SUPPORT DOCUMENT #143 For those familiar with my theory: this is a quote from a 1976 book by Bernard Dixon, that well summarizes my theory in a sentence. Page 28, he is talking about the structure of a bacteria cell. "Then there are those structures specifically helpful in sustaining the opportunistic mode of life of bacteria - the art of multiplying explosively when food is available and then lying dormant during lean times." Look carefully "the art of multiplying explosively when food is available (I suggest replication is one of many ways first life had to moderate or reduce excess energy in times of high energy) "...and then lying dormant during lean times." (I suggest all life in low energy becomes more dormant) Thus this sentence outlines my 2 ends of energy moderation (which evolved to the 4 options of energy moderation) and what I believe is the reason for life. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #144 (documents 144-148 are all related to Dawkins book "The Selfish Gene) In his book THE SELFISH GENE page 108 Richard Dawkins says "If anybody does not want to admit that parental care is an example of kin selection in action, then the onus is on him to formulate a general theory of natural selection that predicts parental altruism, but that does not predict altruism between collateral kin.' I accept that challenge: In my Hendricks Health Theory option 3 is (take in energy, digest, and hold in energy) this is one of the 2 options of energy moderation that corresponds to female. It has evolved to many many aspects of life - Female takes in energy, takes in nurturing, loves self enough to take in nurturing, feeds and nurtures self, feeds and nurtures embryo in self, feeds and nurtures newborn baby that comes out of self. Feeds, nurtures, protects child that comes out of self. And after about 4 bill years this love of child born-out-of-self is so strong that IF A and B are identical twin females. A has a child A1. The bond of protection is stronger between A and A1 (with A1 sharing only 50% of the genes) then it is with A and B (sharing 100% of the genes). (Note a key part of this may well be the length of time the embryo stays inside of the mother, and then by the side of the mother - with the longest growing up time that found in humans) SUPPORT DOCUMENT #145 Here I'd like to develop the above document further. The altruistic theory, as I understand it is this: an organism is most altruistic to that other organism that shares more of his genes than any other. This is not the case in the following 2 examples: A and A2 are identical twin sisters A marries male B and has child AB Example 1. According to the altruistic theory A shares 100% of genes with twin A2 and only 50% with her child AB. So according to the altruistic theory A should love twin more than child. This is not the case and should help disproves the altruistic theory Example 2. According to the altruistic theory A shares 50% of her genes with child AB; and B, the father, shares 50% of his genes with child AB. Therefore according to the altruistic theory both A and B should have the very same interest in child AB. This is not the case in the majority of situations. The mother-child bond is much stronger than the father child bond. Again this should help disprove the altruistic theory. Yet both examples re-enforce my Hendricks Health Theory, where I predict the mother child bond to be stronger than any other because of female = option 1 and 3 of energy moderation. Female takes in and holds in energy to nurture self/ evolves- take in and hold in energy food to nurture self/ evolves to take in and hold in anything she needs to nurture self and embryo inside self/ evolves to take in and hold in and nurture self and embryo inside self and later child born from self etc. etc. etc. Therefore my theory of energy moderation would better explain altruism than the theory above. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #146 In my reading of "The Selfish Genes" and other evolutionary books, I have come across some authors who favor the idea of life as selfish organisms (survival of the fittest), others who favor life as altruistic organisms (organisms with symbiotic relationships, or social behavior organisms). My Hendricks Health Theory suggests that life is both. And looking at the 4 options of energy moderation it is easy to see how that may work (though in differen species different sets are emphasized thus creating the great diversity of life): Option 1 take in Option 3 (take in) and hold in Both of these 2 options represent selfish behavior. They evolved from the basic first life process of taking in and holding in energy. Selfishness then is taking in and holding in - first energy - evolved to everything else that is deemed worth keeping and not letting go of. Option 2 block out Option 4 (take in) and excrete out Both of these 2 options represent altruistic behavior. They evolved from the basic first life process of blocking out and or excreting out excess or waste energy - evolved to blocking out or excreting out everything that is deemed not worth keeping or excess - thus altruistic behavior of not keeping (sharing) that which is not needed. (Though a claim could also be made that another type of love evolved out of the mother child bond in mammals as well) Note to claim one side or the other exclusively is to say that the biology of the selfish organism is to take in and hold in everything and never excrete out waste- an impossibility for any life as we know it. and to say that the biology of the altruistic organism is to block out and excrete out everything without ever holding on to the energy necessary to stay alive, is another impossibility for any life. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #147 I'm reading Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene ... as of now I'm not too impressed .. but more of that later. He had 2 quotes that help illustrate my theory that I wanted to post. Quote 1: "...there is rather little distinction between growth and non-sexual reproduction anyway, since both occur by simple mitotic cell division." In my theory option 3 is take in, digest, and hold in (growth inside the organism)and option 4 is take in, digest, and excrete out waste which includes replication -genetic waste excreted out (growth outside the organism). Therefore the only difference between growth of an organism and replication is location! - if in the organism growth- if outside the organism replication. The quote above well illustrates the concept I was trying to say. Quote 2: This quote concerns an illustration Dawkins used that is a first rate analogy for my idea of life as an energy moderator: The Watt Steam Govenor: "The Watt governor consists of a pair of balls which are whirled round by a steam engine. Each ball is on the end of a hinged arm. The faster the balls fly round, the more does centrifugal force push the arms towards a horizontal position, this tendency being resisted by gravity. The arms are connected to the steam valve feeding the engine, in such a way that the steam tends to be shut off when the arms approach the horizontal position. So, if the engine goes too fast, some of it steam will be shut off, and it will tend to slow down. If it slows down to much, more steam will automatically be fed to it by the valve, and it will speed up again." SUPPORT DOCUMENT #148 At the end of Richard Dawkins book, The Selfish Gene was his "brief manifesto,a summary of the entire selfish gene/extended phenotype view of life." I disagree with much of it. That with D: is by Dawkins, that with HHT is by me and represents the Hendricks Health Theory: D: The fundamental unit, the prime mover of all life, is the replicator. HHT: The fundamental unit, the prime mover of all life, is the energy moderator that in low energy becomes dormant and in high energy has as one of its strategies of compensating for that high energy - replication. D: No copying process is perfect, ...(some) varieties happen to find themselves in possession of new tricks; they turn out to be even better self-replicators than their predecessors... HHT: No copying process is perfect ... (some) varieties happen to find themselves in possession of new tricks; they turn out to be even better energy moderators with better strategies to compensate for times of both low energy and high energy (one of which in high energy is replication) - than their predecessors. D: It requires a deliberate mental effort to turn biology the right way up again, and remind ourselves that the replicators come first, in importance as well as in history. HHT: It requires a deliberate mental effort to turn biology the right way up again, and remind ourselves that the energy moderators come first, (that which is being replicated) in importance as well as in history. (Dawkins quotes from pages 264-265) SUPPORT DOCUMENT #149 One complaint that I get about my Hendricks Health Theory is - yes it seems to be true, but so what. Some of the main points are it answers: why life, how life began, why the dichotomys of male,female, etc: how mind evolved out of digestion, how psychological behavior evolved, a cure for a layer of diseases caused by the conflict between bio evolved behavior and learned (cultural) evolved behavior (see example below), why we sleep, etc. But it also interprets paintings! In western Art there is a theme in painting that illustrates the story of St. George slaying the dragon as a princess watches. Yet a schooling in my theory suggests a subconscious meaning to the theme. Option 2 of energy moderation is block out excess energy, evolved to block out any threat to the organism evolved to the male behavior of violence (violence to help block out) etc. Option 4 is excrete out waste, or attack waste inside the body and excrete it out. Both 2 and 4 represent 'male'. In the case of St George and the Dragon, the painting is an analogy for males (St George) trying to battle/ sublimate - or over power or repress their natural biological sexual urges (the dragon - the submerged sexual desire), while the female (the princess) watches. The question then is who wins, the learned behavior of man to repress his sexual urges (learned behavior), or the pure 'animal' biological desire to mate with the woman (biological behavior). Even paintings are energy moderation SUPPORT DOCUMENT #150 This is in reply to a suggestion that there was something outside of physics: I don't think so. This is the old argument that there is something in organic chemistry that is different from regular chemistry. Or that humans are sooooo much better than chimps, or that human behavior is somehow superior and unrelated to animal behavior, or that the sun and heavens revolve around the earth. Or that life has special atoms that somehow act differently from other common run-of-the-mill atoms. If the history of science can be summed up in one sentence it is the constance breaking down of the ego of man in relation to the universe around him. My theory goes one step further than Darwin. He said humans descended from the same ancestors as apes AND that all life evolved out of earlier life. The 1800's couldn't handle that. I'm saying a. life and non life are related, and b. that the mind/body connection is bio too. I just hope it won't take a century to get that through. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #151 Here's an imaginary Q and A I call the 'loopy loop'. Basic Premise. Replication is the key to life. Q. What is being replicated? A. First life Q. What is first life? A. The first replicators But Q. What is being replicated? A. First life Q. What is first life? A. The first replicators But Q. What is being replicated? A. First life Q. What is first life? A. The first replicators But Q. What is being replicated? A. First life Q. What is first life? A. The first replicators (repeat endlessly) ... I hear this a lot. I don't think this is good science. For me it's a 'loopy loop'! I posted this loopy loop, because many of those presented with my theory of energy moderation said it couldn't be true because ... blah, blah, loopy loop. My point was to show how absurd it is to center on replicators when you have nothing to replicate. First you get the noun then the verb! SUPPORT DOCUMENT #152 In Richard Dawkins book "The Selfish Gene" page 304, he uses the phrase "'absurdly exaggerated male ornaments".(Example tails of the male birds of paradise) This would support one aspect of my theory of energy moderation. I suggested that males and females represent the 2 ends of energy use. Females the low end, males the high end. That would suggest that only males have the excess energy to evolve absurdly exaggerated male ornaments. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #153 Criticism of my presentation Instead of trying to convince people that your theory is the 'one true > causal understanding of life' try 'an alternative descriptive model' and > you will find people (1) in pragmatic terms more receptive to it and (2) > more likely to apply reasonable confirmation criteria to it. > -james platts-mills Points taken. I will be more careful (I used to be worse) Though no grounds for excuses, in my defense I am VERY excited about many aspects of what my theory will reveal. It (though most will disagree) is like having E=MC2 on a page in front of me and it's time to get the word out. I certainly agree my approach is more Wallace than Darwin. And it should be noted, any truth in it is completely built on the work of .... well just about everyone that came before it. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #154 Effects of the cold I have suggested in my theory that life may have begun as the sun melted/denatured certain nucleotide strands (the easier to melt 2 hydrogen bonds of A-U versus the harder to melt 3 hydrogen bonds of G-C), then they reformed and built complexity as the sun set and the night chilled, with, gradually through time, enzymes taking over the job of the sun and breaking the hydrogen bonds (unzipping the DNA strand) I suggested that with the Moon closer the days would have been shorter, and this too would have speeded up the process. Now yet another aspect may have played a part speeding up the process even further: "When dry amino acids are heated at 60 C for a few hours in the presence of high-energy polphosphates, proteins containing as many as 200 amino acids are formed. On the primeval Earth, amino acids in solution could have been washed up on solid surfaces, evaporated to dryness, and been polymerized by heat. Monomers in aqueous solution MIGHT ALSO BE CONCENTRATED BY FREEZING, AND LATER HEATING OF THE CONCENTRATES IN ICE CRYSTALS WOULD FAVOR POLYMERIZATION. Cycles of dry and wet, or of COLD AND HEAT, can therefore lead to the removal of water and the polymerization of the concentrated monomer precursors." Process and Pattern in Evolution, C. Avers; p.54 What this suggests to me is that not only did the day/night cycle of hot and cold, fuel the first steps of life, but that the summer winter cycle may have played a part as well thus bringing another aspect to how first life began. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #155 10 hour day: 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.." Does anyone have any supporting evidence for these facts? The moon has indeed receeded from the earth and the earth's rotation has slowed (see the following URLs), though they don't give estimates of the original day times or earth-moon distance. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/coral.html CK (newsgroup sci.bio evolution) SUPPORT DOCUMENT #156 RNA "A fresh perspective on the origin of life has been provided by recent experimental studies of RNA, which in specific instances may have catalytic properties as well as its known capacity for replication."Process and Pattern in Evolution, C. Avers, p. 70. This perspective has led to the ideas called the RNA world, the world that existed before first life. Yet I want to ask another question about RNA. How has it evolved? I'd like to suggest a few ideas: 1. RNA preceded DNA and by itself did the job DNA does now. (I couldn't find this quote when I wrote this, but I have since:"The RNA's of some viruses have properties in common with DNA, includinga double helical structure and a critical melting temperature."Britannica.com) 2. RNA is now usually 1 strand. Perhaps at first life it (like present day DNA) was 2 stranded and it lost that attribute as DNA took over that part of replication 3. Today there are 3 forms of RNA. 2 of those are transfer RNA, tRNA, that looks somewhat like a clover leaf; and messenger RNA, mRNA, that looks somewhat like a railroad track. In replication they connect amino acids together somewhat like a lock mRNA and a key tRNA. I contend that they have evolved to this state with each evolving to a shape that better suited replication, but both evolved out of an earlier similar state. Therefore I suggest that both mRNA and tRNA evolved from shapes that were identical and only billions of years of evolution did they evolve to their present day individual shapes that so well complement each other. 4. RNA as it gets longer, begins to fold around itself. This natural action may have led to more protection from melting/denaturing for the RNA and helped it build longer lengths - thus more complexity. "In the years since Miller and Urey conducted their pioneering studies, a large body of experimental evidence has been obtained by Cyril Ponnamperuma, Leslie Orgel, Sidney Fox, and others, showing that virtually all the kinds of biologically important molecultes can be synthesized abiotically." (same as above p. 52) I suggest that life first built nucleotides out of this soup, that the denaturing/melting of these (in the way I have suggested in other posts) led to the RNA world that led to the DNA/RNA we have now. (One person suggested the cell had to come first) This could be right provided all this took place inside cells. I'm not so sure that cells were there yet. I tend to think they came later. Most cell walls as I understand them, are protein (with fat that could have latched on later). Yet RNA makes protein. It also makes a loooooonnnnnnng strand that likes to curve into a ball a lot like a ball of string. And if the cell wall was a protein strand that evolved out of RNA we might expect the end of it to be genetic material and ,if I'm correct the genes of prokaryotes are attached to the cell wall. It then is POSSIBLE, though not proven, that the protein cell wall could have evolved later in the natural selection of RNA strands - which I contend evolved out of the natural selection of G-C bonds. RNA and right handedness: This text quote "DNA does not always have to be right-handed" page 143, Variety of DNA Structures - Basic Genetics Weaver & Hedrick. If DNA can be either right or left, then RNA that preceded it could also be either right or left. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #157 Fighting diffusion: In general molecules that are dissolved in a solvent quickly become > evenly distributed in the solvent through the action of diffusion. This > occurs as long as the system is liquid and is as effective in liquid > helium as in liquid iron but with different molecules of course. So any > prebiotic replicators must have overcome this obstacle to self > organisation. I have a theory as to how they did. I think a G-C nucleotide world preceded the RNA world that preceded life. Here's how G-C could be clumped together through natural selection. Analogy, you drag a magnet across a pond and metal sticks to it. Now take a primordial soup that contains nucleotides made up of mostly GC (made up of amino acids such as alanine, arginine, glycine, and proline). Any bonding of G-C nucleotides will melt/denature at the melting temp. of G-C - yet with 3 hydrogen bonds (A-U have 2 and melt sooner) it takes a lot of heat. Let's say that the temp. is just so and it melts the other nucleotides but not the 'hard to melt' G-C. Now temperature begins to cool (it is cyclic on new earth - Day and Night, Summer and Winter, etc.) At 25C below the melting temp of G-C any lose G or C nucleotides would begin to anneal or combine with other GC nucleotides. In a sense it would be trolling through the tide-driven water picking up loose other G-C nucleotides. Then it heats up again and the G-C melts (well some of it anyway - the longer the strand the less of it that melts) and we repeat the melting/annealing process with this difference each time we do a cycle the G-C grows longer, more complex, and harder to melt, yet it also is easier to connect with other G-C that are lose in our soup. I think that would do it. And because G-C has a symbiotic relationship with A-U (in RNA), possibly the A-U nucleotides clumped together and connected up with the G-C too. Thus sooner or later our G-C world (with some A-U) grew to RNA, enzymes, etc. and the melting/denatruing process shifted from a Sun/heat driven energy forcer, to an enzyme that first life now controlled. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #158 Is there enough information now to determine first life: If my theory is correct, we have everything we need. (Recall Occam's razor - When you are confronted with several possible explanations for a phenomenon, you should choose the simplest)). We have water, a Moon that stripped away some of the atmosphere (unlike no-moon, hothouse Venus) AND churns up the sea with tides. We have primordial soup. We have heat acting on primordial soup. Out of it comes a G-C world of melting strands of nucleotides. They clump together and in first REACTING to heat they melt and divide, later - through natural selection they code for enzymes that MODERATE this heat at both the high end (don't burn up) and low end (become dormant to survive). Thus in a way that is profound in its simplicity (like a double helix) we have metabolism (chemicals reacting to heat) and replication (chemicals/nucleotides reacting to heat by dividing into 2 strands). Ba ba bing! SUPPORT DOCUMENT #159 Temperature at first life: Here's more info and support for my theory on how life may have begun from "Basic Genetics" Weaver and Hedrick This post looks at bonds melting. The next, on them annealing. "When the temperature of a DNA solution rises high enough, the forces that hold the 2 strands together weaken and finally break. When this happens, the 2 strands come apart in a process known as DNA denaturation or DNA melting. The temp. at which the DNA strands are half denatured is called the melting temperature." For those not familiar with my theory please see below. I contend (as do others) that the above works for RNA as well "The GC content of a DNA has a significant effect on its melting temp.. In fact ... the higher a DNA's GC content, the higher its melting temp. Why should this be? Recall that one of the forces holding the 2 strands of DNA together is hydrogen bonding. ... G-C pairs form 3 hydro bonds, whereas A-T pairs have only 2. It stands to reason, then, that two strands of DNA rich in GC will hold to one another more tightly than those of AT rich DNA" Again the same is true for RNA. I suggest that natural selection melted all the nucleotides except those that could survive that heat - GC and sometimes its symbiotic partner A-U. The text goes on to say that GC content of DNA can vary from about 25% to about 75% and that that can have a strong effect on the physical properties of DNA. In thermophiles the GC content is extremely high. This (and much more of my theory) suggests great heat during first life. Heat strong enough to almost and/ or sometimes melt virtually pure GC strands of pre-RNA nucleotides. "Heating is not the only way to denature DNA. Organic solvents such as dimethyl sulfoxide and formamide disrupt the hydrogen bonding between DNA strands and thereby promote denaturation. Lowering the salt concentration of the DNA solution also aids denaturation by removing the ions that shield the negative charges on the 2 strands from one another. At low ionic strength, the mutually repulsive forces of these negative charges are strong enough to denature the DNA at a relatively low temperature." What all this suggests is possible clues to how the sun melting nuclotides MAY have evolved to some sort of enzyme (perhaps RNA itself) to unzip/melt the nucleotides as happens in replication in DNA today Somehow this sun melting all nucleotides, with the G-C surviving to clump together, grow in length and complexity (while replicating/denaturing under the sun) - led to an RNA world replicating as it moderates energy - led to cell life replicating as it moderates energy More support for my theory . Quotes from Basic Genetics by Weaver& Hedrick Annealing - bonding back together. "Once the 2 strands of DNA separate, they can, under the proper conditions, come back together again. This is called annealing or renaturation. Several factors contribute to renaturation efficiency. 3 of the most important are: 1 Temperature. The best temperature for renaturation of a DNA is about 25 C below its melting temp. This temp. is low enough that it does not promote denaturation, but high enough to allow rapid diffusion and weaken the transient bonding between mismatched sequences and short intrastrand base paired regions. This suggests that rapid cooling following denaturation would frustrate renaturation. Indeed, a common procedure to ensure that denatured DNa stays denatured is to plunge the hot DNA solution into ice. - called quenching." IF my theory is correct then we begin to have clues to the temperature of earth during the forming of first life = the G-C world with temperatures reaching as high or higher than the melting temp of pure G-C nucleotide stands. Then cooling down SLOWLY (as night would cool the earth) at least 25 C lower.( We may even be able someday, to spot the latitude of earth that best supplies this temperature variation IF more of the conditions of earth are known) "DNA concentration. The concentration of DNA in the solution is also important. Within reasonable limits, the higher the concentration, the more likely it is that 2 complementary strand will encounter each other within a given time. In other words, the higher the concentration, the faster the annealing." I have suggested that natural selection would indeed clump together more and more purer GC nucleotides thus allowing for more annealing and more of the nucleotides to connect thus strengthening and lengthening the strand (Purer G-C would more likely find a complementary C-G on the other strands) "Renaturation time. Obviously the longer the time allowed for annealing, the more annealing will occur." This would suggest that the longer the period between the nucleotides melting under the sun, the more likely they would bond together and build. Thus the strands with higher melting temps (high GC) would less likely melt thus more likely have time to bond together. IF my theory is correct and IF we know the melting temp of a small strand of pure GC nucleotide, THEN we can begin to determine very definite boundaries for the temperature of first life. Pretty cool huh! SUPPORT DOCUMENT #160 Here is a possible temperature chart for first life and first life conditions on earth. Top to bottom = most hot down to most cool: Temperature Zones: 1. Hottest temp. Melts ALL hydrogen bonds of nucleotides 2. Temperature at which 3 hydrogen bonds melt or denature (G-C bonds) 3. Temperature lower than that which melts 3 hydrogen bonds, but higher than that that melts 2 hydrogen bonds. 4. Temperature at which 2 hydrogen bonds melt or denature (A-U bonds) 5. Temperature lower than that necessary to melt either 2 or 3 hydrogen bonds. I suggest first life temperature wavered across these zones. At certain times all hydrogen bonds would melt (the first RNA division). At certain times the A-U bonds would melt but the G-C would hold. At certain times neither bond would melt. All of this would allow for nucleotides to clump together into more and more complexity in low energy and melt/divide/ replicate-into-2-halves-like-DNA-does-now in high temp.. Later life would evolve enzymes that would take the place of this natural source of nucleotide bond melting and then, we are well on our way to the RNA world - then later first life. These fluctuations in temperature due to changing conditions on earth - the short day/night cycle (estimated by one scientist at 10 hours each) the changing temperatures of summer and winter, etc. Someone adds this information: When we calculate the melting > point of a DNA/RNA duplex for PCR reactions, we figure that the longer > the molecule (assuming perfect matching) the higher the melting > temperature. So (these numbers are pretty much imaginary) , a 20-mer of > G-C may melt at 55 degrees Celsius, while a 20-mer of A-T may melt at 50 > degrees. HOwever, a 30-mer of A-T may melt at 55. So, there isn't a > clear distinction between the A-T melting temp and the G-C melting > temp...the bonds just contribute to the melting temp of the entire molecule. Ah, but I'm suggesting conditions at first life. IF the nucleotide strand was ALL G-C (and Miller's first amino acids were almost all amino acids coded by G-C with very few A-U. (And I've suggested how natural selection would congregate G-C nucleotides) then that strand would not melt/ replicate/denature except in extremely hot conditions - whereas all other nucleotides would - including A-U. So the first very short strands of G-C only nucleotides would have a higher likelyhood to survive such sun heating/dividing/denaturing/melting than other nucleotides - thus building up complexity which - as you suggested - would make it even HARDER to melt. The A-U somehow enters these strands and low and behold those places are the first to be melted. So we would expect stop and start codons to be heavily A-U - and they are. Now the sun melts nucleotides that only melt/divide at the A-U points, and as you said, each day they get longer (in low temp) they become harder to melt/ denature/replicate and more likely to build up complexity that leads to enzymes, proteins, etc. Thus we have a G-C world, before the RNA world, before the first life world. I tend to think you know more of the facts of this, while I am more theory. But wouldn't, couldn't, this be possible? Refining the chart IF my theory is correct (please see 7 free txt files) THEN we may begin to put boundaries on the temperature of first life. Our one constant is the melting temperature of a short strand of G-C nucleotide. X = melting temp of short strand of GC nucleotide X-25C is the ideal temperature for a melted GC nucleotide to come back together. Also note that the renaturation would NOT work if the cooling down to X-25C was too fast. Thus whatever cycle of heat causes this, must change gradually (I'm guessing it's the day/night cycle) The high temperature would have to be - at sometimes during the day(?) high enough to melt the GC strand = temp. greater than X IF the GC strand has a few AU bonds then they would melt at a temperature = lower than X but probably higher than X -25. Thus during some temperatures only the AU bonds would melt thus allowing the pure GC to survive and perhaps at some point to anneal/renature/come back together with other surviving GC strands. Thus the GC could, through natural selection survive, and prosper, while other nucleotide bonds melt away. And with just a pinch of AU in the mix, the GC world could code for great complexity (and begin to moderate energy - one way of which is to replicate/melt on) Enough for now, SUPPORT DOCUMENT #161 Lab Life - recipe Here's a recipe for lab life that starts with primordial soup, goes through a G-C world and approaches RNA,enzymes, proteins, etc. I'm theorizing a very controlled experiment with ideal conditions to see if it can be done. Basics to start with: 1. I suggest a GC world preceded the RNA world that preceded life. 2. GC nucleotides were present in the primordial soup 3. GC nucleotides, through natural selection, congregated together. 4 X = the melting temp of a SMALL sting of GC nucleotides (the temp. at which the 2 strands divide/melt 5 Longer strands only unzip part of their hydrogen bonds at the X temp. (specifically at the ends, or at the AU juntures.) Set up. Get a container of non-life contaminated primordial soup with these specifics: water, assorted minerals, but mostly GC nucleotides (ex. those made up exclusively of these amino acids: alanine, arginine, glycine, proline) + some (but not many) AU nucleotides. And finally a generous dollop of serendipity. Temperature range. The soup should be subjected to a temperature cycle that heats it up to X, the point the GC melt, then slowly cool until 25C below X, or the specific point the strands anneal or rebond. Directions: Heat the soup to X, the point at which all nucleotides are single strands. Slowly cool 25C below X, or until all or many of the GC nucleotides anneal or connect together. Then re-heat up to X, that is until the smaller GC double strands melt but the larger ones just unzip at their ends. Then re-cool to 25C, or until the larger unzipped strands connect, forming double strands with the loose GC floating around (and re connect with their divided pairs. Then re-heat and repeat. Each time the double stranded GC string (with perhaps some AU joining in) should collect more lose strands, grow longer, and being longer become more difficult to divide at the temp. of X. At some point we should have enough complexity in the naturally selected GC double strands to begin coding for those things needed for life: RNA, enzymes, proteins, etc. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #162 GC world "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 two strands that were paired before denaturation." General Genetics, Snyder, Freifelder, Hartl, lp. 170 I have suggested that a GC world preceded the RNA world, and that the GC would, through natural selection (melting and then annealing) begin to code for more and more complex strands. The above quote supports that idea though it is talking of DNA instead of RNA. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #163 GC high in RNA > http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/bioinfor.htm#Neutralism This website confirms that G-C content is often high in RNA. " This has been confirmed by Galtier and Lobry (1997), who propose, quite plausibly, that the increase in G+C content of rRNA is required to stabilize stem-loop structures under hyperthermic conditions." (quoted from the url above) SUPPORT DOCUMENT #164 High energy and replication: In my Hendricks Health Theory I have suggested that all life is energy moderation with modification through descent. Probably the key way any pre-life moderated energy was to replicate in excess or too high energy. These quotes from a 1976(!) book,Magnificent Microbes, Bernard Dixon; help to explain my idea: "The volume of an object increases more rapidly than its surface area...the smaller an object becomes, the greater, proportionally, is its surface area compared with its volume...Because the foods necessary for a cell to grow, and conversely its waste products, must pass through the membrane surrounding the cell, there is clearly a substantial advantage in smallness.... (now here's the important lines) ...as a tiny cell grows in volume, there comes a point where the relatively declining surface area cannot accommodate a sufficiently rapid interchange of food and wastes. The initial, favorable relationship between surface and contents must therefore be renewed. Bacteria accomplish this by THE CELL DIVIDING INTO TWO SMALLER DAUGHTER CELLS. Yeast , on the other hand, multiply by budding." Both forms of replication (cell division, and budding) then serve to regulate energy. Specifically excrete out excess energy. And both forms of replication evolved as ways of moderating excess energy (on the othe end all life slows down or becomes dormant in low energy) A footnote. If this is true, then note this quote, "The duration of the different stages (in mitosis) varies considerably depending upon the organism, cell type TEMPERATURE, and other factors. (Basic Genetics, p76 Weaver & Hedrick). If my theory is correct, then it would suggest that AN INCREASE in temperature would SPEED UP mitosis (and or the time it takes before the organism divides). And lowering the temperature would slow this process down Anyone know the facts on that last supposition? SUPPORT DOCUMENT #165 Energy moderation may have evolved from regulator genes. Concurrently with the post of Tim Tyler, asking how does life regulate energy in my Hendricks Health Theory (energy moderation with modification through descent), I was reading in "Magnificent Microbes", Bernard Dixon; about the work of Francois Jacob, Jacques Monod and Andre Lwoff They asked the question "Given an adequate supply of food materials (energy in my theory) what prevents cells from running continuously at full throttle.?" "Their physical structure, particularly their selective membrane, imposes obvious constraints, but there is evidence of extremely delicate and flexible regulation of metabolism that cannot be explained on this basis" What they discovered were genes that regulate genes! "We now know that many microbial enzymes are controlled by either induction or repression. Inducible enzymes are principally those that bacteria require occasionally to break down sugars and other foodstuffs...this arrangement means that bacteria do not squander their materials or energy in synthesizing enzymes when they are not required... Repression is the reverse of induction. Here enzyme synthesis is inhibited, usually by the end-product of the metabolic pathway...as soon as any of the metabolic production lines in the cell begins to exceed its ideal productivity rate, every stage in the process is retarded simultaneously." Now here is what I found important: "In addition to genes that determine synthesis of enzymes and other proteins, there are regulator genes whose job it is to switch the other sort on and off. In the case of repression the genes responsible for the enzymes of a particular metabolic pathway are clustered together on the DNA strands. Alongside is the regulator gene, which produces a repressor capable of switching off the cluster of genes. A similar scheme controls enzyme induction." (The scientists won the '65 Nobel for their work) "...the emerging picture of metabolic regulation has far wider relevance than just to micro-organisms. Essentially similar mechanisms also control enzyme production in human and other animal cells. They are not only responsible for ordering metabolism in mature cells. They also play a part in directing the development of animals and plants from egg and seed to maturity." I suggest that in first life the above was true but with these changes. The genes were G-C nucleotides. They probably were not in a cell but free floating, they probably built towards RNA (instead of DNA). Also in the last paragraph quoted where it says 'play a part' I would change to it is the cause of all life. etc. Thus I suggest that pre-life shifted from chemicals reacting to energy to G-C nucleotides (with some A-U) that naturally selected/coded some type of regulator genes that first began to moderate excess energy (turn off the excess energy - stop the 'running at full throttle') SUPPORT DOCUMENT #166 Prolific first life: "The regulatory systems of prokaryotes and eukaryotes are somewhat different from each other. Prokaryotes are generally free-living unicellular organisms that grow and divide indefinitely as long as environmental conditions are suitable and the supply of nutrients is adequate. Thus their regulatory systems are geared to provide the maximum growth rate in a particular environment, except when such growth would be detrimental. This strategy seems to apply to the free living unicells such as yeast, algae, and protozoa, though less information is available about these organisms than for bacteria." General Genetics Synder, Freifelder, Hartl, p. 393 This suggests that though there may be many advantages to the bacteria, etc. for this evolutionary tactic; one aspect of this may have been the following: First life may have had limited ability to regulate energy moderation at the high end. And as long as energy was available they used it without much restraint. This would suggest a few things: a. life at first was active and bountiful and at 'full throttle' (and as an evolutionary tactic this was great serendipity) b. It may be possible at some future date to remove the gene inhibitors of bacteria so that they continuously produce needed enzymes. In a sense humans could turn them into perpetual machines that never stop (as long as energy is available). Or perhaps this is already being done. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #167 3 updates on assorted posts: I had suggested that all bacteria are in a sense one species in that they change genetic info, and that it is reasonable to call eukaryotes the 2nd species. A quote to support that: "all the world's bacteria essentially have access to a single gene pool and hence to the adaptive mechanisms of the entire bacterial kingdom." p. 18 I had suggested that my simple theory on life as energy moderation was probably more correct than those that were ultra complicated. A related quote: "We cannot fathom the marvellous complexity of an organic being; but on the hypothesis here advanced this complexity is much increased." Charles Darwin p.20 Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan in their book Microcosmos (all quotes in this post from that book) on page 17 say, "Life did not take over the globe by combat, but by networking." I answer that with a cryptic and succinct - haiku like, with many overtones - "Yes and no." SUPPORT DOCUMENT #168 At the low energy end: I've suggested that life is energy moderators. When energy is high the organism is active and replicates. When energy is low it becomes dormant. Also note that slow or low energy use, seems to prolong the life of that organism. Look at how slow Bristlecone pines grow ( the longest living organism on earth) also the slow moving, long living, giant tortoises, and even bacteria spores. "In only one case in bacteria, namely, in spores, is expression of most genes totally turned off." General Genetics, Snyder,Freifelder, Hartl, p.394 And speaking of spores, they represent my theory of life as energy moderation in a nutshell (so to speak) " The development of ordinary cells of Bacillus and related bacteria into the dense and resistant spores that allow them to hold out during bad times (option 1 and 3) - and conversely the germination of spores when the environment becomes more congenial" (option 2 and 4 of energy moderation)... Magnificent Microbes, B. Dixon , p. 190. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #169 Wall around the eukaryote nucleus - first thoughts. Now as to eukaryotes and sex. I'd like to suggest something. "It seems likely that from a very early stage of evolution, microbes indulged in a primitive form of sex. This was not the sex that evolved far later in animals and plants, involving the union of specialised sex cells. Rather it was exchange of genetic material between different species of bacteria... This wholesale movement of genes from one cell to another does not happen in eukaryotes, where genes are wrapped up in chromosomes." The Thread of Life S. Aldridge. In eukaryotes we have genes behind a protective wall. In prokaryotes they are not protected. I'm guessing that this is a major clue to how sex developed as it did. With bacteria we have a sort of 1 species in which all members can possibly exchange genetic material with any other. In eukaryote there is an evolved protection from that (the wall around the nucleus) as if to suggest a way to limit what organism can exchange genetic material with the eukaryote. And sure enough sexual reproduction begins. In a sense we could call eukaryotes the 2nd species. More thoughts: I now tend to think that the reason for the eukaryotic cell wall is that there had come a time when bacteria conjugation was getting out of hand and to stop it (genetic material being injected into the cell and taking over) the eukaryote built a defensive wall around its genome. And to go further, perhaps the beginning of sexual reproduction in eukaryotes was an outgrowth of that defensive wall strategy. SUPPORT DOCUMENT #170 My theory and refrigerators Tim Tyler: ISTM that fridges, toasters, power tools, TVs, tannsformers, and > computers also "moderate energy". > Isn't this a description of anything that requires a power source to > operate, and has some internal negative feedback? Yes - though none of these replicate in high energy. It might be interesting to note this - humans paint and sculpt other humans and the people all end up looking a bit like the painter or sculptor. Fiction characters act like the writer that's forming that character. Humans devise machines that subconsciously are human like (look at the first robots). I tend to think that the humans that made these were subconsciously recreating human-like, or bio-like behavior. I've given an example of 'steam engine regulators' that are virtually a visual demonstration of my theory of energy moderation.