find ways to search out - or move toward their energy source when it was scarce, and to (depending on the way each handled it) store that energy when energy was abundant, in a form it could use in low energy when it was no longer abundant. So we have 2 main steps to first life. First to inhibit the high energy periods, and then to compensate for low energy periods - thus these are 2 more examples of: "Energy moderation with modification through descent" SUPPORT DOCUMENT #136 Asma and the theory: Response to Sue: Sue: Asthma has a genetic link. I have asthma. My mother had what was then called 'chronic bronchitis' (same thing). Her father also had it. And his uncle's civil war veteran pension listed him as asthmatic. My sister's grandson has asthma. That's FIVE generations with asthma. Just because 5 generations had asthma is not concrete proof that it is genetic. Each of those 5 generations probably shared the same mores, value systems, upbringing behavior, male/female relationships, etc. In the Hendricks Health Theory, I contend that many so called diseases or ailments that block the mouth, or nose, may have a psychological aspect to them, in that the repressed patient is passively trying to 'block out' something or someone that he cannot directly get rid of. There are many points to favor this idea and more to come. One such point is this - as life becomes much much more complex for this generation of children - perhaps facing more stress and more incoming problems that they would psychologically want to 'block out', there should and there is more cases of asthma. Also because sexual matters are still quite taboo in our society, it is more socially acceptable for males to consciously 'block out/repress' the smell of the female, though subconsciously their body smells it clearly and reacts to it by trying to 'block it out' by physical responses. In both cases the biological side of our body fights the 'infection' in this case a psychological or stress infection with the only arsenal it has. It starts up its defenses that it uses when there is a real bio threat. Example, those defenses used to block out cold germs or hay fever pollen, etc. Thus we have a biological defense attacking a stress disease. A real conflict between biological natural selection, and learned behavior natural selection. In the end the body overreacts to something that is not tangible. And this overreaction of the body may cause problems of its own. Thus we have a layer of disease caused by the body attacking a stress disease that has no biological component and the patient suffers, represses his real feelings, and in the end, can never solve his problem. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #137 Right handedness: Question: why does evolution not seem to favour the ambidextrous ? The vast majority of people seem to be right handed. It seems like a simple question, yet in my opinion, to answer it correctly requires knowing the secret of all life - here goes (and this is according to my Hendricks Health Theory) One side of our body is ruled by the opposite side of the 2 hemispheres of the brain. Like genes being both dominant and recessive, there seems to be an advantage in having a dominant hand (or complete side) and a recessive hand (or complete side)* in humans and other animals. But this then leads to the question where does the brain come from? I suggest it evolved out of digestion such that the brain is a 2nd stomach, or mouth ganglia - and note many of the sense organs surround the mouth. But let's go back further in history and we see that all life digests food or to put it in better terms, moderates its energy source by taking in more when 'hungry' and blocking out more or excreting out waste when full. Thus we are near day one of life. And my definition of life is that it, unlike non-life around it, began to inhibit high energy, AND react to low energy with evolutionary steps to move toward energy, and/or store it.This is the 4 options of energy moderation. So when you ask why right-handed you are really asking for why all these dichotomys of rightbrain/left brain, male-female, symbiotic protector/ symbiotic provider, etc. etc. And no matter the dichotomy they really are all the same in being the 2 ends of energy moderation that was in first life on day one. Now 4 billion years later we look at the variations and are rightly confused at such variety. Yet clear vision shows us they all evolved out of first life's energy moderations. *(though not proven in any way, I predict that for some reason yet to be discovered, the ears, unlike the other sense organs, are related to the hemisperes of the brain closest to them.) SUPPORT DOCUMENT #138 Holding the baby. Background: When the Isthmus of Panama closed, joining South America to North America, the world changed from its prior climate system to the current one (regular ice ages). The new salt balance under the Atlantic Ocean (which drives the Gulf Stream) changed to divert moisture from Africa to Ireland, which became a temperate rain forest. But Central Africa dried up. Apes in that region lost many of their trees. Those that remained in forested uplands became gorillas, chimps and bonobos. The ones that adapted to savanah learned to march between the remaining tree stands. The tallest ones could see predators over the tall grass, and they made these marches best remaining standing. This freed their hands to carry tools longer than apes typically do. But the best tool to carry for a long time is one you spent a long time making. And the rest is history. By, Phlip ======= http://users.deltanet.com/~tegan/home.html ======= Whatever the selection pressures (for the shift from quadrupedalism to bipedalism) they were unrelated to an increase in brain size or to tool making, both of which are associated only with hominines at least 2 Myr after upright bipedalism had evolved in the australopithecines. - Process and Pattern in Evolution C. Avers. The evolution of man's upright posture therefore preceded, and probably paved the way for, later expansions in brain size. The upright stance completely freed the hands from use in locomotion; instead they could now be used exclusively for such tasks as tool-making and weapon- throwing... In this regard it is most significant that several sites bearing australopithecine fossil also contain crude stone tools as well as the fractured skulls of baboons and other animals, indicating that man's earliest Pleistocene ancestors already were tool-makers and weapon- users in spite of the relatively small brains. - The History of Life A. McAlester. The question is this, how did walking, which preceded brain growth help or support that brain growth? Examples given above seem to be accepted: 1. Tool making 2. Weapon throwing I'd like to guess, and it's only that, at some more - with prime emphasis on the last. 3. Walking around led to being in changes of climate that added new stresses. 4. They may have been scavengers,thus had to learn both the behaviors of prey and predators that they relied on for food. 5.They too were challenged as both prey and predators which always stimulates evolutionary change. 6.When on the plains they had little to protect them, unlike social herds of 4 footed plains mammals - no horns, no similar strength, no speed, etc. Their distinguishing protection would be their brains. 7. Idea of not only weapons but, bowls made from skulls or baskets made from bird nests (tools that would be hard to identify, or even find at all) 8. Curiosity. Looking around they saw much that was new. And obviously curiosity was a positive evolutionary strength or it wouldn't be in such abundance today. But over riding all these may be 9. HOLDING THE BABY. carrying infants, soothing the infants, caressing the infant, strengthening the bond between the mother and infant, stengthening the social bonds between the baby and the tribe. It is no accident that human offspring have the longest period of growing up. It is also clear that even in today's society the mother/child bond may be the main key to every aspect of psychological and much physical health of the adult. Language probably was somehow intertwined here too. As the bond between the mother and child grew, one of the driving behaviors of the child would be to please both mother and father, thus encouraging smarter children - and more loving children - both of which would better please the parents and be selected for. And I would add that this very brief summary is only the tip of the iceberg. Holding the baby in my opinion is as equally important as any other item on the list. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #139 Evolutionary Catch-22 Natural selection cannot induce changes that IN THE FUTURE will bring benefits. The benefits have to be immediate. The point of the quote is unmistakabley clear. The benefits MUST be to that organism and it MUST be immediate. That's as clear as it can get. No animals develops half wings so thousands of generations later another can fly. Each step of the way must bring a benefit to the organism. Replication, in order to fit this most basic tenet of evolution MUST bring some benefit which indeed it did from Day one in helping to release excess energy. Examples: 1."Larger number of offspring" in no way brings IMMEDIATE BENEFITS to the replicator 2. "Greater chance of becoming a long term ancestor" in no way brings IMMEDIATE BENEFITS to the replicator. Here is the fuller quote, "The gradual increase in complexity of a photoreceptior until one day it is as awe inspiring as the human eye is indeed an acceptable evolutionary process. The organisms stretched out along this evolutionary path presumably made full use of the eye at each stage of its development. But how does one explain the evolution of a structure that is useful only when it is fully evolved? The mammalian jaw, for instance, allows much more flexibility in the way food can be processed than does the reptilian jaw from which it evolved. And yet this flexibility cannot have become apparent until the mammalian structure had completely formed. NATURAL SELECTION CANNOT INDUCE CHANGES THAT IN THE FUTURE WILL BRING BENEFITS. THE BENEFITS HAVE TO BE IMMEDIATE. So how did the mammalian jaw evolved .... Thread Of Life, The Smithsonian Looks At Evolution Roger Lewin. More explanation: Everything changes with first replication. You cannot depend on your textbook Darwin at this point, anymore than Newtonian physics work at the approach of the speed of light. This is indeed a new ballgame. The 2000-connected-bits-of-chemical reactions-in-absurdly-impossible-configurations-that-defy-any- reasonable-explanation, theory of first life, just doesn't wash. And when Darwin said, "Descent with modification" the obvious rejoinder is "Descent from what? and Why? And think of this too. IF there was some advantage to for example Father cell A replicating/dividing into 2 daughter cells A and B, wouldn't it be more likely to replicate again, and again and again? Now the textbook answer to that is yes. And one more example (though I tend to doubt that this actually happened) There is a certain point in the growth of a cell in which the volume within the cell is larger than the cell membrane can feed. The area of the cell membrane is not large enough to feed the volume of the cell within that membrane. So, like there is a glass ceiling to the size of insects (because of their breathing system), so there is to the size of a cell (though we know that there are exceptions to this - example long rod shaped cells) but back to my example. When the cell reaches its glass ceiling it is done for. But IF one cell, through natural selection evolved a way to split into 2 daughter cells the father/first daughter cell would be now half as large, and could double its size before it reached the glass ceiling. (and as a footnote there would be another daughter cell). My point is in this case replication would be a strong advantage in allowing the father cell to live on and on and as it extended it's life it would continue to replicate, thus extending the reach of its species and its chances for survival. And the bigger point is this, if you have 2 versions of how life began, Version A has a system in which replication SUPPORTS the father cell and helps it live and by living longer helps it to replicate again. And Version B has a system in which replication in no way supports the father cell and in no way helps it to live longer, and in no way improves its fitness to replicate again. Which system would more likely start life? If you agree with me that it must be A, then you'll see why I so strongly believe in my theory, Energy moderation with modification through descent. More explanation: "It should be understood that such preadapted characters were not favorably selected with a view to their possible use in some future mode of life. There is no foresight or design in the selection process. A structure does not evolve in advance of impending events. Nor do mutational changes occur in anticipation of some new environmental condition. A trait is selected only when it imparts an advantage to the organism in its immediate environment." Understanding Evolution - E Peter Volpe Now let's repeat the quote with the blanks filled in: It should be understood that REPLICATION is not favorably selected with a view to it's possible use in some future mode of life. There is no foresight or design in the selection process. REPLICATION does not evolve in advance of impending events. Nor does REPLICATION occur in anticipation of some new environmental condition. REPLICATION is selected only when it imparts an advantage to the organims in its immediate environment. More explanation I'm trying to show that replication had an advantage for the first life that replicated, that had nothing to do with the replicated copies. If I can show that even replication can only come about when it has an advantage to the organisn (or pre-organism for some) that first replicated, then when that is established I can show what that advantage was - option 4 of energy moderation. Thus first came energy moderation that led to replication as a footnote to that energy moderation. Thus my saying, "Energy moderation with modification through descent. Another example if first replicator A divides into daughter A and B, daughter A has an advantage (daughter B is a clone that has nothing to do with the immediate advantage to A). A has gone on a diet and lost 50% - which is an advantage that has nothing to do with B that floated away. It is an immediate advantage, and now when ever A gets too fat it can divide and loose 50% of its weight on the 'replication' diet. It works so well that he's the slimmest floating nucleotide in the sea! The point to my silly analogy is that the benefit to A is immediate, and has nothing to do with replication but everything to do with energy moderation. A does not care what happens to the fat he lost (B) The Evolutionary Catch 22 continues... SUPPORT DOCUMENT #140 Land ho!: Life had some severe problems to solve before it could move on land: "The problems face by early marine organisms in making the transition to land were many and formidable...land-dwellers must obtain water from rain, streams, soil, or the food they eat,...they must have tough, relatively watertight coverings, such as the waxy surface of leaves or the skin of reptiles and mammals. Land animals also require special structures for breathing the oxygen of the air rather than obsorbing oxygen from the surrounding water...On land special adaptations are required to prevent the drying out of the delicate gametes...Most land-dwelling organisms probably made the transition from the sea by way of the fresh waters of rivers and lakes...The transition from salt to fresh water...involved an almost equally serious problem - that of maintaining the balance of salts in the body fluids...fresh-water and land dwelling animals must develop special organs and expend a great deal of energy to prevent a fatal dilution of the body fluids. For this reason, even the transition from the sea to rivers and lakes presented a serious adaptive problem....Many of the major phyla have representatives adapted to fresh water. Only 4 phyla, have members that are full adapted to life on dry land: tracheophyta (all) mollusca (some snails), arthropoda (arachnids, insects,) and Chordata (reptiles, birds, mammals.) The History of Life - A. McAlester What all this suggests is that the move on to land may well have been the hardest evolutionary step of them all. And those tough steps should lead to much higher complexity. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #141 An article in the Sunday Parade magazine by David Levy said, "In its earliest days, our Moon was probably no more than 10,000 miles away. The Earth spun around faster then, in a 10 hour day.. But over time the Moon slowly veered away from Earth.." If this is indeed true then that means 10 hour days with 5 hours light, 5 hours dark; much greater tides, probably much fiercer weather, etc. What this suggests for my Hendricks Health Theory is that the process of melting the A-U nucleotides (while the G-C held to build up strands) would be speeded up with 5 hours of daylight - melting hydrogen bonds, and 5 hours of night - cooling and reforming nucleotide strands. Verrrrry interesting! SUPPORT DOCUMENT #142 When talking about religious beliefs we must be very very very very very careful . It is quite likely that some aspects of religious beliefs have indeed evolved out of the 4 options of energy moderation (Tim Tyler suggest yang as male principal option 2 and 4, and yin as female principal 1 and 3). Yet there is no way to prove this with factual evidence. So as such I need to separate this from my theory. Though I should continue to stress that the life work of Karen Horney took an important step in categorizing ALL human behavior into 3 main 'inner conflicts' that exactly match 3 of the 4 options of energy moderation. Please see that post. Now for the first time we can go from bio behavior to psychological behavior with a direct, tangible, testable theory. Beyond that, at this point, I think we should hold off except to speculate, if and only if we condition such speculation, with the provisio that it cannot be scientifically tested, therefore cannot be scientifically backed up. IF we can allow such speculation one can see that often the main division is between the king/protector/karma/vengeance (option 2 and 4) and the priest/shepherd-of-the-flock nurturer/mother/love (option 1 and 3) though this too is unsubstantiated speculation that cannot now be tested. And should probably be left to rest until my Hendricks Health theory is on firmer ground.