SUPPORT DOCUMENT #171

Kelly C. Kissane replies to my recipe of life with:
Your description, copied above, is almost a duplicate of the Polymerase
chain reaction protocol.  I give one example :

  Take DNA/PCR reagent mix in microcentrifuge tubes and place in
thermocycler.  Program thermocycler for the following :

1.   94¡C for 2 minutes (denaturing step)
2.   92¡C for 40 seconds 
3.   45¡C for 40 seconds (reannealling step)
4.   72¡C for 90 seconds  (elongation step)
5.   Repeat steps 1-4   32 times (i.e. a total of 33 cycles) 
6.   72¡C for 5 minutes 
7.   Hold at 4¡C 

I follow up with 2 questions:
Well then, you suggest that that aspect of my theory of first life is at
least conceivable, correct? The next question is this do you know of
anyone who has tried such a 'recipe' using almost pure GC nucleotides as
I suggested? If so what were the results?
Also IF you continually repeat and repeat the melt/anneal recipe, how
long a strand can you get?


SUPPORT DOCUMENT #172

An important quote on what survives.

"This is a common pattern in the history of the higher categories of
life. Usually there is an early experimental stage in which many
relatively short-lived and unsuccessful groups arise. The best adapted of
these early groups then undergo a second radiation that leads to more
successful and longer lived groups. Within the major phyla of
invertebrate animals, the Cambrian Period was the time of
experimentation, and the Early Ordovician Period the time of secondary
radiation and modernization. By later Ordovician time most of the
invertebrate classes that dominate the seas today were well established:
since that time, changes in invertebrate life have been mostly smaller
scale evolutionary radiations and extinctions WITHIN these classes.
Throughout the entire history of life, relatively few classes of
organisms have ever become extinct. Most exceptions to this
generalization are invertebrate classes that originated in Early Cambrian
time, never became very common, and were extinct by the close of the
Paleozoic Era."  The History of Life p.55 A. L. McAlester

SUPPORT DOCUMENT #173

Does anyone know which came first: mammal breast milk or
 fruit (specifically the sugar from fruit)?
Beldin:
> >> Gee maybe this one isn't quite as tough as the other. Fruit grow from
> >> flowers (using the common definition of fruit as we know them today) which
> >> are different from fruiting bodies that non-flowering plants have developed
> >> over the millenia. Fruit tempt animals to feed using their scent and
> >> sweetness to attract them and thus propagate themselves over a wide area.
> >> Since it is accepted that flowering plants evolved in the late Cretaceous
> >> period, and thus fruit would have come later, and mammals were already in
> >> existence it could therefore be assumed with some certainty that mammal
> >> breast milk came first.
> >

Which came first Fruit or Mammals Milk?
The reason I asked this was that I think this is a clue to why sugar is
sweet. What I mean is why is it we think sugar is so good and why are us
surviving humans so addicted to sweets. I tend to think that a big part
of that is this; eating sugar in fruit recreates  the breast milk
experience we have had with our mothers in that there is sugar in breast
milk. Thus fruit sugar (or any sweets) is a portable pacifier. And those
who were better bonded with their mother - better loved that sweet - were
the ones who survived. In a sense the bigger issue may be the impact of
love as evolutionary strategy. Those who bonded best with their parents,
who found ways to be loved by them (by learning, by imitating them, by
supporting them, by loving them, etc) were those most likely to survive
and want to recreate that experience by having children of their own.
It's food for thought.

Lets add another dimension. Besides
the connection between love of fruit sugar and sugar in breast milk.
There is the  evolved ability of some adults to tolerate milk and dairy
products.
Thus I suggest that that ability evolved from the desire to extend the
breast feeding of infancy into adulthood

"Almost all mammals lose the ability to digest milk sugar after infancy.
Milk sugar or lactose is still harmful to most adult humans. But large
groups of adult human milk-drinkers, including the Semitic, Uralic, and
Indo-European peoples, exist. They exist through a mutation which spread
to populations in northern Mesopotamia some 8,000 years ago. The rise of
mutant adults tolerant of milk paved the way for a livestock revolution
more profound than the overthrow of any despot: the milking of cows,
goats, and sheep, the use of draft oxen and plows, and later, the taming
of horses. Tolerating milk gave adults a source of animal protein that
did not require killing prey, and led to nutritious milk products such as
cheese, yougurt, whey , and butter.... it ameliorates vitamin D
deficiency, which causes rickets....we mention it because the mutation
that allowed some people to digest lactose after infancy was also a form
of neoteny. (Microcosmos p.212 Margulis and Sagan)

(and look how popular a combination of dairy and sugar is to humans
2 examples : ice cream,  and milk chocolate.)

Thus both the desire for sweets and the evolved lactose tolerance,
both evolved out of the mother/child bond of breast feeding.

The beta cells in the Langerhans islets produce the insulin to decrease
> the glucose level in the blood, the alpha cells produce glucagon to increase
> the sugar level, e.g. under distress, to prepare the body for runaway or
> aggressive reaction. Both hormones are important to keep the level in
> balance.

This may support my idea that 'sugar is sweet' because it recreates
some aspects of breast milk and the mother child bond. If the body reacts
to stress with higher sugar levels, then it suggests that sugar could be
subconsciously used - our craving sweets when we are stressed - to lower
stress - thus a sort of food pacifier. Yet it also suggests that the
sugar element probably preceded the mother child bond of hominids. And
that breast milk with sugar in it evolved in mothers to help eliminate
the stress in the first place. THEN we recreate it, through our cravings,
to deal with stressfull times.

SUPPORT DOCUMENT #174

The Tricky Nature of Disease:
I'd like to go in to more depth on my Hendricks Health Theory as it
relates to human physical and psychological disease, and later the
therapy that should resolve these problems.

But first I'd like to look at the tricky nature of dis-ease in humans -

both physical and psychological:
(all quotes and most facts, from Magnificent Microbes B. Dixon)

Robert Koch proved that a bacillus Mycobacterium tuberculosis was
responsible for the disease of tuberculosis.

Yet others of his time said poverty and malnutrition provided a much more
satisfying explanation for the cause of the disease, and that bracing air
and nourishing food would help repel the disease. Because in a population
where the tubercle bacillus is ubiquitous; everyone becomes infected, but
few get the disease.

A Bavarian doctor, Max von Pettenkofer, considered to be the founder of
modern ideas of hygiene, didn't accept the germ theory of disease. And
to prove it, at the age of 74, he drank several tumblerfuls of cultures
isolated from fatal cases of cholera. So did several colleagues. Some
experienced mild diarrhoea. All had enormous numbers of cholera bacilli
in there feces, but none got cholera.

There are some disease caused by vitamin deficiency: scurvy  and rickets.

Some diseases are caused by genetic problems: sickle cell anemia.

"Rene Dubos points out that the dogma (of specific cause for a disease)
has failed to account for any of the major medical problems of our times
- cancer, cardiovascular disease, and mental illness."

"Sir Macfarlane Burnet, the Australian immunologist, points out that many
and possibly all of our most lethal infectious disease are naturally
infections of other vertebrates or insects, which we have stumbled upon
by accident. Plague, rabies and yellow fever all come into this category.
Typhus fever is the classic example."

"Hans Zinsser, suggests that typhus fever in Europe originated during the
long drawn-out wars of the sixteenth century in Hungary when Christians
and Moslems alternately conquered and reconquered the country. There is
no evidence of typhus before that time, but EVERY WAR IN EUYROPE SINCE
HAS LED TO SERIOUS EPIDEMICS."  I would add that disease seems to follow
all war or major upheavals and there may be both a physical and a
psycholgocial  connection between war and disease.

"Serious polio outbreaks have been directly related to improvements in
living standards."

"During the 18th and 19th centuries, epidemics of smallpox, tuberculosis
and even measles, brought by european invaders and explorers, cruelly
decimated the Amerindian and Polynesian populations. Yet within a few
generations the mortality associated with these disease began to fall
spontaneously - without any medical or other measures being taken."

"We are undoubtedly more resistant to infectious disease when we are fit,
well nourished and contented than when hungry, exhausted and under
emotional stress." Though 'stress' is too often used as a catch all that
means 'I haven't got a clue why he's sick"

"Even in animals, 'travel fever', owing to vague infectious illness that
comes to light merely as a result of moving livestock from one
environment to another, is a well recognized phenomenon."

Psychosomatic medicine has, only recently graduated from being a nutty
fringe interest to become a serious reseach topic."

...continued in part 2

SUPPORT DOCUMENT #175

Here's some more on the very confusing nature of human phsycial and
psychological dis-ease:
(see part one, too)

"Microbes favor co-existence, not conflict. Dr Kwang Jeon's research
portrayed in vignette the emergence of symbiosis among microbes that were
formerly enemies. The 2 microbes... were a bacillus and an amoeba... The
experiments are the first to have demonstrated the conversion of a
parasite into a symbiont, living in perfect harmony with its partner,
within an observable period of time"
It seems that microbes that kill off their host, lose their home; while
those who can co-exist off their hose retain their homes and their energy
supply.

Mercury can cause poisoning in humans. So can radiation.
And sun caused skin cancers DO fall down from the sky (see my other
posts)

We're aware that diseases seem to travel through generations. The
accepted theory is that it is a genetic problem. Yet each generation is
taught the same mores and behavior that was taught to its parents. This
may be a factor for disease (both physical and psycholgical) in that
negative BEHAVIOR, not bad genes, is being passed down through the
generations thus causing  psychosomatic or stress diseases passed down
through the generations.

There have been carefully controlled hair growing experiments where even
some in the control group that received sugar pill, were able to grow
hair. It then would be legal for someone to sell M and M's as hair
growing medicine and have the scientific research to prove that it works
in some of the population!

"Resistance". One of the first things Freud found was an INCREDIBLY
strong resistance in his patients to any attempts at correcting or
understanding their behavior. It seems that the nearer you get to the
real cause of a dis-ease, the stronger the patients protective mechanisms
become, and he resists any attempts to change. The 'resistance' is so
strong that it becomes a main barrier to solving any dis-ease.

People who have certain diseases seem to share many of the same
behaviours. There seems to be a direct correlation between the 2.
Some that I've read or noted are:
(and please note if these effect you or your family you will have a
strong resistance against this information and tend to both rationally
and irrationally discredit it)
Cancer patients are very often described as stoic, or brave. Yet they
also seem to have a difficult problem of excreting out anger on a daily
basis.
Heart patients are often somewhat the reverse, often openly angry.
Backaches; seems to be connected to some who show a psychological desire
to 'get away from something'

Somewhere I have a list of ailments and their connected behaviors. And in
an interesting experiment, some patients were put under hypnosis, then
given the suggestion that the connected psychological behavior  was
becoming worse and worse. This led to a worsening of the related physical
dis-ease until the hypnotic suggestion was removed.

Sleep may be one half of the cycle of digestion. Sleep deprivation may
lead to all kinds of dis-ease, and should be considered in all cases.

Energy moderation IMO plays a key part in all disease.
I suggest that our biological nature represents one set of behavior, our
learned behavior (cultural) another. And when the 2 conflict disease and
psychological ailments are caused. (Specially in early childhood)

Summing up, disease is tricky business. And a cure for disease (including
my energy moderation therapy) must answer or explain all the above
scenarios to be considered seriously.

SUPPORT DOCUMENT #176

The Universal Language.
Here is another post concerning the evolution of disease and a
possible therapy.

	"Resistance" is a term that explains a patients resistance to change
even when that change is for the better. It covers any kind of habit
whether its a phsyical behavior or a psychological behavior. IMO there is
a good reason for this resistance to change. This behavior is behavior
learned in childhood from ones' parents. By being very difficult to
change it builds a safety net of security in the child, a solid
foundation for that life. Yet if something in that childhood went wrong
then that 'resistance' needs to be overcome.

Here is an analogy. If one wears armour during a war and the armour
itches, is it better to switch to new armour that may or may not fit
better, and in doing so be armour-less and vulnerable during the change?
The answer for most is, stick with the pain we have and don't change.
Resistance is so strong that hardly any human behavior CAN be changed. It
takes quite a struggle to even stop smoking or go on a diet (neurotic
behavior), let alone change stronger motivation (psychotic behavior).

And for the most part nothing humans have tried has altered behavior.
The strongest exception to this rule is when a person encounters extreme
pain (usually in some emergency situation) which does produce change. A
weaker exception is a change brought on by the carrot on the stick method
where a great deal of love and support helps the person change.

	Yet for the most part no matter the therapy, humans do NOT change,
or change very little due to aging and certain biological changes.
Psychoanalysis and other therapies, though important, have in the long
run done more to teach us how we behave rather than how to change
behavior. Perhaps the most dramatic therapy is mood-altering drug
therapy. Yet that, IMO is a quick fix, and the positive results melt away
as the drug dissolves.

	IMO my Hendricks Health Theory does change human behavior. And it
may be one of the first established therapies to do it.
But first I want to say why it works. It works because it deals with the
universal language of all humans:

1. ENERGY MODERATION: If my theory is correct, then all life is energy
moderators "energy moderation, with modification through descent". And as
such all physical and psychological problems are disguised problems of
energy moderation (with some exceptions - see the post on the tricky
nature of disease). The psychological problems are spelled out in the
work of Karen Horney's classic, "Inner Conflicts", and match my 4 options
of energy moderation,  (see my other posts). Each of these psychological
4 options have  related physical problems. Thus by addressing the 4 main
problems of energy moderation and changing their structure to a more
improve version, we resolve both the psychological and physical problems
connected to that option.
Specifically the person needs to adjust what is taken in or blocked out
from outside the person (the social problem - options 1 and 2)
And then the person needs to adjust what is digested and held in or
digested and excreted out as waste from inside the person ( the personal
problem - options 3 and 4)

Footnote: these can be further divided into male problem option 2 and 4,
and female problem option 1 and 3

Now that we know how the body works and why it is dis-eased, it becomes
necessary to find a therapy that overcomes the 'resistance' to change and
alters the energy moderation system set up in childhood.

This is the 2nd part of the universal language:
We learn through "REPETITION". I contend that repetition is virtually the
only way the 'subconscious' mind (that part of the mind that controls the
physical aspects of the body - heart rate, breathing, temp control, etc.)
can learn. And that to teach anything new it must be approached through
repetition of message. No one thought out how to tie their shoes and then
did it first time. We learn to tie shoes by trying and repeating and
repeating. And there is a safeguard here too. That which we hear the
most, which is most reinforced is that which we more likely believe.
(Also repetition may have led to memory, and in my opinion memory may be
the key to consciousness)
Thus to alter behavior (specifically the 4 options of energy moderation)
we must introduce repeated statements to change that behavior.

In the '20's there was a vogue for affirmations, positive statements
repeated over and over, that was begun by the Frenchman Emile Coue. IMO
he was on the right tract, yet he was voicing the wrong messages. Yes
indeed repeated statements can produce change, BUT if they are not put in
the universal language of energy moderation the subconscious mind cannot
fathom what they mean.

Thus I think its important to reduce all such affirmations to the most
simple and basic structure. Thus I would suggest affirmations that
directly relate to taking in or not taking in food, and digesting and
holding in nurturing or excrete out waste. Beyond that the subconscious
is not sophisticated enough to understand (that's why we have the
cerebrum and cerebellum)

Here is an important point that I want to add. These repeated statements
are a very light form of self hypnosis. If so then why wouldn't hypnosis
be better? Because it would give suggestions to the subconscious that
would push too much of a change all at once (see below). I would think
that something like a 1,000 repeated statements would  still be less than
one hypnotic suggestion. The slower and safer repeated statements make a
more methodical and safer change.


Before I go on I would like to add this WARNING:
Do not, do not, do not, do not ,do not, do not do not, do not, do not, do
not ,do not, do not  Do not, do not, do not, do not ,do not, do not  Do
not, do not, do not, do not ,do not, do not  Do not, do not, do not, do
not ,do not, do not  Do not, do not, do not, do not ,do not, do not  Do
not, do not, do not, do not ,do not, do not  Do not, do not, do not, do
Do not, do not, do not, do not ,do not, do not do not, do not, do not, do
not ,do not, do not  Do not, do not, do not, do not ,do not, do not  Do
not, do not, do not, do not ,do not, do not  Do not, do not, do not, do
not ,do not, do not  Do not, do not, do not, do not ,do not, do not  Do
not, do not, do not, do not ,do not, do not  Do not, do not, do not, do
 not ,do not, do not try to experiment with affirmations in changing
behavior  through the method I have advocated.

For 2 reasons: 1, it works, and 2, it works by bringing all repressed
anger and fear to the surface, and in doing so the person is flooded with
an entire lifetime of anger and fear that can be overwhelming AND any
chronic diseases or psycholgocial behavior that is connected to this
anger and fear is acerbated. Don't play with this. Don't experiment with
this. It is very dangerous!

I'll continue in the next post on the therapy.

SUPPORT DOCUMENT #177

Therapy.
	Here is a quick summary of the Hendricks Health Theory, therapy to
change human behavior. Please see post on universal language first.

Therapy:

1.Work  to safely overcome 'resistance' by explaining how the theory
works and how it alters the persons energy moderating patterns for the
better. Also explain all dangers and how they can be overcome. (Also
beware of the problem of transference)

2.Begin resolving the inner conflicts connected with the 4 options of
energy moderation.

3. Do this through a supervised use of repeated phrases said thousands
and thousands of times. To do this
safely a person would need the support of both a doctor and a
psychologist versed in the theory.

4. Work through these problems SLOWLY. I use the analogy of the story of
Cinderella. The quick change from servant girl to Queen is just as
upsetting to a person as a quick change for the worst. Change must
precede slowly to be safe. If too quickly then the change becomes
dangerous in itself.

5. At some point a population will exist that has resolved their inner
conflicts of energy moderation. They then can instill a healthier
behavior in their children that does not need fixing. Thus the key to the
therapy (for every generation but the first to resolve energy moderation
problems) is to raise children with healthy energy moderation systems and
resolve those inner conflicts - which are caused by the conflicts between
our biological nature and our learned behavior (cultural) nature.
In essence the level of diseases and ailments brought on by our quick
cultural evolution can now be solved.

SUPPORT DOCUMENT #178


3 Assorted notes:
	Here are 2 quotes that build on ideas of my theory from other posts:
(Both from Microcosmos, Margulis and Sagan) plus a note on lungfish.

1. I have suggested that adaptation to land was one of the toughest
evolutionary steps of all:

"In hindsight, the adaptation of animals to life on land can be seen as
an engineering problem of daunting proportions, comparable in complexity
to human beings living on other planets."

2. In talking of energy moderation I have suggested that much of the
discussion should cover microbial life because it covered most of life's
history:

"Eighty percent of life's history was microbial."

3. One of the basic premises of the Hendricks Health Theory is that all
life slows down and becomes dormant in low energy (and becomes active and
replicates in high)

Here is an example of life slowing down in low energy:

"When lakes and rivers seasonally dry up in Australia and Africa a
substance is produced in the brain of the lungfish that lowers its
activity as if it were hibernating. While other fish die in the muddy
river beds, lungfish of the genus Dipnoi routinely survive to live
another season."
Microcosmos, Margulis and Sagan.

SUPPORT DOCUMENT #179

Gaia and energy moderation
This post carries my ideas of energy moderation to a global scale:

"The freelance atmospheric chemist James Lovelock sees life best
represented by a self-supporting environmental system which he calls
Gaia.... Lovelock found the chemistry of the Earth's atmosphere so
persistently bizarre that it could only be attributed to the collective
properties of organisms, namely the biota, especially the
microbiota...A further enigma concerns the temperature of the Earth. The
laws of physics seem to make it inescapable that the sun's total
luminosity - that is, its output of energy as light - has increased
during the past 4 billion years, maybe as much as 50%. Yet evidence from
the fossil record indicates that the Earth's temperature has remained
relatively stable, the mean value hovering at about 22 degrees C - about
room temperature - despite the freezing temperatures expected from a puny
early sun. Not only did it appear that life has been regulating the
composition of gases on a worldwide scale, it also seemed that the
temperature of the planet itself was under some sort of continuous
control. What was this great hidden thermostat?... Lovelock theorized
that the biota - and especially the bacterial microcosm - from its
earliest appearance on the planet must have been regulating its
environment on a global scale...Over time the biota has built up
elaborate control systems of which we are only now becoming vaguely
aware. The multitude of sensory systems of living organisms, their
capacity for metabolism and exponential growth, and the extraordinary
diversity of interacting life on Earth are themselves enough to account,
in principle, for environmental modulation on a global scale"
Microcosmos, Margulis and Sagan.

IMO this quote supports my idea of life as energy moderation even to the
point of global energy moderation.
Energy moderation with modification through descent

SUPPORT DOCUMENT #180

Survival of fittest vs. Symbiosis
	Evolutionary change seems to have 2 main threads.
1. Change forced by competition from others of the same species or with
other species, or due to difficult times (the SURVIVAL of the fittest,
idea of evolution)

2. Change through symbiotic development with others of the same species
or with other species, or in times of abundance (the SYMBIOTIC method of
evolution)

I think my theory, Hendricks Health Theory, ties in both ideas and shows
that both are vital parts of evolution. And that both (like all aspects
of life) evolved out of the 4 options of energy moderation - "energy
moderation with modification through descent"

As far as I know this is the first theory that ties both together and
gives a biological basis for the evolution of both from first life.

Option 2 and 4 (block out and take in and excrete out waste to protect)
are connected to the survival side.

Option 1 and 3 (take in and take in and hold in to nurture) are connected
to the symbiotic side

LIFE AS SURVIVAL
"Life on Earth answers threats, injuries, and losses with innovations,
growth , and reproduction. The disastrous loss of needed hydrogen from
the gravitational field of the earth led to one of the greatest
evolutionary innovations of all time: the use of water in photosynthesis.
But it also led to a tremendous pollution crisis, the accumulation of
oxygen gas which was originally toxic to the vast majority of organisms
living on the planet. Nonetheless, the oxygen crisis 1,000 million years
ago prompted the evolution of respiring bacteria which used oxygen to
derive biochemical energy more efficiently than ever before. These
bacteria were symbiotic and merged with other bacteria to form eukaryotic
cells - which, becoming multicellular, evolved into fungi, plants, and
animals. The most severe mass extinctions the world has ever known at the
Permo-Triassic boundary 245 million years ago, were rapidly followed by
the rise of mammals, with their sharp eyes and large receptive brains.
The Cretaceous catatrophe, including the disappearance of the dinosaurs
66 million years ago, cleared the way for the development of the first
primates, whose intricate eye-hand coordination led to technology."
Microcosmos - Margulis and Sagan
Also supporting this view is all the work of Darwin, and others.

LIFE AS SYMBIOSIS:
See the Margulis books on Symbiosis
Also note the winners of the present era are all social species: social
insects, birds, mammals, plus flowering plants that depend on their
symbiotic relationship with insects, birds, and mammals
Also note mitochondria, chloroplasts, etc. and their symbiotic nature.

We can now see a possible way all these relate to each other and
evolved out of first life.

SUPPORT DOCUMENT #181

More: survival of the fittest vs. symbiosis:
There seems to be a classic vs. romantic type debate about what
causes evolutionary change. One group says its the survival of the
fittest while a newer group says its symbiosis and social behavior.

	In my theory I suggest that both play a part and that they represent
the opposite ends of energy use. (see my theory of the 4 options of
energy moderation)

"One group of anthropologists say that it was the weapon that made us
human. As we took stone tools in hand, we fell from animal innocence and
turned to confront nature armed with the first technology. We hurled
ourselves up into a new technological level, and everything that was left
behind was the primitive. And so, in this view, human culture is created
and determined by technology, and the most basic technology of all is the
weapon... Fortunately, there is another scientific vision of human
origins, one associated with the work of the anthropologist Glynn Isaacs.
Here the theory has it that the protohominids carried their food to a
safe shelter, and there in an act of community definition, they shared
their food. From this perspective the primary act of human culture is
food sharing. And here we can see that in the sharing of food together
we most truly perform our basic humanity."
A footnote in Microcosmos from William Irwin Thompson, "On Food Sharing,
communion, and Human Culture"

This example shows that both surviving (use of weapons = option 2 and 4
of the 4 options of energy moderation) and symbiosis (the sharing of food
= 1 and 3 of the 4 options) were aspects of evolution.

  more to come on this dichotomy of evolution idea.

SUPPORT DOCUMENT #182

Suggestion that migration  evolved the other way - from tropics north (south)

One thing that may interest others - I'd never thought of it - was this
quote of why birds fly back north in spring! Or perhaps they came from
the south in the first place.

"The fact is that during spring and summer the living is easier in the
north. Come the first warm days, hordes of insects hatch out all at once.
The days are longer than in the tropics, and so are the best hunting
times of dawn and dusk, when bird and bug alike bustle into action. With
the spring rains, uncountable earthworms squirm to the surface. When the
blueberries ripen, they ripen by the billions. When the grass goes to
seed, there are seeds everywhere. In the tropics, there is never that
much food all in one place, all at one time, and all laid out so
conveniently.
 And northlands are safe lands. Birds that breed in the tropics have to
contend with frightening numbers of egg-stealing nestling-eating snakes,
monkeys, opossums, raccoons, and kinkajous. They tend to build tiny,
hideable nests in which only a couple of eggs will fit, and still more
eggs and young are lost than in the north.
So it may be that migratory birds are not northerners. Perhaps they are
tropical species that vacation in the north where the living is easy and
babies are safe."
The Evolution Book, S. Stein p.185

SUPPORT DOCUMENT #183

Where love of music came from - a possible solution
Perhaps the love of music evolved out of the love of voice- human voices.
Perhaps music is refined voices.
One aspect that I believe may be important is the fact that voice and
eating may be connected. The first cry is for food. The cry comes out of
the same passage as food.(Note we predominantly have voice language
instead of sign language etc.) I've stressed the importance of the
mother/child bond (and beyond this and over all, the importance of energy
moderation as the key to all life) Perhaps language evolved out of some
aspect of this. And music, melody and harmony, is refined language (as
well as rhythm which may come from the heart beat). Another side question
is why can babies cry all day and not get hoarse?