🚀 go-pugleaf

Too long...
blah blah blah

"Kimberly Dawson" <kdawson007@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uakito910m19a0@news.supernews.com...
> (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 earlier support documents are out of date.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 documents that mention enzymes up to #24 (1,9,14), are out of date.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