Male/Female = Hotter/Colder
t_hendricks
began with a sensitivity to heat that led to
the 4 options of heat regulation in all
organisms. Other posts in this forum: 1)
how 4 options correspond to 1st life
definition and 2) photosynthesis in
plants and 3) digestion in animals and 4)
the 3 (+1) psychological types of
Neo-Freudian Karen Horney, and 5) in
this post temperature determines male
and female.
4 options of heat regulation:
#1 moves toward (because) too COLD
#2 moves against, blocks out, fights,
and defends (because) too HOT
#3 holds in,nurtures(because) too COLD
#4 moves away from, excretes out,
separates from (because) too HOT
Note: that #2 - fight, and #4 - flight
define the fight or flight response typical
of male humans & that #1 join and #3
hold, define typical female behavior .
Also note that male human hormones make
males physically hotter than females
I suggest that male and female can be re-
defined as the extreme ends of heat : males
too hot/ females too cold. That's why there
are 2 and only 2 sexes.
Why would mating heat opposites promote
evolutionary health? Because by mixing
the extremes (of heat regulation) the
offspring has a better chance to adopt to
his environment.
(Please read the other posts in this forum
to better understand the complete theory.
Thank you & more to come. Tom
Hendricks)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
H. Eckroth
> ...temperature determines male
> and female.
> 4 options of heat regulation:
> #1 moves toward (because) too COLD
> #2 moves against, blocks out, fights,
> and defends (because) too HOT
> #3 holds in,nurtures(because) too COLD
> #4 moves away from, excretes out,
> separates from (because) too HOT
> Note: that #2 - fight, and #4 - flight
> define the fight or flight response typical
> of male humans...
The "fight or flight" response is typical of any human (any
mammal?) subject to stress. It is typified by an adrenaline
surge and increased heart rate, both of which can be
life-saving in some stressful situations (self-defense,
predator avoidance, etc.) but life-threatening in the long
term (cardiac arrest) when repeated stresses come from
things like a tax audit or employee review. Both males and
females exhibit the "fight or flight" response, though my
understanding is that testosterone lowers the threshold for
it. The result of this is that females typically require a
larger stress than males before their heart rate and
adrenaline respond.
> ...& that #1 join and #3
> hold, define typical female behavior.
In earlier posts the moving-toward and holding-in behaviors
were related to eating (moving toward and holding in food).
How is this related in any way to nurturing? Why would any
creature nurture more because it's too cold? Do incidents
of child neglect (or even of animals neglecting their young)
increase in warm weather? Do parents become unreasonably
doting in cold weather? I just don't see the connection.
But I didn't see it when it was about food either - If I
don't eat I get hungry (and move toward food)whether the
thermometer reads 0C or 40C. And if I don't feed or nurture
the cat because it's hot outside (the cat should be blocking
out food and care anyway - after all, it's HOT) it will
eventually die of starvation or neglect.
> Also note that male human hormones make
> males physically hotter than females
> I suggest that male and female can be re-
> defined as the extreme ends of heat : males
> too hot/ females too cold.
Human (and animal, and plant) temperatures are remarkably
similar between the two sexes. Not hardly "extreme" at
all. When differences are observed, they're usually either
in tiny fractions of a degree, or the result of some
hormonal mechanism gone awry. Not the normal state of
affairs.
-Drox
t_hendricks
<7mrc7s$sjv$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
"H. Eckroth" <dr...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
men exhibit join or hold. But the
PREDOMINANT fight or flight behavior is
male behavior . Males are more agressive
and
violent then females.
> > ...& that #1 join and #3
> > hold, define typical female behavior.
>
> In earlier posts the moving-toward and holding-in behaviors
> were related to eating (moving toward and holding in food).
> How is this related in any way to nurturing? Why would any
> creature nurture more because it's too cold? Do incidents
> of child neglect (or even of animals neglecting their young)
> increase in warm weather? Do parents become unreasonably
> doting in cold weather? I just don't see the connection.
> But I didn't see it when it was about food either - If I
> don't eat I get hungry (and move toward food)whether the
> thermometer reads 0C or 40C. And if I don't feed or nurture
> the cat because it's hot outside (the cat should be blocking
> out food and care anyway - after all, it's HOT) it will
> eventually die of starvation or neglect.
to better keep them warm. In warm
climates the normal diet is less fat. In
humans, taking breast milk in, evolved
to taking any nurturing in. #1 Move
toward food evolved to move toward the
group, love,anything the person desires,
etc. The connection is there (and note
how many people who feel unloved or
cold, over eat). More posts later to
explain the psychology of each of the 4
options.
>
> > Also note that male human hormones make
> > males physically hotter than females
> > I suggest that male and female can be re-
> > defined as the extreme ends of heat : males
> > too hot/ females too cold.
>
> Human (and animal, and plant) temperatures are remarkably
> similar between the two sexes. Not hardly "extreme" at
> all. When differences are observed, they're usually either
> in tiny fractions of a degree, or the result of some
> hormonal mechanism gone awry. Not the normal state of
> affairs.
>
> -Drox
Yes all living organisms exist in a
relatively narrow band of body
temperature (further proof that
temperature regulation is the key to
evolution) Yet there is a difference, small
but significant
between temperature of both sexes and
the behavior of both sexes. And the 4
option theory of heat regulation explains
the correlation. If as you suggest there is
no correlation why is there any heat
difference at all? More to come. Tom
Hendricks (see my other posts in this
forum under t_hendricks for more info.)
Drox
> (Drox wrote:)
>
> > The "fight or flight" response is typical of any human (any
> > mammal?) subject to stress. (snip details about mechanism)
> Yes woman exhibit fight or flight. Yes
> men exhibit join or hold. But the
> PREDOMINANT fight or flight behavior is
> male behavior . Males are more agressive
> and violent then females.
Perhaps this is true in most mammals. It may even be true of
humans. But this temperature-based hypothesis of life would seem
to imply that it must be true for all living things. And I just
don't see it.
In instances where females (human or grizzly-bear or cottonwood
ones) exhibit aggression and violence, would you insist that it's
a result of their being too hot? When males (be they human or
sea-turtle or cattail) exhibit nurturing behavior, is it because
they're too cold?
> > > ...& that #1 join and #3
> > > hold, define typical female behavior.
(drox wrote)
> > In earlier posts the moving-toward and holding-in behaviors
> > were related to eating (moving toward and holding in food).
> > How is this related in any way to nurturing? Why would any
> > creature nurture more because it's too cold? Do incidents
> > of child neglect (or even of animals neglecting their young)
> > increase in warm weather? Do parents become unreasonably
> > doting in cold weather? I just don't see the connection.
> > But I didn't see it when it was about food either - If I
> > don't eat I get hungry (and move toward food)whether the
> > thermometer reads 0C or 40C. And if I don't feed or nurture
> > the cat because it's hot outside (the cat should be blocking
> > out food and care anyway - after all, it's HOT) it will
> > eventually die of starvation or neglect.
> In cold climates the diets are rich in fat
> to better keep them warm. In warm
> climates the normal diet is less fat.
In the far north, humans (and other carnivores) eat a high-fat
diet because all the prey animals there have a lot of fat for
insulation. Few plants grow there due to the limited sunlight, so
there is little alternative.
In the hot tropics, humans generally still prefer a high-fat diet,
and will eat it when they can. But carbohydrates are in
abundance, and supply more of the day's calories.
Rather than looking at extremes like the diet of Eskimos (who
until recently have had very little choice but to eat high-fat
figh and game) it might make sense to look at what humans in
temperate regions eat in hot and cold seasons. Caloric intake
typically increases in winter, but whether the calories come from
fats or carbs is immaterial.
Humans (and birds and other mammals) do use food to regulate
temperature (in addition to using it to obtain vital nutrients).
But other animals do not (the cold-blooded ones, insects, etc.).
Plants do not. Something other than temperature-regulation is
driving their eating behavior.
And you still didn't explain why I have to feed the cat when it's
40C, when he should be blocking out food anyway (he's HOT!).
> In humans, taking breast milk in, evolved
> to taking any nurturing in.
Sorry. Nursing the young w/ breast milk long predates humans.
All mammals do this. Are you claiming that other mammals don't
nurse? Or don't "take in" nurturing?
> #1 Move
> toward food evolved to move toward the
> group, love,anything the person desires,
> etc.
Other animals move toward what they desire too, Plants may even
be said to move toward what they "desire", if what they desire is
sunlight (never seen them move toward a bag of fertilizer, or even
a pot of water though). Not all of what motivates people (or
plants or animals) has to do with temperature regulation though.
> The connection is there (and note
> how many people who feel unloved or
> cold, over eat).
In modern U.S. society, many who feel unloved (don't know about
cold) overeat. But in other cultures this is not always the
case. Sometimes the unloved starve themselves. Or find other
ways to abuse themselves. Even in the U.S. where food is
typically abundant.
> Yes all living organisms exist in a
> relatively narrow band of body
> temperature (further proof that
> temperature regulation is the key to
> evolution)
Five words. Correlation does not imply causality.
> Yet there is a difference, small
> but significant
> between temperature of both sexes and
> the behavior of both sexes.
References please. Is not this temperature difference, when it
exists at all, far less than the temperature difference, say,
between a typical male (human) in the morning and that same male
in the afternoon? His own behavior, then (by this hypothesis)
ought to show more variation (between agressive and nurturing)
than the difference between him and a typical female.
-Drox
t_hendricks
<7n5fdk$rqh$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
Drox <dr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> t_hendricks wrote:
>
> > (Drox wrote:)
> >
> > > The "fight or flight" response is typical of any human (any
> > > mammal?) subject to stress. (snip details about mechanism)
>
> > Yes woman exhibit fight or flight. Yes
> > men exhibit join or hold. But the
> > PREDOMINANT fight or flight behavior is
> > male behavior . Males are more agressive
> > and violent then females.
>
> Perhaps this is true in most mammals. It may even be true of
> humans. But this temperature-based hypothesis of life would seem
> to imply that it must be true for all living things. And I just
> don't see it.
>
> In instances where females (human or grizzly-bear or cottonwood
> ones) exhibit aggression and violence, would you insist that it's
> a result of their being too hot? When males (be they human or
> sea-turtle or cattail) exhibit nurturing behavior, is it because
> they're too cold?
time .
evolutionary tactic that helps regulate
temperature (and help the organism grow
which further helps regulate
temperature)
All evolution is based on temperature
regulation. All food/nurturing in (of any
kind from sunlight to flies) is based on
option #1 take in, and #3 hold in
>
> And you still didn't explain why I have to feed the cat when it's
> 40C, when he should be blocking out food anyway (he's HOT!).
night. It happened over millions of years.
No matter the nitely temperature your cat
will need to eat . Over millions of years
the cats will have to adjust to temperature
changes to survive even in extremes like
your example. They've done this, like all
other organisms, by their own specific
evolved version of the 4 options
> > In humans, taking breast milk in, evolved
> > to taking any nurturing in.
>
> Sorry. Nursing the young w/ breast milk long predates humans.
> All mammals do this. Are you claiming that other mammals don't
> nurse? Or don't "take in" nurturing?
taking...etc."
> > #1 Move
> > toward food evolved to move toward the
> > group, love,anything the person desires,
> > etc.
>
> Other animals move toward what they desire too, Plants may even
> be said to move toward what they "desire", if what they desire is
> sunlight (never seen them move toward a bag of fertilizer, or even
> a pot of water though). Not all of what motivates people (or
> plants or animals) has to do with temperature regulation though.
plants and animals each move toward in a
different way (that's what evolution is)
they are still both MOVING TOWARD #1
>
> > The connection is there (and note
> > how many people who feel unloved or
> > cold, over eat).
>
> In modern U.S. society, many who feel unloved (don't know about
> cold) overeat. But in other cultures this is not always the
> case. Sometimes the unloved starve themselves. Or find other
> ways to abuse themselves. Even in the U.S. where food is
> typically abundant.
obviate the obvious. Temperature is the
key to evolution.
>
> > Yes all living organisms exist in a
> > relatively narrow band of body
> > temperature (further proof that
> > temperature regulation is the key to
> > evolution)
>
> Five words. Correlation does not imply causality.
words)And if you'll stay tuned, I can say
more than 5 words.
>
> > Yet there is a difference, small
> > but significant
> > between temperature of both sexes and
> > the behavior of both sexes.
>
> References please. Is not this temperature difference, when it
> exists at all, far less than the temperature difference, say,
> between a typical male (human) in the morning and that same male
> in the afternoon? His own behavior, then (by this hypothesis)
> ought to show more variation (between agressive and nurturing)
> than the difference between him and a typical female.
>
> -Drox
men and women on opposite ends of the
temperature spectrum, the point of this
post. Again evolution doesn't happen in an
afternoon but over millions of years. Tom
Hendricks (more to come)
Drox
> Why do you think eating evolved? It's an
> evolutionary tactic that helps regulate
> temperature (and help the organism grow
> which further helps regulate
> temperature)
You keep putting temperature regulation first, and listing growth almost
as an afterthought. What's wrong with "Eating is a mechanism by which
organisms grow (and regulate temperature)"?
> All evolution is based on temperature
> regulation.
You keep saying that. But there's no convincing evidence. You claim
that life exists only within a narrow range of temperatures. Not only
is that untrue (even on this planet alone life exists in the Antarctic
ice and in superheated deep-sea vents) but it does not support your
argument. Even if life DID only exist within a narrow range of
temperatures, it says nothing about WHY that life evolved.
Living things do things that affect their temperatures. So what?
Living things grow. One could claim that "All evolution is based on
growth". Living things replicate. One could claim that "All evolution
is based on replication" (That last one sounds rather convincing to me,
but I still don't go around making bold unsupported declarations about
why life evolved.) It don't make it so. Correlation does not imply
causality. So far all you've come up with is "All life exists within a
narrow range of temperatures" (untrue to begin with) and from that, go
on to imply that the purpose of life is to regulate temperature (which
does not logically follow).
> > And you still didn't explain why I have to feed the cat when it's
> > 40C, when he should be blocking out food anyway (he's HOT!).
> Evolution doesn't happen over one hot
> night. It happened over millions of years.
> No matter the nitely temperature your cat
> will need to eat . Over millions of years
> the cats will have to adjust to temperature
> changes to survive even in extremes like
> your example. They've done this, like all
> other organisms, by their own specific
> evolved version of the 4 options
But your 4 options indicate that cats should not eat - "take in" - when
they're hot. Nor should they "hold in". They should try to cool off by
"blocking out" and "excreting out". If "their own specific evolved
version" of "blocking out" includes "taking in" then I can't argue with
you. Because if that's allowed, then you can claim that the night sky
is white, because your own "specific evolved version" of white includes
black.
What color is the sky in your world?
> You are using red herring details to
> obviate the obvious. Temperature is the
> key to evolution.
Red herring? I'm offended (not really). I'm offering a
counterexample. It's part of the scientific method. Look into it.
-Drox
Tommy the Terrorist
11237...@compuserve.com writes:
>4 options of heat regulation:
>#1 moves toward (because) too COLD
> #2 moves against, blocks out, fights,
> and defends (because) too HOT
ahm, dude...
this kind of combinatorial drivel has been done before - and better.
For instance, consider the classic Transcendental Meditation poster
relating the 24 something-or-anothers of yoga to color interactions
among quarks and leptons; or Timothy Leary's adaptation of this
to the stages of the pre-programmed DNA molecule, which gradually
sheds its histones in a billions-year cycle of evolutionary laddering
and space exploration...
[[[[shudddder]]]]
Anyway, the point is this: you're not only flying out into quack nut
territory - you're flying out into INHABITED quack nut territory that
doesn't really need any immigrants. Conclusion: either you should
take another look at what (if any) profound inner meaning the stuff
you're claiming is supposed to have - or else you should team up with
Archimedes Plutonium in the grand quest of destroying scientific
discussion on Usenet...
t_hendricks
<7nl2tr$iho$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
Tommy the Terrorist
I stand by what I say. If you really want to
Challenge my theory, find any aspect of
any living thing that doesn't regulate
temperature or didn't evolve from
regulating temperature. Nobody on this
forum has been able to yet.
My theory of the 4 options of heat
moderation ties in everything from the
definition of first life to photosynthesis to
digestion in animals to 'digestion evolved to
thinking' , male/female, etc.
Darwins great theory had 2 holes in it at
both ends 1. how did life begin, 2. how did
mind evolve from the body. Heat regulation
helps explain both. More to come
And I encourage anyone to go outside and
look at any living thing and ask this
question, 'how would (that trait or
behavior) moderate temperature for (that
plant, animal, bacteria, etc.)
Don't accept it as true just accept it as the
1st part of an argument of logic:
IF heat regulation is the key to evolution
THEN (any trait or behavior of any living
thing) must help moderate temperature
for that organism in some way (or it
evolved from some heat moderation in
some way). Then go outside and LOOK.
Nature proves me right everywhere in
everything.
Much more to come. Comments?
t_hendricks
<7ng5u2$653$1...@darwin.ediacara.or
g>,
Drox <dr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> t_hendricks wrote:
>
> > Why do you think eating evolved? It's an
> > evolutionary tactic that helps regulate
> > temperature (and help the organism grow
> > which further helps regulate
> > temperature)
>
> as an afterthought. What's wrong with "Eating is a mechanism by which
> organisms grow (and regulate temperature)"?
the horse. Here's the chronology:
1. ??? (something happened to
something floating in the primordial
sea that led that something to have a
sensitivity to heat that led to:)
2. the 4 options of heat moderation
-that led to
3 EVERYTHING else. That means that
every aspect of every living thing is a
variation on 4 themes: the 4 options.
Eating in animals is one of millions of
evolved variations that developed
much much much later down the line.
( Now I'm being flip and snide but
here goes)
What part of 'EVERYTHING' don't you
understand?
And it probably happened in this
order: bacteria plants animal.
> > All evolution is based on temperature
> > regulation.
>
> that life exists only within a narrow range of temperatures. Not only
> is that untrue (even on this planet alone life exists in the Antarctic
> ice and in superheated deep-sea vents) but it does not support your
> argument. Even if life DID only exist within a narrow range of
> temperatures, it says nothing about WHY that life evolved.
the start. Analogy life is like a
shotgun blast on a wall. Now it's
spread out wide, but trace it back and
it narrows to a very small range of
temperature (an important clue to
evolution)
2. If temperature doesn't matter why
isn't there life on the sun or living
near absolute zero. It sounds
ludicrous of course to even suggest it.
And when you consider those
parameters (absolute zero to the heat
of our sun) you begin to see how
narrow the temperature is of all life.
3. No it does not PROVE my theory.
But like a camera with a lens out of
focus, each bit of evidence turns the
lens to a more clear picture. In this
instance it is more evidence that
temperature control is the key to
evolution.
> Living things do things that affect their temperatures. So what?
> Living things grow. One could claim that "All evolution is based on
> growth". Living things replicate. One could claim that "All evolution
> is based on replication" (That last one sounds rather convincing to me,
> but I still don't go around making bold unsupported declarations about
> why life evolved.) It don't make it so. Correlation does not imply
> causality. So far all you've come up with is "All life exists within a
> narrow range of temperatures" (untrue to begin with) and from that, go
> on to imply that the purpose of life is to regulate temperature (which
> does not logically follow).
an UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS that states
that temperature regulation (the 4
options that evolved from heat
sensitivity) evolved to all life. Now
I'm trying to show you that it seems
to be so in every instance. And that
for 2 decades I've searched for any
exception and have not found one.
That's why I call it a THEORY
> > > And you still didn't explain why I have to feed the cat when it's
> > > 40C, when he should be blocking out food anyway (he's HOT!).
>
> > Evolution doesn't happen over one hot
> > night. It happened over millions of years.
> > No matter the nitely temperature your cat
> > will need to eat . Over millions of years
> > the cats will have to adjust to temperature
> > changes to survive even in extremes like
> > your example. They've done this, like all
> > other organisms, by their own specific
> > evolved version of the 4 options
>
> they're hot. Nor should they "hold in". They should try to cool off by
> "blocking out" and "excreting out". If "their own specific evolved
> version" of "blocking out" includes "taking in" then I can't argue with
> you. Because if that's allowed, then you can claim that the night sky
> is white, because your own "specific evolved version" of white includes
> black.
>
> What color is the sky in your world?
Now back to your cat. When you get to
mammals, you have evolved a VERY
COMPLEX organism that has MANY
MANY ways (besides eating) to
regulate temperature: breathing
faster or slower, shedding their coat-
or thicker growth in cold climates,
sleeping during the day and coming
out at night, moving to cooler
climates, drinking more water, etc
etc. (remember I said 'EVERYTHING")
These other options compensate for
the eating/too hot, problems of your
cat
>
> > You are using red herring details to
> > obviate the obvious. Temperature is the
> > key to evolution.
>
> counterexample. It's part of the scientific method. Look into it.
>
> -Drox
important discovery without
answering the tough question: name
me any aspect of any living thing that
doesn't regulate temperature or didn't
you or anyone else can, I will
continue to talk about the myriad of
ways heat regulation has evolved to
everything from 1st life to human
thinking and emotional behavior.
(please see my other posts in this
forum under t_hendricks for more
Comments from others? Drox?
Drox
> Here's the chronology:
> 1. ??? (something happened to
> something floating in the primordial
> sea that led that something to have a
> sensitivity to heat that led to:)
While the "something happened to something... that led to something..."
phrasing makes it so vague that it covers just about anything, I can't really
complain about that since alternative explanations really aren't any less
vague (except for the "God did it" explanations, which suffer from myriad
other problems). The one I lean toward sounds more like "something happened
to something floating in the primordial sea that let to that something being
able to replicate itself." What bothers me about the temperature-sensitivity
scenario is that life is not required for temperature sensitivity. Nothing
would have needed to happen in that primordial sea because "something" - say
f'rinstance ice floating in the lifeless primordial sea - is already
"sensitive" to heat. Get it too hot and it melts.
> 2. the 4 options of heat moderation
> -that led to
> 3 EVERYTHING else.
Here's where I have a bigger problem. The "four options" are nothing more
than two minor variations on each of the "two options" that temperature
regulation allows, namely "hot" and "not hot" (aka cold). Or "cold" and "not
cold" (aka hot) if you prefer.
"Takes-in" and "holds-in" are minor variations which you claim make a thing
hotter.
"Excretes-out" and "holds-out" are minor variations which you claim makes a
thing colder. There is no evidence offered for these conclusions, and
definitions are so vague that "moves away from" is considered equivalent to
"excretes-out". And nurturing is somehow equivalent to taking in, although I
can't see quite how that works. Nurturing would seem to require at least two
participants, one or more of whom "excrete out" the nurturing, and others who
"take in". Yet both sides have to "move toward" (or at least not move away)
for this to happen. It's very confusing.
> ( Now I'm being flip and snide but
> here goes)
> What part of 'EVERYTHING' don't you
> understand?
(I can be flip and snide too! Lookie!) I understand quite well
thankyouverymuch. I just don't think that your temperature-regulation
hypothesis explains 'EVERYTHING'.
> 1. Life now is different from life at
> the start. ...trace it back and
> it narrows to a very small range of
> temperature (an important clue to
> evolution)
Life has changed a lot since it appeared on Earth, but some things have stayed
the same. How is it that you know the temperature range for early life was
very small? I admit that it's *probable* that early life needed a moderate
temperature (so many of life's processes today work best between, say, 0C and
50C), but how do you know? Maybe the earliest life appeared near superheated
sea vents, and later migrated to the (far colder) surface. Maybe life
appeared several times (and at several temperatures) independently, but only
one form survived to evolve into the forms we know today. Maybe several forms
survived and we just don't know it.
> 2. If temperature doesn't matter why
> isn't there life on the sun or living
> near absolute zero. It sounds
> ludicrous of course to even suggest it.
There's that patronising phrase "of course". Remember that life near the
superheated sea vents seemed "ludicrous" too. DNA and RNA degrade at those
extreme temperatures! But ludicrous or not, it's there.
> And when you consider those
> parameters (absolute zero to the heat
> of our sun) you begin to see how
> narrow the temperature is of all life.
Humans haven't catalogued "all life". Never will either, because it's an
open-ended question. How do you know when you're done? There may yet be
forms of life that exist at even more extreme temperatures. All we know is
the forms we *have* catalogued, and even those show a fairly wide range of
temperatures they can live at.
> 3. No it does not PROVE my theory.
> But ... In this
> instance it is more evidence that
> temperature control is the key to
> evolution.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
> >So far all you've come up with is "All life exists within a
> > narrow range of temperatures" (untrue to begin with) and from that, go
> > on to imply that the purpose of life is to regulate temperature (which
> > does not logically follow).
> No, you misunderstand. My theory has
> an UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS that states
> that temperature regulation (the 4
> options that evolved from heat
> sensitivity) evolved to all life.
Same difference. You have an unproven hypothesis. You have implied. Either
way it's an erroneous conclusion.
> Now
> I'm trying to show you that it seems
> to be so in every instance. And that
> for 2 decades I've searched for any
> exception and have not found one.
And you *won't* find one. Not because your hypothesis is correct, but because
what you search for doesn't exist. You're searching for a living thing that
does not "regulate temperature". But you've defined temperature regulation in
such a way that anything that *affects* temperature can be said to *regulate*
temperature. So even non-living things regulate temperature. Look into
thermodynamics. Everything, from ice melting to stars imploding to stomachs
digesting to rocks rolling downhill ("moves towards!") affects temperature in
some way.
> Now back to your cat. When you get to
> mammals, you have evolved a VERY
> COMPLEX organism that has MANY
> MANY ways (besides eating) to
> regulate temperature...
This COMPLEXity seems to be a smokescreen to disguise that you're arguing for
a system where "taking in" can be a COMPLEX evolved form of "excreting out".
The cat is eating (taking in) even thought it's too hot and should (based on
the "four options") be "excreting out".
> ...breathing
> faster or slower, shedding their coat-
> or thicker growth in cold climates,
> sleeping during the day and coming
> out at night, moving to cooler
> climates, drinking more water, etc
> etc. (remember I said 'EVERYTHING")
Yup. When EVERYTHING is allowed, your "theory" becomes meaningless. Say -
since this thread was about Male/Female = Hotter/Colder, why doesn't the cat
just change sex to cool off?
> Your trivializing what I think is an
> important discovery without
> answering the tough question: name
> me any aspect of any living thing that
> doesn't regulate temperature or didn't
> evolve from something that did.
Thermodynamics shows that that's not possible. Every reaction affects
temperature. And living things are collections of many thousands of
reactions. So they, like non-living things, affect temperature. It says
nothing about why or how life appeared.
> Until
> you or anyone else can, I will
> continue to talk about the myriad of
> ways heat regulation has evolved to
> everything from 1st life to human
> thinking and emotional behavior.
I was afraid of that....
You say your "theory" explains EVERYTHING. This is NOT a strength. As with
the cat. You use your "theory" to show that the cat can eat or not eat when
he's hot. A "theory" that can explain away EVERYTHING (including opposite
effects) is very suspect. Remember some people believe that a particular Holy
Book explains EVERYTHING. It don't make it right.
-Drox
Tommy the Terrorist
11237...@compuserve.com writes:
>Challenge my theory, find any aspect of
>any living thing that doesn't regulate
>temperature or didn't evolve from
I did... I pointed out that bacteria don't have
a snowball's chance in hell of regulating their
temperature. At which point you laid down a
barrage of babble about how things that aren't
temperature are temperature so impenetrable
I gave up and hoped you'd go away... ;(
But the temperature of any part of a bacterium
is still going to be the same as the temperature
of the fluid it's in.
Drox
> Here's the chronology:
> 1. ??? (something happened to
> something floating in the primordial
> sea that led that something to have a
> sensitivity to heat that led to:)
While the "something happened to something... that led to something..."
phrasing makes it so vague that it covers just about anything, I can't really
complain about that since alternative explanations really aren't any less
vague (except for the "God did it" explanations, which suffer from myriad
other problems). The one I lean toward sounds more like "something happened
to something floating in the primordial sea that let to that something being
able to replicate itself." What bothers me about the temperature-sensitivity
scenario is that life is not required for temperature sensitivity. Nothing
would have needed to happen in that primordial sea because "something" - say
f'rinstance ice floating in the lifeless primordial sea - is already
"sensitive" to heat. Get it too hot and it melts.
> 2. the 4 options of heat moderation
> -that led to
> 3 EVERYTHING else.
Here's where I have a bigger problem. The "four options" are nothing more
than two minor variations on each of the "two options" that temperature
regulation allows, namely "hot" and "not hot" (aka cold). Or "cold" and "not
cold" (aka hot) if you prefer.
"Takes-in" and "holds-in" are minor variations which you claim make a thing
hotter.
"Excretes-out" and "holds-out" are minor variations which you claim makes a
thing colder. There is no evidence offered for these conclusions, and
definitions are so vague that "moves away from" is considered equivalent to
"excretes-out". And nurturing is somehow equivalent to taking in, although I
can't see quite how that works. Nurturing would seem to require at least two
participants, one or more of whom "excrete out" the nurturing, and others who
"take in". Yet both sides have to "move toward" (or at least not move away)
for this to happen. It's very confusing.
> ( Now I'm being flip and snide but
> here goes)
> What part of 'EVERYTHING' don't you
> understand?
(I can be flip and snide too! Lookie!) I understand quite well
thankyouverymuch. I just don't think that your temperature-regulation
hypothesis explains 'EVERYTHING'.
> 1. Life now is different from life at
> the start. ...trace it back and
> it narrows to a very small range of
> temperature (an important clue to
> evolution)
Life has changed a lot since it appeared on Earth, but some things have stayed
the same. How is it that you know the temperature range for early life was
very small? I admit that it's *probable* that early life needed a moderate
temperature (so many of life's processes today work best between, say, 0C and
50C), but how do you know? Maybe the earliest life appeared near superheated
sea vents, and later migrated to the (far colder) surface. Maybe life
appeared several times (and at several temperatures) independently, but only
one form survived to evolve into the forms we know today. Maybe several forms
survived and we just don't know it.
> 2. If temperature doesn't matter why
> isn't there life on the sun or living
> near absolute zero. It sounds
> ludicrous of course to even suggest it.
There's that patronising phrase "of course". Remember that life near the
superheated sea vents seemed "ludicrous" too. DNA and RNA degrade at those
extreme temperatures! But ludicrous or not, it's there.
> And when you consider those
> parameters (absolute zero to the heat
> of our sun) you begin to see how
> narrow the temperature is of all life.
Humans haven't catalogued "all life". Never will either, because it's an
open-ended question. How do you know when you're done? There may yet be
forms of life that exist at even more extreme temperatures. All we know is
the forms we *have* catalogued, and even those show a fairly wide range of
temperatures they can live at.
> 3. No it does not PROVE my theory.
> But ... In this
> instance it is more evidence that
> temperature control is the key to
> evolution.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
> >So far all you've come up with is "All life exists within a
> > narrow range of temperatures" (untrue to begin with) and from that, go
> > on to imply that the purpose of life is to regulate temperature (which
> > does not logically follow).
> No, you misunderstand. My theory has
> an UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS that states
> that temperature regulation (the 4
> options that evolved from heat
> sensitivity) evolved to all life.
Same difference. You have an unproven hypothesis. You have implied. Either
way it's an erroneous conclusion.
> Now
> I'm trying to show you that it seems
> to be so in every instance. And that
> for 2 decades I've searched for any
> exception and have not found one.
And you *won't* find one. Not because your hypothesis is correct, but because
what you search for doesn't exist. You're searching for a living thing that
does not "regulate temperature". But you've defined temperature regulation in
such a way that anything that *affects* temperature can be said to *regulate*
temperature. So even non-living things regulate temperature. Look into
thermodynamics. Everything, from ice melting to stars imploding to stomachs
digesting to rocks rolling downhill ("moves towards!") affects temperature in
some way.
> Now back to your cat. When you get to
> mammals, you have evolved a VERY
> COMPLEX organism that has MANY
> MANY ways (besides eating) to
> regulate temperature...
This COMPLEXity seems to be a smokescreen to disguise that you're arguing for
a system where "taking in" can be a COMPLEX evolved form of "excreting out".
The cat is eating (taking in) even thought it's too hot and should (based on
the "four options") be "excreting out".
> ...breathing
> faster or slower, shedding their coat-
> or thicker growth in cold climates,
> sleeping during the day and coming
> out at night, moving to cooler
> climates, drinking more water, etc
> etc. (remember I said 'EVERYTHING")
Yup. When EVERYTHING is allowed, your "theory" becomes meaningless. Say -
since this thread was about Male/Female = Hotter/Colder, why doesn't the cat
just change sex to cool off?
> Your trivializing what I think is an
> important discovery without
> answering the tough question: name
> me any aspect of any living thing that
> doesn't regulate temperature or didn't
> evolve from something that did.
Thermodynamics shows that that's not possible. Every reaction affects
temperature. And living things are collections of many thousands of
reactions. So they, like non-living things, affect temperature. It says
nothing about why or how life appeared.
> Until
> you or anyone else can, I will
> continue to talk about the myriad of
> ways heat regulation has evolved to
> everything from 1st life to human
> thinking and emotional behavior.
I was afraid of that....
You say your "theory" explains EVERYTHING. This is NOT a strength. As with
the cat. You use your "theory" to show that the cat can eat or not eat when
he's hot. A "theory" that can explain away EVERYTHING (including opposite
effects) is very suspect. Remember some people believe that a particular Holy
Book explains EVERYTHING. It don't make it right.
-Drox
Tommy the Terrorist
>any living thing that doesn't regulate
>temperature or didn't evolve from
t_hendricks
<7nvuvj$r29$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>,> >Challenge my theory, find any aspect of
> >any living thing that doesn't regulate
> >temperature or didn't evolve from
>
> I did... I pointed out that bacteria don't have
> a snowball's chance in hell of regulating their
> temperature. At which point you laid down a
> barrage of babble about how things that aren't
> temperature are temperature so impenetrable
> I gave up and hoped you'd go away... ;(
and all questions.
> But the temperature of any part of a bacterium
> is still going to be the same as the temperature
> of the fluid it's in.
T the T, Don't give up. Just say that doesn't
make sense, and I'll try again.
Let's talk bacteria. First will you agree
that the way humans regulate temperature
is going to be MUCH more complex than the
way bacteria does (if I can show you it
does). And that in reverse, the way
bacteria does regulate temperature may be
quite simple?
IF you can then, step 2
Since I am no expert on bacteria I'm going
to ask you to answer your own question by
answering these:
1. What happens when bacteria is heated
up? My theory states that when too hot,
excretes out or blocks out. One way to do
this is to divide in half which excretes out
one half the heat. And in an article on
underwater volcanos it says "When there
is a hydrothermal event, they (bacteria)
reproduce rapidly..." This suggests that
when too hot they reproduce to cool.
2 What happens when bacteria is too cold?
Doesn't it become dormant until it can find
a host with a moderate temperature? Now
this is conjecture. So tell me what you
know. But if that is true then bacteria
does regulate temperature - though in an
extremely simple way and somewhat
haphazard way. (where some bacteria will
live and most will die)
The point is this. Please answer these 3
questions. 1. What happens when bacteria
is heated up? 2. What happens when it is
cooled way down? What if any changes
happen to the bacteria when it is
introduced from a too hot or too cold
temperature into a host with a moderate
temperature.
Answer these and we'll go further with our
discussion
Tom Hendricks (t_hendricks)
t_hendricks
<7nvuv4$qdt$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
Drox <dr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> t_hendricks wrote:
>
> > Here's the chronology:
> > 1. ??? (something happened to
> > something floating in the primordial
> > sea that led that something to have a
> > sensitivity to heat that led to:)
>
> While the "something happened to something... that led to something..."
> phrasing makes it so vague that it covers just about anything, I can't really
> complain about that since alternative explanations really aren't any less
> vague (except for the "God did it" explanations, which suffer from myriad
> other problems). The one I lean toward sounds more like "something happened
> to something floating in the primordial sea that let to that something being
> able to replicate itself." What bothers me about the temperature-sensitivity
> scenario is that life is not required for temperature sensitivity. Nothing
> would have needed to happen in that primordial sea because "something" - say
> f'rinstance ice floating in the lifeless primordial sea - is already
> "sensitive" to heat. Get it too hot and it melts.
The reason sensitivity to heat came first is
because reproduction was no more than one
way to moderate temperature. Raise the
temperature of bacteria and it divides NOT
because it loves children but because it's
too hot and dividing in half cools the parent
bacterium. All reproduction evolved (in
all its variations and complexities) from
1st life being too hot and dividing in half as
a way to cool down (option 4)
> > 2. the 4 options of heat moderation
> > -that led to
> > 3 EVERYTHING else.
>
> Here's where I have a bigger problem. The "four options" are nothing more
> than two minor variations on each of the "two options" that temperature
> regulation allows, namely "hot" and "not hot" (aka cold). Or "cold" and "not
> cold" (aka hot) if you prefer.
>
> "Takes-in" and "holds-in" are minor variations which you claim make a thing
> hotter.
> "Excretes-out" and "holds-out" are minor variations which you claim makes a
> thing colder. There is no evidence offered for these conclusions, and
> definitions are so vague that "moves away from" is considered equivalent to
> "excretes-out". And nurturing is somehow equivalent to taking in, although I
> can't see quite how that works. Nurturing would seem to require at least two
> participants, one or more of whom "excrete out" the nurturing, and others who
> "take in". Yet both sides have to "move toward" (or at least not move away)
> for this to happen. It's very confusing.
this: the organism nurtures itself. And yes
the 4 options are 2 pairs. They are evident
in all life but most strikingly obvious in
any animal with an alimentary canal - a
food in, waste out system. You say the 4
options are vague, I say they evolved to
every variation of living things. That
means there are a LOT of variations on the
theme of the 4 options. The theory starts
simple and evolves to extreme complexity,
just as life evolved.
> > ( Now I'm being flip and snide but
> > here goes)
> > What part of 'EVERYTHING' don't you
> > understand?
>
> (I can be flip and snide too! Lookie!) I understand quite well
> thankyouverymuch. I just don't think that your temperature-regulation
> hypothesis explains 'EVERYTHING'.
>
> > 1. Life now is different from life at
> > the start. ...trace it back and
> > it narrows to a very small range of
> > temperature (an important clue to
> > evolution)
>
> Life has changed a lot since it appeared on Earth, but some things have stayed
> the same. How is it that you know the temperature range for early life was
> very small? I admit that it's *probable* that early life needed a moderate
> temperature (so many of life's processes today work best between, say, 0C and
> 50C), but how do you know? Maybe the earliest life appeared near superheated
> sea vents, and later migrated to the (far colder) surface. Maybe life
> appeared several times (and at several temperatures) independently, but only
> one form survived to evolve into the forms we know today. Maybe several forms
> survived and we just don't know it.
began in a sea of somewhat uniform
temperature. That's perhaps the main
reason life began in the sea. IF it began on
dry land the drastic change from day
temperature to night temperature would
probably kill any , for lack of a better
term, pre life material. And as to sea
vents, I think that is highly likely, and
only when the earth began to cool did
organisms have to switch/evolve to getting
their heat from the 2nd best source
around, the sun. and PHOTOSYNTHESIS
began.
>
> > 2. If temperature doesn't matter why
> > isn't there life on the sun or living
> > near absolute zero. It sounds
> > ludicrous of course to even suggest it.
>
> There's that patronising phrase "of course". Remember that life near the
> superheated sea vents seemed "ludicrous" too. DNA and RNA degrade at those
> extreme temperatures! But ludicrous or not, it's there.
>
> > And when you consider those
> > parameters (absolute zero to the heat
> > of our sun) you begin to see how
> > narrow the temperature is of all life.
>
> Humans haven't catalogued "all life". Never will either, because it's an
> open-ended question. How do you know when you're done? There may yet be
> forms of life that exist at even more extreme temperatures. All we know is
> the forms we *have* catalogued, and even those show a fairly wide range of
> temperatures they can live at.
might be into my theory????
> > 3. No it does not PROVE my theory.
> > But ... In this
> > instance it is more evidence that
> > temperature control is the key to
> > evolution.
>
> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
my theory.
> > >So far all you've come up with is "All life exists within a
> > > narrow range of temperatures" (untrue to begin with) and from that, go
> > > on to imply that the purpose of life is to regulate temperature (which
> > > does not logically follow).
>
> > No, you misunderstand. My theory has
> > an UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS that states
> > that temperature regulation (the 4
> > options that evolved from heat
> > sensitivity) evolved to all life.
>
> Same difference. You have an unproven hypothesis. You have implied. Either
> way it's an erroneous conclusion.
proves or disproves it. That and no more.
> > Now
> > I'm trying to show you that it seems
> > to be so in every instance. And that
> > for 2 decades I've searched for any
> > exception and have not found one.
>
> And you *won't* find one. Not because your hypothesis is correct, but because
> what you search for doesn't exist. You're searching for a living thing that
> does not "regulate temperature". But you've defined temperature regulation in
> such a way that anything that *affects* temperature can be said to *regulate*
> temperature. So even non-living things regulate temperature. Look into
> thermodynamics. Everything, from ice melting to stars imploding to stomachs
> digesting to rocks rolling downhill ("moves towards!") affects temperature in
> some way.
difficult fact for you to accept. I have
agreed with the general definition of first
life: it eats, grows, excretes out and
reproduces (I also added blocks out)
Neither rocks or ice fit that definition. The
4 options not only fit but explain the
definition of 1st life
> > Now back to your cat. When you get to
> > mammals, you have evolved a VERY
> > COMPLEX organism that has MANY
> > MANY ways (besides eating) to
> > regulate temperature...
>
> This COMPLEXity seems to be a smokescreen to disguise that you're arguing for
> a system where "taking in" can be a COMPLEX evolved form of "excreting out".
> The cat is eating (taking in) even thought it's too hot and should (based on
> the "four options") be "excreting out".
stop eating, so it excretes and blocks out in
all the other ways mammals control body
temperature to compensate, such as:
> > ...breathing
> > faster or slower, shedding their coat-
> > or thicker growth in cold climates,
> > sleeping during the day and coming
> > out at night, moving to cooler
> > climates, drinking more water, etc
> > etc. (remember I said 'EVERYTHING")
>
> Yup. When EVERYTHING is allowed, your "theory" becomes meaningless. Say -
> since this thread was about Male/Female = Hotter/Colder, why doesn't the cat
> just change sex to cool off?
alive" textbook?
> > Your trivializing what I think is an
> > important discovery without
> > answering the tough question: name
> > me any aspect of any living thing that
> > doesn't regulate temperature or didn't
> > evolve from something that did.
>
> Thermodynamics shows that that's not possible. Every reaction affects
> temperature. And living things are collections of many thousands of
> reactions. So they, like non-living things, affect temperature. It says
> nothing about why or how life appeared.
that all life moderates temperature?
Now whether it's just a correlation or the
basis of all evolution is the direction we go
from here.
> > Until
> > you or anyone else can, I will
> > continue to talk about the myriad of
> > ways heat regulation has evolved to
> > everything from 1st life to human
> > thinking and emotional behavior.
>
> I was afraid of that....
> You say your "theory" explains EVERYTHING. This is NOT a strength. As with
> the cat. You use your "theory" to show that the cat can eat or not eat when
> he's hot. A "theory" that can explain away EVERYTHING (including opposite
> effects) is very suspect. Remember some people believe that a particular Holy
> Book explains EVERYTHING. It don't make it right.
suspect: So I guess you don't believe in
those 'everything' theories like: the big
bang, E=MC2, and Darwin's theory of
evolution. Theories that cover everything
demand more proof that's all.)
> -Drox
Drox cats/mammals are complicated. But
if you'll look you'll see that all the
variations of behavior in cats , pine trees,
bacteria evolved from a simple system of
heat regulation found in the beginning of
life. In Tommy the Terrorist's post he
asked me how bacteria, probably the oldest
form of life still in existence, regulates
temperature. Let's see. Tom Hendricks
(t_hendricks)
Drox
> Ice is not sensitive to heat.
Sure it is. If you get it too hot, it melts.
> Ice is not alive.
True. Thus living things are not the only things that are sensitive to
temperature. Non-living things, like ice (and indeed everything that undergoes any
kind of action or reaction) do moderate temperature WITHOUT BEING ALIVE.
> The reason sensitivity to heat came first is
> because reproduction was no more than one
> way to moderate temperature.
Is there ANYONE besides yourself who believes this? That reproduction is merely a
way for organisms to cool off? How is it that polar bears and penguins manage to
reproduce, given that they're so much hotter than the ambient temperature?
> Raise the
> temperature of bacteria and it divides...
Raise the temperature of bacteria and they cook. They die.
> ...NOT
> because it loves children but because it's
> too hot and dividing in half cools the parent
> bacterium.
By what mechanism does this cooling occur? Keep in mind that greater surface area
only helps in cooling if the ambient temperature is lower than the object in
question (ignoring evaporative cooling for the moment). Thus heat sinks are more
efficient when they have a large surface area. But if the ambient temperature is
higher, increasing the surface area will warm, rather than cool the object. That's
why a thin steak cooks faster than a thick one of the same mass. And why dividing
(increasing surface area) will not cool a bacterium if the medium it's in gets hot.
It'll just allow the bacterium to cook faster!
> All reproduction evolved (in
> all its variations and complexities) from
> 1st life being too hot and dividing in half as
> a way to cool down (option 4).
> In truth I haven't even finished STATING
> my theory.
And already you've made some glaring logical missteps.
> Neither rocks or ice are alive. This is a
> difficult fact for you to accept.
Not only do I accept it, but it's a primary feature of my counter-argument! Rocks
and ice are NOT alive. Yet they do things that affect temperature. This is
directly counter to your assertion that only living things can affect temperature,
and that the reason life appeared is for the purpose of moderating temperature.
> I have
> agreed with the general definition of first
> life: it eats, grows, excretes out and
> reproduces (I also added blocks out)
> Neither rocks or ice fit that definition.
Correct. Rocks and ice are not alive by that definition, and I do not consider them
to be alive. But by your temperature-moderation definition, they should be alive!
Because every time a rock grinds against another rock, the friction warms its
surroundings. When ice melts, it cools its surroundings. Rocks and ice are not
alive, but they do affect temperature.
-Drox
Tommy the Terrorist
11237...@compuserve.com writes:
>1. What happens when bacteria is heated
>up? My theory states that when too hot,
>excretes out or blocks out. One way to do
>this is to divide in half which excretes out
>one half the heat. And in an article on
>underwater volcanos it says "When there
>is a hydrothermal event, they (bacteria)
>reproduce rapidly..." This suggests that
>when too hot they reproduce to cool.
This is a true DIAMOND, I tell you, mined from a vast quantity of
lesser ore. Well, it's more like something else, but I forget the
name of that so will have to reserve it for later...
Speaking of reserving it for later, has anyone started a file
for this newsgroup... you know, one of THOSE sorts of files,
full of such memorable quotes from various sources? ;)
Anyway, you're trying to edify us on the regulation of heat, and
you think that dividing a bacterium (or anything) in half changes
its temperature.........? try that with some coffee ;)
when bacteria are overheated, they tend to die. Yes, some
bacteria form spores in response to unfavorable conditions
(though I think it's usually dryness or lack of nutrients), but
that's hardly "regulating" temperature; at best it might help
them survive. When chilled, bacteria tend to remain in
suspended animation - actually, anything from bacteria to
human cells has a decent chance of being viable after storage
in liquid nitrogen and presumably anything colder, if the
conditions are right. Bacteria do a better job of it tho, as
evidenced by the fact that you can't sterilize meat by putting
it in the freezer, but you can neutralize a person that way...
t_hendricks
<7ocsom$jt7$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
Lets stick with bacteria.
You said than when bacteria COOLS
it tends to remain in suspended animation.
OK. And when it heats up A LOT it dies. OK.
Now tell me more. 1. What happens when
the bacteria warms up a little? 2.How
does the bacteria do those things as defined
in the definition of life: eat, and grow, (we
know it reproduces by division). And
where does the cell wall come from?
Answer these as best you know how and I'll
explain how bacteria regulates
temperature using the 4 options. (Also see
my post the 4 options = definition of life)
Side note: as to cooling: humans cool down
by excreting out waste, urine, sweat, etc.
Blocking out food cools, and excreting out
almost anything takes heat out with it.
(options 2 and 4 in my theory) Bacteria
may cool by dividing in half - excreting
out half.
It's easy to dismiss my theory with name
calling. It's much harder to do it with
facts. Prove me wrong with facts.
Tom Hendricks
t_hendricks
<7ocsns$iqg$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
>
> > Ice is not alive.
>
> True. Thus living things are not the only things that are sensitive to
> temperature. Non-living things, like ice (and indeed everything that undergoes any
> kind of action or reaction) do moderate temperature WITHOUT BEING ALIVE.
>
> > because reproduction was no more than one
> > way to moderate temperature.
>
> way for organisms to cool off? How is it that polar bears and penguins manage to
> reproduce, given that they're so much hotter than the ambient temperature?
how reproduction began, not what it
evolved into.
> > Raise the
> > temperature of bacteria and it divides...
>
> Raise the temperature of bacteria and they cook. They die.
Raise the temperature of bacteria A LOT
and they die. But some live near the
undersea thermal vents - very hot!
>
> > ...NOT
> > because it loves children but because it's
> > too hot and dividing in half cools the parent
> > bacterium.
>
> only helps in cooling if the ambient temperature is lower than the object in
> question (ignoring evaporative cooling for the moment). Thus heat sinks are more
> efficient when they have a large surface area. But if the ambient temperature is
> higher, increasing the surface area will warm, rather than cool the object. That's
> why a thin steak cooks faster than a thick one of the same mass. And why dividing
> (increasing surface area) will not cool a bacterium if the medium it's in gets hot.
> It'll just allow the bacterium to cook faster!
true. If you have 2 houses and A. is half as
big as B. A will be a lot easier to cool than
B. Size counts. And by dividing, the
bacterium not only continues its species
but it prolongs the original bacterium's
life by cooling it down.. If dividsion helps
both halves then it's more likely to happen
and the first half can divide for a 2nd
time, an evolutionary tactic to further
that species. If division helps both halves
survive, the species is more likely to
survive.
> > All reproduction evolved (in
> > all its variations and complexities) from
> > 1st life being too hot and dividing in half as
>
> > In truth I haven't even finished STATING
> > my theory.
>
>
> > difficult fact for you to accept.
>
> and ice are NOT alive. Yet they do things that affect temperature. This is
> directly counter to your assertion that only living things can affect temperature,
> and that the reason life appeared is for the purpose of moderating temperature.
>
> > agreed with the general definition of first
> > life: it eats, grows, excretes out and
> > reproduces (I also added blocks out)
> > Neither rocks or ice fit that definition.
>
> to be alive. But by your temperature-moderation definition, they should be alive!
> Because every time a rock grinds against another rock, the friction warms its
> surroundings. When ice melts, it cools its surroundings. Rocks and ice are not
> alive, but they do affect temperature.
>
> -Drox
questions that I've demanded of my theory
when I was developing it. I'm preparing a
list of those questions. They're meaner
than you. Stay tuned.
Tom Hendricks
Tommy the Terrorist
I forgot. No, this precious Jewel is not exactly a Diamond,
so to speak.... it's more precisely a STRUVITE, I dare say...
In article <7of2nd$f0s$1...@darwin.ediacara.org> t_hendricks,
11237...@compuserve.com writes:
>No more off the subject lectures please.
(Ahem... ok, I deleted the stuff about the cell
wall, how humans "cool off" by pissing, etc.
Do you often cool off that way? 'Tis true, I
suppose, that if you douse the bed that way...)
>(options 2 and 4 in my theory) Bacteria
>may cool by dividing in half - excreting
>out half.
Here's the problem. You confirm that you think
that dividing something in two changes its
temperature. For instance, dividing a block of
ice in two makes it cooler, I suppose? I don't
know. I don't really care. The point is, you don't
make sense, and bacteria don't regulate their
internal temperature, and it's not my job to
explain to you random things about their biology
which cannot possibly change these facts.
Drox
t_hendricks wrote:
> Drox <dr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Is there ANYONE besides yourself who believes this? That reproduction is >merely a
> way for organisms to cool off?
> You misunderstand my theory. I'm stating
> how reproduction began, not what it
> evolved into.
Okay, I'll rephrase. Is there anyone besides yourself who believes that reproduction
BEGAN merely as a way for organisms to cool off?
> > By what mechanism does this cooling occur? Keep in mind that greater surface >area
> only helps in cooling if the ambient temperature is lower than the object in
> > question (ignoring evaporative cooling for the moment). Thus heat sinks are >more
> efficient when they have a large surface area. But if the ambient >temperature is
> higher, increasing the surface area will warm, rather than cool the >object. That's why
> a thin steak cooks faster than a thick one of the same mass. >And why dividing
> (increasing surface area) will not cool a bacterium if the >medium it's in gets hot.
> It'll just allow the bacterium to cook faster!
> Your argument sounds good but it is not
> true. If you have 2 houses and A. is half as
> big as B. A will be a lot easier to cool than
> B.
If it's cold out, A will get cold faster than B. If it's hot out, A will heat up faster
than B. Provided of course that they're the same shape. If A is a compact squarish
little house, and B is a long narrow sprawling estate, things will be very different.
Because it's not size that matters so much as surface area relative to volume. As
bacteria do not heat or cool themselves (they become the same temperature as their
surroundings, like a house without a furnace or AC) it would seem to be advantageous for
them NOT to divide. Smaller organisms - or rather those with greater surface areas
relative to volume - would seem to be far more vulnerable to shifting temperatures than
larger ones.
> Size counts.
Not the way that you think it does. Surface area relative to volume counts. But, other
things being equal, that does increase as size decreases. Still, having greater surface
area relative to volume would not keep a single-celled organism cool when it's hot. In
fact it would cause it to heat up faster when its environment heats up. And to cool down
faster as its environment cools.
> Drox you're not asking the really tough
> questions that I've demanded of my theory
> when I was developing it. I'm preparing a
> list of those questions.
Of course your hypothesis answers them all, right? I can't wait. Instead of your
hand-picked softballs, why not answer a few of my questions? Not "really tough" enough
for you?
> They're meaner
> than you.
I'm hurt. Tom thinks I'm mean.
-Drox
t_hendricks
<7oht96$6mn$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
Ice is not alive.
Bacteria do regulate their temperature
as do all living things. And they do so with
the 4 options: take in, block out, hold in,
and excrete out:
1. Take in: organisms require a source of
energy. In the case of bacteria its: light,
organic or inorganic compounds.
3. Hold in. Bacteria uses these sources of
energy to grow
2. Block out: Bacteria have many ways of
protecting themselves. The most
interesting is endospores which can lay
dormant in amber for millions of years.
4. Excrete out: Bacteria excretes out
waste. It also divides which I suggest cools.
That explains some of the ways bacteria
may regulate heat.
Here's how dividing in half cools:
Air conditioners cool by taking heat OUT of
the room. If you DIVIDE the room in half
the room with the air conditioner will cool
faster because there is less space to cool
down.
[moderator's huh: Huh? What about the other half, now left without
any air conditioning? You can subdivide a system all you want and
the thermodynamics of the overall system will not change, ceteris
paribus. - JAH]
t_hendricks
<7oht91$6g7$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
> > > Is there ANYONE besides yourself who believes this? That reproduction is >merely a
> > way for organisms to cool off?
The first person who invents a new theory
is usually alone in his belief of that theory
until others agree. If you'll accept it as
true for the sole purpose of testing it, you
will find it answers a lot of questions. The
most important being that reproduction
would benefit the parent, thus making it
more likely that he could reproduce again
thus making it more likely that that
species would survive.
[moderator's gentle suggestion: It may be worth considering,
Tom, that the first person who invents a new theory may also
be alone in his belief because the theory does not provide
any explanatory power, or in fact flies in the face of
observation. Perhaps you could address these, especially
the first objection, to wit: even if you're right, so what? - JAH]
Here's a factor you're not considering:
when bacteria grow they reach a point
where the outer surface is not large
enough to supply enough nutrients to the
insides of the bacteria. I suggest that this
is a point of being 'too hot' and it divides.
>
> > Drox you're not asking the really tough
> > questions that I've demanded of my theory
> > when I was developing it. I'm preparing a
> > list of those questions.
>
> Of course your hypothesis answers them all, right? I can't wait. Instead of your
> hand-picked softballs, why not answer a few of my questions? Not "really tough" enough
> for you?
>
> > They're meaner
> > than you.
>
> I'm hurt. Tom thinks I'm mean.
>
> -Drox
Your QUESTIONS are more mean than
tough. Example I asked, then answered the
reason for male and female. That by itself
was tougher than all your questions
combined.
Go to my new post 1,2, then 3. And
comment on that . And yes I'm preparing a
tough list of questions. And I've also got a
post I'd like you to respond to, stay tuned.
Tom Hendricks
t_hendricks
<7on01t$l2k$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
t_hendricks
This example was to show how a parent
cell could cool if it divided in half. And
that would help keep it alive so it would
be more likely to split again. To continue
the analogy if the bacteria divided into 2
parts each would have the same genetic
material (so to make our analogy fit we'd
have to say each half would get half the air
conditioner in the division. But comparing
an organic bacteria with an inorganic
room with an air conditioner doesn't quite
work then.) Comments?
Anon.
<snip>
>
> > Not the way that you think it does. Surface area relative to volume counts. But, other
> > things being equal, that does increase as size decreases. Still, having greater surface
> > area relative to volume would not keep a single-celled organism cool when it's hot. In
> > fact it would cause it to heat up faster when its environment heats up. And to cool down
> > faster as its environment cools.
>
> Here's a factor you're not considering:
> when bacteria grow they reach a point
> where the outer surface is not large
> enough to supply enough nutrients to the
> insides of the bacteria. I suggest that this
> is a point of being 'too hot' and it divides.
>
Ah. A redefinition of heat. We should tell the physicists :-)
Bob
t_hendricks
<7on021$l8o$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
t_hendricks
<11237...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> In article
> <7oht91$6g7$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
> Drox <dr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > t_hendricks wrote:
> >
> > > Drox <dr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Is there ANYONE besides yourself who believes this? That reproduction is >merely a
> > > way for organisms to cool off?
>
> The first person who invents a new theory
> is usually alone in his belief of that theory
> until others agree. If you'll accept it as
> true for the sole purpose of testing it, you
> will find it answers a lot of questions. The
> most important being that reproduction
> would benefit the parent, thus making it
> more likely that he could reproduce again
> thus making it more likely that that
> species would survive.
>
> [moderator's gentle suggestion: It may be worth considering,
> Tom, that the first person who invents a new theory may also
> be alone in his belief because the theory does not provide
> any explanatory power, or in fact flies in the face of
> observation. Perhaps you could address these, especially
> the first objection, to wit: even if you're right, so what? - JAH]
I can see that by the responses I've been
getting (though to me heat regulation as
key to evolution seems sooooo obvious )
Anyway point taken. And I've tried to get
back to basics in the post "1,2, then 3"
Any comments on that?
As to the 2nd part, what specific facts are
you thinking of?
Anon.
t_hendricks wrote:
No mention of heat there (energy != heat)
>
> 3. Hold in. Bacteria uses these sources of
> energy to grow
>
Ditto
>
> 2. Block out: Bacteria have many ways of
> protecting themselves. The most
> interesting is endospores which can lay
> dormant in amber for millions of years.
Ditto
>
> 4. Excrete out: Bacteria excretes out
> waste. It also divides which I suggest cools.
>
Ditto for the first. And division would leave the average temperature
the same, so better for one, worse for the other.
>
> That explains some of the ways bacteria
> may regulate heat.
>
> Here's how dividing in half cools:
> Air conditioners cool by taking heat OUT of
> the room. If you DIVIDE the room in half
> the room with the air conditioner will cool
> faster because there is less space to cool
> down.
>
> [moderator's huh: Huh? What about the other half, now left without
> any air conditioning? You can subdivide a system all you want and
> the thermodynamics of the overall system will not change, ceteris
> paribus. - JAH]
>
Obviously you wouldn't want to live in the other room - it's too hot.
Bob
t_hendricks
<7oq2lk$lk0$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
Tom here. Let's add some more. Some
bacteria have flagella. These little whip
like tails can move the organism toward
(option #1) or away from (option #4).
They can also help in the detection of
favorable or unfavorable conditions. More
evidence of bacteria regulating heat.
> >
> > Here's how dividing in half cools:
> > Air conditioners cool by taking heat OUT of
> > the room. If you DIVIDE the room in half
> > the room with the air conditioner will cool
> > faster because there is less space to cool
> > down.
> >
> > [moderator's huh: Huh? What about the other half, now left without
> > any air conditioning? You can subdivide a system all you want and
> > the thermodynamics of the overall system will not change, ceteris
> > paribus. - JAH]
> >
>
> Obviously you wouldn't want to live in the other room - it's too hot.
>
> Bob
The following is from
bact.wisc.edu/microtextbook:
In discussion of growth rate vs.
temperature for 4 environmental classes
of bacteria they say, "Most bacteria will
grow over a temperature range of about 30
degrees. The curves exhibit 3 cardinal
points; minimum, optimum, and maximum
temperatures for growth. There is a steady
increase in growth rate between the
minimum and optimum temperatures,, but
SLIGHTLY PAST THE OPTIMUM A CRITICAL
THERMOLABILE CELLULAR EVENT OCCURS,
AND THE GROWTH RATE PLUNGE RAPIDLY
AS THE MAXIMUM T(EMPERATURE) IS
APPROACHED. " Now if temperature didn't
matter, why the extreme change when the
bacteria heats up? Comments?
Tom Hendricks (t_hendricks)
Anon.
t_hendricks wrote:
<FX: snipping of dittos etc.>
>
> > >
> > > That explains some of the ways bacteria
> > > may regulate heat.
>
> Tom here. Let's add some more. Some
> bacteria have flagella. These little whip
> like tails can move the organism toward
> (option #1) or away from (option #4).
> They can also help in the detection of
> favorable or unfavorable conditions. More
> evidence of bacteria regulating heat.
Now cite a paper where it is shown that bacteria move along temperature
gradients to reach an optimum. They could be moving to look for nutrients.
Did you do chemistry at school? If so, you may rmember that most reactions
speed up if you add more heat. This is the obvious and simple explanation
for why the growth rate increases. The drop is because of de-naturation of
proteins. Again, I learnt this at school. I have never come accross
anything about the cooling effects of cell division, which is what you're
suggesting as a mechanism.
Bob
t_hendricks
<7p9es8$5sa$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
"Anon." <bob....@helsinki.fi> wrote:
>
>
> t_hendricks wrote:
> <FX: snipping of dittos etc.>
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > That explains some of the ways bacteria
> > > > may regulate heat.
> >
> > Tom here. Let's add some more. Some
> > bacteria have flagella. These little whip
> > like tails can move the organism toward
> > (option #1) or away from (option #4).
> > They can also help in the detection of
> > favorable or unfavorable conditions. More
> > evidence of bacteria regulating heat.
>
> Now cite a paper where it is shown that bacteria move along temperature
> gradients to reach an optimum. They could be moving to look for nutrients.
>
Isn't the reason for nutrients to maintain
heat? My point is that heat matters. And
that when you look at any organism, heat is
a factor. I'm suggesting it's THE factor.
life cycle of bacteria. Someone suggested
that bacteria does not regulate heat. I
suggest that it does. Maybe I should
rephrase heat to heat/pressure on the
membrane/chemical activity. You can't take
heat out of organisms and expect it to live.
Not only that but I'm saying that heat,etc is
the key. When heat rises ALL organisms
respond. When heat lowers ALL organisms
respond. Heat is important, and I believe
the key to all evolution. It is a new way to
look at organisms, but why not look at them
in relation to heat when heat is such an
integrated part of everything.
Bob, comment on my new post "1,2,3
then". I would like to know what you think.
Tom Hendricks
Anon.
t_hendricks wrote:
> In article
> <7p9es8$5sa$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
> "Anon." <bob....@helsinki.fi> wrote:
> >
> >
> > t_hendricks wrote:
> > <FX: snipping of dittos etc.>
> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That explains some of the ways bacteria
> > > > > may regulate heat.
> > >
> > > Tom here. Let's add some more. Some
> > > bacteria have flagella. These little whip
> > > like tails can move the organism toward
> > > (option #1) or away from (option #4).
> > > They can also help in the detection of
> > > favorable or unfavorable conditions. More
> > > evidence of bacteria regulating heat.
> >
> > Now cite a paper where it is shown that bacteria move along temperature
> > gradients to reach an optimum. They could be moving to look for nutrients.
> >
> Moving to look for nutrients. Yes, but why?
> Isn't the reason for nutrients to maintain
> heat? My point is that heat matters. And
> that when you look at any organism, heat is
> a factor. I'm suggesting it's THE factor.
Are you equating heat with energy? If not, what you're suggesting is that
bacteira have an optimum temperature, so that when they move towards nutrients,
and ingest them (or not), then their temperature should move closer to the
optimum.
In other words, they're homeothermic (if pehaps not very good at it).
You've never spent a winter in Finland!
You can take heat out of organisms - I use to do it all the time when I wanted to
keep my mildew alive for long periods.
>
> Not only that but I'm saying that heat,etc is
> the key. When heat rises ALL organisms
> respond. When heat lowers ALL organisms
> respond. Heat is important, and I believe
> the key to all evolution. It is a new way to
> look at organisms, but why not look at them
> in relation to heat when heat is such an
> integrated part of everything.
> Bob, comment on my new post "1,2,3
> then". I would like to know what you think.
>
Will do.
--
Bob O'Hara
Metapopulation Research Group
Division of Population Biology
Department of Ecology and Systematics
PO Box 17 (Arkadiankatu 7)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland
tel: +358 9 191 7417 fax: +358 9 191 7301
email: bob....@helsinki.fi
To induce catatonia, visit:
http://www.helsinki.fi/science/metapop/