🚀 go-pugleaf

(from the Musea site)


HENDRICKS HEALTH THEORY

by Tom Hendricks
copyright Tom Hendricks 2001

DEAR READER: Here are assorted notes that  1. Summarize my health 
theory, and 2. add evidence to support it. Thanks to Josh Hayes for 
posting it. Any questions or comments please e-mail me at Tom Hendricks 
112374.474@compuserve.com.

(An update , February 2001. A revised summary of my theory is at the 
opening of text #10. I made all these text files at the same time as I 
was working out some of the details of my theory. Therefore some of the 
earlier support documents are out of date. Specifically the support 
documents that mention enzymes up to #24 (1,9,14), are out of date. 
Please skip them. In most ways the later support documents are  closer 
to the theory  that has evolved since I began these texts. There's a lot 
of discoveries coming in once you accept life as an energy moderator! 
I've also modified many of my ideas, as new information has come in from 
discussions about my theory on the sci.bio.evolution newsgroup. Also 
please bear with the jumpiness of these support documents. I shift from 
one topic to another. You may want to read from the back to the front to 
start with the latest versions. Thanks, enjoy reading, and let me hear 
your comments, Tom Hendricks)



SUMMARY DOCUMENT:

Here's a summary of my Hendricks Health theory. If correct it answers:
how and why life began, how and why the variety of life, and how mind and
emotions evolved.

The summary is new and large.I am presenting it from the general to the
specific. It is somewhat like a collection of bones that is dug up and
you try to flesh out what kind of creature it was. In my case I will try
to present my general theory and then add details as I go.
Some have complained about a lack of evidence. I am not sure what
evidence can be expected at this early stage. I will present
observations, interpretation of facts already known, and ideas on
experiments etc.

First the basic principals:
A.All organisms require a source of energy:

B. Every aspect of every organism is fueled by that source of energy.
Every aspect of every organism evolved from that energy moderation.

C. There are 4 and only 4 ways for an organism to use that source of
energy, (or react to anything in its environment). These are the 4
Options
They are to take it in or not take it in:
1. Take In
2. Block Out
And IF taken in to 'digest' it and keep it in or excrete it out
3. TAKE IN and Hold In
4. TAKE IN and Excrete Out

Overview of the theory:
1. All life is energy moderators


(Note, #2 later revised )
2. First life began in 2 stages. The first is a catalyst/enzyme-like
stage. And like a catalyst, first life took in substances, acted upon
them and excreted out another product. At first, life was - like a
catalyst- unchanged. But at some point the substances that came in were
an energy source for this first catalyst. This evolved to the 4 options
of energy moderation - life

3. The second stage of life is replication. At some point first life
excreted out/ broke off, another product - waste out, that contained 
enough genetic
material for this first born to keep living. One reason replication was
so successful was that it allowed the
parent first catalyst to live on. Replication may have been an
evolutionary step to allow the parent to live longer.

4. There are 2 stages of all life. They mimic a catalyst/enzyme. They are
either inactive (no energy to moderate) or active (energy to moderate).
The inactive energy state is seen in such examples as winter, or night,
when most organisms hibernate, sleep, or shut down.  The active energy
state is seen in such examples as spring, or day when most organisms are
most active.

5.The 4 options of energy moderation have evolved to all the aspects of
living things. Example: mobility allows an organism to move toward food -
option 1, move against enemies - option 2, or run away from predators -
option 4.  How these 4 options evolved to all aspects is easier seen in
plants and animals. Examples: animals have evolved by stressing the set
of  Options 1 & 2. Plants have evolved by stressing the set of Options 3
& 4.    Also females have evolved by stressing the set of Options 1 & 3,
while males the set of Options 2 & 4 (the so called fight -2 or flight-4
options).  The more social animals stress the set of options 1 & 2, the
less social animals stress the set of options 3 & 4. etc. etc.

6. Mind/body connection. Mind evolved out of digestion as a 2nd stomach
situated by the mouth. Note virtually all the main senses and the brain,
surround the mouth. Note that there is no thinking organism that does not
have a digestive system. Also note how the evolution of the nerve chord
parallels the alimentary tract.

7. Freudian disciple, Karen Horney, in her groundbreaking classic 'Inner
Conflicts" suggests that all human behavioral problems can be reduced to
3 types. These 3 - plus one of my own - match the 4 options of energy
moderation: (K Horney's are 1,2, & 4)  Option 1 move toward people (take
in), Option 2 move against people (block out), Option 3 move toward self
(take in and hold in), Option 4 move away from others (take in and
excrete out).

8. How inner conflicts begin. The basic inner conflict is this- the child
wants to do what please him, the mother/father/social group have rules of
behavior that might conflict with those of the child. This sets up inner
conflicts in the child. Specifically breast feeding may correspond to the
childs inner conflicts about option 1 & 2 (take in food, block out food)
and toilet training my correspond to the childs inner conflicts about
option 3 & 4 (take in and Hold in, take in and Excrete out)

9. Each of the 4 options has both a postive and negative aspect to its
physical, psychological, and social behaviors in humans. Example: the
postive aspect of option two (block out ) is that a. it blocks out
physical,  and psychological harm and can act as the defender or
protector for the social group. Negative aspect is that it may force the
body to overreact, over respond to physical dangers leading to self harm,
and lead to human behavior that is violent against the social group. etc.

10. I have developed a therapy that alters the 4 patterns of energy
moderation in humans. It cures the  human health problems, and human
social problems that come from inner conflicts. (This includes among
others, many diseases and health problems now considered stress related
or psychosomatic)

11. Sleep seems to be a part of the cycle of energy moderation. The
human body wakes up at it's lowest temperature of the day and is at its
highest (on average) just before sleep. Sleep then helps in the digestion
process, and is essential to moderating energy in all sleeping animals.

12. (this one just for fun) If all life on earth is energy moderators
then IF there is life - example bacteria on Mars - then it too must
follow the same 4 options. IF my theory is correct we know now the rules
for all life that exists anywhere.


SUPPORT DOCUMENT #1
(Note this idea later revised. Please skip all but the quote on the work 
of S. Fox)

> 2. First life began in 2 stages. The first is a catalyst/enzyme-like
> stage. And like a catalyst, first life took in substances, acted upon
> them and excreted out another product. At first, life was - like a
> catalyst- unchanged. But at some point the substances that came in were
> an energy source for this first catalyst. This evolved to the 4 options
> of energy moderation - life

 I'd like to comment on this section. I believe that we
may already have experimental data pointing to this first life. Sidney
Fox, at the U. of Miami heated a mixture of dry amino acids to a TEMP.

WELL ABOVE BOILING POINT OF WATER. The products he obtained he called
proteinoids, because they were protein-like but had a matted instead of a
chainlike structure. When these proteinoids were dissolved in warm water
and cooled slowly they formed cell-like structures called microspheres
that had the following characteristics: electrical activity, sensitivity
to light, response to stains used for bacteria and the ability to
catalyze reactions and hold substances in membranelike structures.
What I contend is that what is missing in Fox's experiments was a
catalyst/enzyme (possibly in the atmosphere of early earth) that would
cause the necessary chemical reaction that Fox got with his proteinoids
but without the great heat. And this catalyst substitution would make not
proteinOIDS with their matted structure, but proteins with their
chainlike structures.

SUPPORT DOCUMENT  #2

Note that what we define as life, corresponds to the 4 options:
( key to list: Definition of life / 4 option counterpart)

Takes in energy / option 1
Converts that energy to grow and develop / option 3
Energy or materials not used to grow, develop, etc. are excreted out as
waste/option 4
Cell wall, and other devises to protect it / option 2
Mobility: move toward /option 1 , move against / option 2 , move away
from or separate from / option 4.
Reproduce / option 4

Molecular organization, complex structural organization, instructions for
maintaining that organization and activities, ability to react to
stimuli, etc.  All this evolved out of the 4 options and is determined by
which option is highlighted and which downplayed. It's like a computer
with not 0 and 1 but 1,2,3,4 options.

SUPPORT DOCUMENT  #3

Note that the hydra, one of the earliest organisms with a nerve system,
has a nerve network. A key fact in this is that this 'nerve net' is
denser near the mouth than elsewhere. That would suggest that the nervous
system evolved to better moderate energy in / food in.
 It would suggest too that the nerve chord was a type of nerve net that
also helped moderate the energy-in system in arthropods and vertebrates.
It's not hard to see how that nerve net/chord system could extend to
nerve chord with brain at the mouth entrance and that finally, thinking,
or mind evolved out of the energy in/digestion system. (See #7 below)

SUPPORT DOCUMENT  #4

There are 2 things that psychologists take for granted in the development
of children. I believe both are incorrect.

The first is this: the child knows from birth that it is a separate
identity/person from its mother. I do NOT believe that is so. There is no
evidence to suggest it is so. I believe a child must LEARN that. And if
we accept that it is NOT inate, it suggests a reason why the child would
have such inner conflicts between his desire and those of his mother (or
the social group). He may have mistakenly thought he and his mother were
the same person.

The second is this: the child knows that dreams and reality are 2
different things. I do NOT believe that is so. Again I believe that that
is something the child must learn. And in doing the therapy to resolve
conflicts of energy moderation (see below), the effects of early dreams
must be taken into account. It is my opinion that these earliest dreams
are subconsciously motivating, and often steer humans throughout their
lives.

SUPPORT DOCUMENT #5

Mammals and birds have the largest brains. They are also the warm blooded
animals. Is there a connection? Yes after the mild temperatures of the
Mesozoic period, there followed the colder temperatures of the Cenozoic
era.This is the era of climate zones. This is also the era when mammmals
expanded and increased. I believe that it took additional brain power to
regulate body temperature in these colder years. Therefore it took bigger
brains to evolve to a warm blooded system in birds and mammals.

I also contend that this helped moderate energy: warm blooded animals
could search wider areas for food, search for food year round - and in
winter  they now have the earth to themselves with all cold blooded
animals hibernating, migrating, etc. - therefore their only enemies are
the cold and other mammals (though some birds migrate, and some mammals
hibernate too). These are just some of the advantages of being warm
blooded. Therefore it is highly likely that the ability to think evolved,
at first at least, as moderating body temperature in mammals and birds, -
which is a form of energy moderation.



********************(BIG SNIP!)*********************************



SUPPORT DOCUMENT #312

Life at High Temperatures - quicker replication, etc.

Here's a fascinating net article on "Life at High Temperatures",
Thomas A Brock

http://www.bact.wisc.edu/Bact303/b1

There were certain parts that IMO gave clues to first life:

"In addition to living in boiling water, these prokaryotes are growing
surprisingly rapidly, a population can double in as few as 2 hours ..."
(also)
"Algae, bacteria, and invertebrates all grow faster and to higher
numbers in the heated portions of the river."

These 2 quotes suggest to me that temperature and replication rates may
be connected. In my theory I suggest that very thing. Specifically that
replication of cells began as partly a way for the 1st cell to survive
high temperatures - thus the hotter it would get the more it would have
to shed off as waste - which later evolved to half of self out as waste
which evolved to  binary fission. A cell too large outgrows its outside
skin to inside volume ratio and cannot survive. Replication resolves
that problem by cutting the cell size in half and allowing it to
continue to exist.

Also these springs supply minerals to these prokaryotes, "The water of
Yellowstone's thermal features is not only hot but mineralized ...
minerals provide the nutrients that feed the microorganisms." This would
suggest that in early earth, some volcanic activity could be
advantageous to first life, in that it brought up to the surface - like
Yellowstone hot springs - a continual supply of needed minerals etc.

The report also notes that there are dozens of bacteria life at this
high temp ( I tend to think this is similar to the temperature that life
began at); and it notes  that some prokaryotes can survive temps of 115
C.

And finally that in some of these heat lovers, there is a very high GC
content - which I suggested is a key aspect of the pre RNA world of
first life:
ex. include :
Thermus aquaticus with  the following average codon positions :
1 position -  68% GC, 2 - 42% (the protected position), 3 -  89%  GC
Thermus caldophilus
 GC  1 - 70%, 2 - 42%, 3 - 92%

SUPPORT DOCUMENT #313

"Look Humans, No Hands, click click"

    The usual arguments for brain development in humans often includes
the following:

Stereo eyes moved to the front of the skull, wide upper arm movement to
swing from trees, a hand to grasp the branches with that  all important
thumb, then down from the trees - bipedal motion  ( Sylvia Mader text on
Biology suggests that humans separated from apes as  the north-south
running rift valley in eastern Africa began to separate eastern Africa
from the rest of the continent - tree livers on the west side, grassland
survivors - hominoids on the east) and finally that hand to make tools
while walking.

It all sounds wonderfully logical until you suggest that DOLPHINS are
arguably the 2nd smartest and largest brain species and they  did NONE
of the things suggested above for hominids. So how did dolphins get so
smart without tree training, bipedal walking, etc.?

I welcome all comments and give a few of my own here:

Though all the things above probably contributed to intelligence, I
think the key to brain development can be found in those aspects that
Dolphins and Humans have in common.

This site is a fun and informative intro to the bottleneck dolphin
http://www.seaworld.org/bottlenose_dolphin/

There are some points in these pages that stood out for me and my
theory:
They are mammals too, they sleep 33% of the day, they have a high
metabolic rate - higher than land animals the same size, with a
temperature of 36.9 (humans at about 37), and high sense organs of
hearing and sight, plus

"Field observation suggest that mother - calf bonds are long lasting...
A  calf typically stays with its mother 3 - 6 years or more. ...Adult
male pair bonds are strong and long lasting. Male pairs often engage in
a number of cooperative behaviors... Social behavior comprises a major
portion of bottlenose dolphins daily activities. Also it said that often
dolphins giving birth will have a 'nanny' dolphin  nearby to help in any
way it can. And that  the mother passes considerable amounts of
information to the calf.
All this strongly supports the mother/child bond and the strong social
behavior among dolphins.

In my theory I have suggested a key to brain development is the mother
child bond, something I call "Carrying the baby"
Yet how could this be in dolphins with flippers? " The baby swims close
to its mother and is carried in the mother's 'slipstream'. The
hydrodynamic wake that develops as the mother swims. This helps the baby
to swim and enables the mother and calf to stay up with the group...."
(Dolphins version of carrying the baby?)

So in summary these are the factors that both species share and that IMO
may have helped brain develop to such a high degree :

Carrying the baby - the mother child bond (note how much we humans wish
to please our mothers by learning a lot and quickly) PLUS perhaps the
main key - a protracted learning period in calves, children.
Social behavior
Language - though no real language among dolphins there are whistles and
clicks and hearing is highly evolved.
Age - dolphins live  about 20 years (some as high as 48). For comparison
just imagine human culture void of all discoveries and innovations made
by humans past the age of 20!
A large brain needed to run a high, warm-blooded metabolism
Size - Large animals needed to house a large brain

SUPPORT DOCUMENT #314

"Look Dolphins, no flippers." Or
Helplessness Helps Humans

In reading a recent text on brain development, I found some passages
I strongly disagree with:
Biology, S. Mader is talking about human brain development - with a
research report by Steven Stanley, The Johns Hopkins U.

"Unlike other primates we retain the high rate of fetal brain growth
through the first year after birth."
OK so far.
"Although the human brain becomes much larger, human babies are
remarkably weak and uncoordinated. Such helpless infants must be carried
about and tended. Human babies are unable to cling to their mothers the
way chimpanzee enables can."
OK still.
"...at the time the Homo genus evolved, the climate was becoming cooler
and drier. This caused forest to shrink and grasslands to expand across
broad areas of Africa."
OK
"Humans gained a large brain, but they were saddled with the largest
interval of infantile helplessness in the entire class Mammalia. The
POSITIVE VALUE OF A LARGE BRAIN MUST HAVE OUTWEIGHED THE NEGATIVE
ASPECTS OF INFANTILE HELPLESSNESS ,... or natural selection would not
have produced the Homo genus.

This is a case of the background information being correct but IMO the
interpretation of that info incorrect.
What I suggest is that  the  so called "negative aspects of infantile
helplessness"  were not negative, but the positive reason for brain
development - just the opposite of what he suggested.

The long nurturing period of human children  - far from being a negative
aspect - is the most positive aspect of brain development in that it
allows the child time to learn from his mother  and develop a strong
mother-child bond that  gives strong incentives for  more learning and
stronger social ties. Humans WANT to please our parents. And what the
human species has done is reduce instinct learning (born into the child)
and even most  imprinted behavior for learned behavior.
And replaced it with learned behavior - or cultural learning.

It is difficult for science to treat love as an evolutionary step. Yet
in my theory it is a part of energy moderation that evolved to symbiosis
that evolved to love etc. And the mother/child bond is the main version
of this love. It isn't just nice and pleasant - it is the key to most
brain development in humans.

The author then goes on  to say it'll be a great discovery to find the
mutation of a regulatory gene that could have delayed early maturation.
Yet natural selection would do that with more needy babies requiring
more love and attention and in return developing stronger brain
development ,as well as stronger love bonds with the mother and tribe
that raised them).

SUPPORT DOCUMENT #315

Reply to my post on the GC world by William L. Hunt

I previously posted saying you were off target with your arguments.
 Because of your strong belief in the importance of GC, I pondered
whether there could be any logical connection between the GC bond and
the universal genetic code. I saw a connection and the post argues the
connection.
  I don't generally hold your views. I haven't read your Theory posts
in a long time, but I think I'm arguing for your case by the end of my
post. I just followed my logic whereever it pointed.
 I am a computer programmer and not biologist or biochemist. I am
comfortable with encryption systems, encoding and decoding systems and
how such systems can and do handle errors. I am not comfortable with
biochemisty. I look at the universal genetic code from this direction,
and not from the details of the biochemistry.
 This is a long note and a long post but you may find it interesting.
  William L Hunt 
--------------
On 16 May 2001 21:19:36 -0400, Tom Hendricks
<112374.474@compuserve.com> wrote:

> I've suggested that a GC world may have preceded the RNA world that
>led to first life.
>
>    In looking at this website:
>http://www.kazusa.or.jp/codon/
>
[snip]

 I have given further thought to two points you have made. I think it
is quite possible the genetic code first came about in a high
temperature enviroment. While I would disagree with your idea of an
all GC world, I think that GC, as it applies to the early genetic code
evolution, could have been used much more in codons than AU.
 Since I will give my own views on some of this, note that I an not a
biologist just a computer programmer with an interest in evolutionary
theory.
 First some further background. In the 1980's it was noted that in
heat lovers (thermophilics) there was a strong preferential use of
thermally stable amino acids encoded by GC-rich codons(e.g. alanine
and arginine) and strong avoidance of thermally unstable amino acids
encoded by GC-poor codons (e.g. serine and lysine). Bernardi(1986)
looked at the same general data you have looked at and concluded the
very high CG seen was because for this reason. He saw the same
apparition you are seeing. The generally high CG content in
thermophilics is because of the mutational GC-pressure. One should be
able to see some effect of a preferential use of GC-rich amino acids
after subtracting the effect of mutational GC-pressure. I looked at 10
random thermophilics (6 high CG, 3 low CG, and 1 neutral)  and, while
difficult to remove the CG-pressure effect, it looks like they are
2-6% higher in CG content in the 1st and 2nd codon position that
otherwise expected. Someone has probably done analysis of all this
since 1986 but I am not aware of any information. Some other evidence
of an early preference for GC is the fact that rRNA is about 55% CG
and tRNA is about 60% CG. I should note that this mutational
AT-pressure or GC-pressure derives from errors in DNA copying. The
actual error rates are very very low, but the difference in the two
rates can greatly effect codon GC content, especiallly in semi-silent
3rd position.
  You also see a low GC in the 2nd codon position and higher GC on the
two end positions and give some arguments why this should be so. Again
I think you are off target. You are arguing that current state of GC
content in the 1st and 2nd codons indicate the state in the early
world just after the formation of the genetic code. I think you being
mislead here and the correlation is very low. In fact, I think all 3
codon positions would have been high CG or even very high GC in this
early world at the time of the formation of the genetic code. The
reason the 2nd codon now has low CG content and 1st codon only
slightly higher is because the CG content derives from the amino acids
they code for and the frequency of these amino acids in the population
of all proteins today. This frequency of use of amino acids was very
different in this early world. Today cells generally can build their
own amino acids but in this very early world they could not and would
therefore have a high preference for amino acids (or pre-built
components) that were naturally most available. So this frequency of
use of amino acids was different then than now.
  Let me now explain why I think the GC bond was so preferred in
codons in the early world when the genetic code was first seen.
  First let me clear, this early world was an RNA system not DNA.
Where before I talked of GC and AT-pressure and the difference between
very very low error copy rates, this is not the case anymore. In this
early world, error rates are now high both for the rna AU and GC. It
would seem quite plausible that because of the stronger, more stable
or more thermally stable GC bond that the copy error for AU would be
higher than that for GC. At this point in time there is no copy
correction system, the error rate is due only to the GC or AU bond
strength or stability or thermal stability, however you view this. 
  If the GC copies with less error there are some consequences. 1st of
all, simply because of the high copy error, there is a strong
preference for one position to be silent. If one position is silent it
cannot have copy error. If one position is silent then the other two
positions alone determine the amino acid. If only two positions are
read, then the total error copy rate is the sum of the error rate at
two positions. If all three positions are read, then the total error
for the codon is the sum of the error rates at all three postions. It
seems the third position went silent.
  In the universal genetic code half the time the 3rd codon position
is silent and the other half it is semi-silent. If the first and
second codon positions are both C and/or G, then the amino acid is
specified. In this case the third codon position is always silent.
  I'm going to use a simplified model where the third position is
treated as silent and only the first two positions are used.
Jukes(1981) proposed that the early genetic code may have had a
completely silent third postion with only 16 possible codings. I'm not
arguing his position and I don't think he used my argument for why
this system would prefer one to be silent, I just use this model
because it is simpler and I'm interested in the case of C and/or G the
first 2 positons.
 OK, in this model the most preferred of the 16 possible codons are
the all C and/or G, with the lowest copy error rate.
 CC-
 CG-
 GC-
 GG-
  The next 8 preferred would the those with 1 A or U and 1 G or C in
the first and second position.
  The last 4 would be preferred would be all A and/or U.

 There is also a preference hierarchy among the amino acids. I think
it is generally felt that Glycine and Alanine are the 2 most
preferred. These are found in the highest amounts, way above anything
else, in electrial dischange experiments under various conditions and
also found in the highest amounts in meteorites. These would be the
most preferred because they were the most available. Except for these
two amino acids it not so clear what the preferences would be.
 There have been arguments that a given amino acid may have in some
way had an affinity to its codon or anti-codon and therefore there was
some restriction or preference in coupling codons with amino acids. I
see nothing persuasive in these arguments. While maybe my argument
doesn't require total freedom in these couplings, I will take the
position that was freedom for any codon to couple with any amino acid.

 My argument is that I think you can mathematically show that if there
is a preference in the codon sequence and if there is a preference
among the possible amino acids and if you may couple any codon with
any amino acid, then the system is optimal when the most preferred
codon sequence is coupled with the most preferred amino acid and the
2nd preferred codon sequence with the 2nd preferred amino acid, etc.
 I have argued there are four clearly preferred codons all C and/or G,
taken in any order they are, CC-,CG-,GC-, and GG-. I have argued there
are two clearly preferred amino acids, Alanine and Glycine.
 So what do we actually have in the universal genetic code.
We have Alanine = GC-
        Glycine = GG-
 This as would be expected with the above logic. If you don't accept
that Alanine and Glycine were the among the four most preferred amino
acids, you can't draw the conclusion from the couplings that all C
and/or G was preferred . Even if you accept that Alanine and Glycine
were the among the four most preferred amino acids, there is still a
5% probabiliy that they could have coupled with all G and/or C codons
by chance. I am persuaded by the logic and the low 5% probability of
this occurring by chance.
 In passing note that
        Proline = CC- 
 Proline is found in both electrostatic experiments and meteorites.
       Arginine = CG-
 I would not have expected Arginine to be in the group of the four
most preferred amino acids but if there was a preference for a +
charged amino acid then the choice is Arginine or Lysine and, as
previously noted, Arginine is more thermally stable and Lysine is less
thermally stable. 
 Again, for all these four codons the third codon position is truly
silent. It does not matter what it is. 
  There are some other consequences if the system follows the above
logic. It is driven from two directions to make proteins
preferentially using these four amino acids and to a lesser extent the
next eight that are coded using GC at one of the first two positions
in the codon. First is the general preference for these amino acids.
Second, proteins made with these amino acids store the information for
making them in rna that is passed from generation to generation with
less error because of the greater use of GC bonds over AU. Of course,
this constraint does not exist today where the copy error rates are
very very low. Over time, as the copy error rate drops and as DNA is
used to store the information, the preference for GC over AU
disappears. Also the preference for amino acids changes as organisms
make the amino acids rather than utilizing naturally occuring
components or complete amino acids.
 I should note that even the silent 3rd codon position would go to
high CG because the mutational rate AU to GC would be higher than the
rate GC to AU.
 I wouldn't call this a GC world, but those early codons would have
had a lot of GC.
-- 
ASTRO-ZOMBIES

WITH THIS TOUCH OF MY BURNING HAND
I SEND MY ASTRO ZOMBIES TO RAPE THIS LAND
PRIME DIRECTIVE: EXTERMINATE.. THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE
WITH JUST A TOUCH OF MY BURNING HAND
I'M GONNA LIVE MY LIFE TO DESTROY YOUR WORLD
PRIME DIRECTIVE: EXTERMINATE ..THE WHOLE FUCKING RACE