Threesology Research Journal
What is Life?
(subtitled: "DNA, RNA, Proteins")

(The Study of Threes)

Note: I was sent a BMC article review entitled "What has driven the evolution of multiple cone classes in visual systems — object contrast enhancement or light flicker elimination?" As a provisional abstract, the following background of the research direction was provided as follows:

Shai Sabbah and Craig W Hawryshyn
Published: 4 July 2013


Two competing theories have been advanced to explain the evolution of multiple cone classes in vertebrate eyes. These two theories have important, but different, implications for our understanding of the design and tuning of vertebrate visual systems. The 'contrast theory' proposes that multiple cone classes evolved in shallow-water fish to maximize the visual contrast of objects against diverse backgrounds. The competing 'flicker theory' states that multiple cone classes evolved to eliminate the light flicker inherent in shallow-water environments through antagonistic neural interactions, thereby enhancing object detection. However, the selective pressures that have driven the evolution of multiple cone classes remain largely obscure.

It was the usage of the word "flickering" in the content of relatedly discussing photo-receptivity which caught my eye (like a way-ward firefly lofting nearby). It encouraged a re-interpreted application of the content to my "Threes Phenomena" research interest. This interest is a further development of an hypothesis directed towards an understanding of what might have initiated the first "three" ~ materiality ~ from which other pattern-of-three examples have followed suit; if not actually sprung from, whether they be mere linguistic copy-cats, echoes or original ideas.

The idea of "flickering" goes well with a theory which includes solar events that appear to affect and effect the manifestation of biological life, if not having played a part in the initial development of primary biological materials such as DNA, RNA and Proteins. However, upon encountering the usage of the word "flickering" in the above content-context, (metaphorically stated,) my mind started to flicker, then flutter, and then evolved wings to soar into a more "Threes research" defined path... be it a type of seasonal presentation (north in summer/ south in winter), "predatious clandestations" (such as hunting for food), or other flight purpose (such as for fun, nest building, etc...).

To me, "flickering" involves contrasting states such as light and dark though the intensity of these two states may have values of measurement not necessarily quantifiable or for that matter detectable via a spectrum of light. As such, other contrasts (that you may or may not be comfortable with labeling as being dichotomous), can include the on/off switching of an electrical circuit, emotions such as like/dislike, intellectualisms such as far right/far left, as well as a multitude of other organizational formulas such as heavy/light, thin/fat, rough/smooth, far/near, summer/winter, hot/cold, etc... While some are perceptible through our basic senses, others require instrumentation due to inherent structuring not amiable to everyday biologically-based human perception, not to mention human understanding. While someone may "understand" words or content based on previous exposure, this does not guarantee comprehension of the overall subject material, much less an ability to apply the knowledge. For example, someone may understand that the words atom, electrons and explosion can relate to an atomic bomb, but this does not mean they can design one.

As I began writing this page amidst the day-to-day interruptions encountered, I sent a short missive to a fellow "Threes" Colleague (Simon Kelsey of who took a moment away from his busy schedule to provide a reply to the following:

In our research into the "threes phenomena" we process alternative numerically-labeled phenomena such as patterns-of-two, four, five, seven, etc... as models of comparison in order to establish criteria such as volume, scope, resiliency (age), etc... However, another factor has come to mind. Namely, animate and inanimate. A further complexity accompanying is when we attempt to define what is meant by these two terms, both in a metaphorical as well as the customary living and non-living senses.

For example, a philosophical (logic) concept such as "Major premise, Minor premise, Conclusion" is not typically viewed as a living entity such as a flower, but it is "alive" in the sense of being discussed by living (animate) beings. Likewise, the triplet coding systems of DNA and RNA (and to this list let us add Proteins) are not characteristically viewed as being alive even though images of a spinning DNA double helix by various artistic renditions gives the impression of movement (and hence, being animate).

The reason I am bringing this up is for us to delve into the possibility that the ultimate source of the "threes beginning" may be an inanimate one. Thus, philosophically, we must ponder whether the attraction, repelling or "leveling" forces in an atom are "alive", not alive, or some third alternative that has not been widely considered because there remains a large dichotomous (two-patterned) orientation amongst many other-wise intelligently-minded people who secure themselves with a mental fixation to follow presently accepted schools of thought.

Additionally, the animate — inanimate — other trio has an application by those addressing the origin-of-life question by attempting to recreate those conditions on an early Earth which are thought to have provided the (primordial soup) environment for the building blocks of life.

Here is the very welcomed reply made by Simon considering the foregoing. No doubt some readers have previously sojourned into this philosophical "What is Life?" realm and have encountered similar information, albeit perhaps in different contexts:

Not all matter is "alive" in the ordinary everyday sense of being (organized) into organisms. Nor is it so in a deeper sense of handedness or chirality of molecules, which seems to be key to life - according to one book I read recently.

In addition, not all life is conscious in the distinctive sense that we Homo sapiens possess and experience it. Hence we can reasonably argue for the traditional threefold division of: Matter, Life & Consciousness .

As for the deeper question of whether matter somehow has the potentiality of life (and consciousness) built in... well that's still a mystery - whichever way we look at it. Literally, if we look at this in reverse, as conscious organisms examining matter (our physical world) trying to understand it - in what sense can we say anything "exists" other than in our minds? Hence Rene Descartes famous maxim "cogito ergo sum" I think, therefore I am.

Simon Kelsey

~ ~ ~ TRIPLICITY ~ ~ ~

("In regard to the "handedness" or "chirality" comment, this is mentioned in the book, THE DISAPPEARING SPOON by Sam Keen.)

Rotating DNA (147K)

In some portrayals of DNA's double helix we are confronted by a revolving view. This perspective presents us with movement. Hence the expression "motion picture" which was coined to represent singular images connected in series by the usage of film. Prior to the development of transparent film which permitted the development of "motion" pictures, separate images had to be mechanically manipulated in order to create motion like images drawn on the margins of books in which the pages are rapidly flicked one after another as might one do when shuffling a deck of cards split in two. The edges or sides are thumbed through, which creates the illusion of movement. My brother told me he used to draw a rocket ship in different positions on separate pages which, when the pages were flicked through, gave the impression of the ship taking off.

With respect to an image of a spinning strand of DNA, this is misleading since DNA, RNA nor Proteins revolve on any presumed axis analogous to the spin of a planet such as the Earth. Otherwise, we're all walking around with a bunch of revolving DNA strands inside us acting as miniature gyroscopes which keep our cells on an even kelter. HA! Yet, the usage of some words to describe the DNA strand can also lead to misunderstanding such as "coiled strand". The word "coiled" quite easily stirs the image of a spring that some readers might use as a metaphor at attempting to deduce what in nature might have initiated a "spring-like" design. While there is nothing wrong in using such an analogy, its usage as a fundamental floor-plan from which all other analogies are to be aligned with, might created a one-sided tilt to one's imagination.

Making a (double helix) strand of DNA revolve for illustrative purposes is the result of someone exhibiting an artistic license of free expressionism, though it nonetheless is an illusion like the distorted images seen in Fun House mirrors. This is like saying someone can walk on water because you witness them walking in a desert during the day when the Sun's reflection off of silicate particles creates the mirage of water. Although many readers appreciate the distinction between the illusion and reality, it is of need to be mentioned because I have met some who think the spinning image represents a reality just as some people naively believe Jesus was able to walk on water. In other words, the double helix strand doesn't move, either in a rotational or other-wise sense, though it can be moved (altered) by external forces, such as having the strands torn apart by adding alcohol. (It is well known that proteins can be altered ("de-natured") by heat, acid, alkali, or ultraviolet radiation so that all of the original properties are removed or diminished. (The last sentence was, in part, extricated from (an old version of) the WordWeb dictionary.)

Image source:
Introduction to DNA

In my mind, I flip the image of the double-helix in the other 360° positions, which includes a horizontal placement. In this visualized position the rotating strands give the impression of ocean waves, either churning or moving up and down. It also gives the impression of an oscilloscopic representation of Alternating current. I mention this because such an analogy may be of use when attempting to discern what may have influenced the particular DNA "ladder" configuration.

While it is understood that there are "matching" (and contrasting content-specific) base (basic) pairs such as Adenine with Thymine in DNA and Adenine with Uracil in RNA as well as Guanine pairing with Cytosine in both DNA and RNA; some readers might be inclined to interpret this "pairing" as a conscious type of movement indicating life similar to the pairing of Hydrogen and Oxygen to produce life producing and sustaining water. (That some might refer to as "living" water and conclude from this that water will do more good for you if you treat water nicely.) Analogously, with respect to our "What is life?" question, to give a macroscopic human level example, the Abortion — Right-to-life debates have ultimately centered around different philosophically-based distinctions of what is meant as life, at least in the everyday human sense... while some would care to expand this into other animate areas of consideration such as animal rights, plant rights, insect rights, tree rights, vegetable rights, etc... Some might even venture to say that viruses and bacteria have a right to life, even if it means their presence in another life form causes illness, debilitating disease or even death.

Is life to be defined by the moment of conception when a sperm and egg have joined, or sometime afterwards such as when one or more (distinctly human) body parts have begun to form... even if they have not yet matured? Or is human life to be considered "a potentiality in the making" because the particular sperm and egg are human based? This fact, some readers might want to argue, is life because it exists prior to fertilization in terms of the life cycle of a species' sperm or egg, (with "life cycle" being an operative phrase); or perhaps, for the religiously minded, the spirit of life exists prior to any and all biological activity and it is this we should be most concerned with.

Indeed, when does life begin? Although the religious minded might want to claim that God's "appreciation" of life's meaning (definition) might well be different from our human capacity of understanding, we humans are still left with the task of making some attempt, however enfeebled some would presume it to be. As such, it would appear that it all depends on how we define life for legal, general social/philosophical as well as spiritual purposes.

Some would argue that "life" is to be determined by what we understand to be as biology. As such, life would be paired with the definition of being self-sustaining and propagation, though some life forms such as the mule are born sterile. It also assumes death as a natural and inevitable process since a common understanding of life means an eventual death. However, using such criteria might lead one to suggest that a universe, galaxy, planetary system or even planet are alive. We say that a Universe is born (comes into existence), is sustained (for a time), and may even lead to the propagation of something else such as another Universe or galaxy, or whatever. Yet, some readers might prefer not to be limited by the the definition of life attributed with biology. Thus, we are met with different definitions of life based on what we are discussing. If we try to administer definitions of life from what we know about different forms of matter, then we reach a stale-mate of non-consensus because many are not taking into account other subject areas. We can not reach an equitable definition if we are using alternative premises that are not described as being part of the same equation. Additionally, some prefer to conceal the fact that they don't want to arise at a consensus because in doing so is interpreted to mean a limitation, whether it be physical, spiritual or otherwise.

Yet, I'm not centering the discussion around life for a given species, (nor even a singularly given "species" of Three), but the beginning of life at its pristine origin... which is prior to the development of DNA, RNA, and Proteins. In other words, was there an original "Three" or did it arise by way of a 1 - 2 - 3 maturational sequence? Has the sequence stopped because the application of numerical identifiers is for purposes of human comprehension and has little to do with the reality of what has and may be occurring as a further development?

For example, did all three large sub-atomic particles (Electrons, Neutrons, Protons) come into being simultaneously (from a singular, double or triple source), or was the organization due to a sequential (maturational-like?) sequence that is naively represented with numerical symbols? In any case, is it this "three" arrangement which caused the development of triplet structures in DNA, RNA and Proteins or does it simply supply a blueprint that needs an architectural type of hand that extends the blueprint into a three-patterned scaffolding? While some refer to the basic bio-polymers (DNA, RNA, Proteins) as blueprints, it may be more useful to label them as basic scaffolding. In other words, blueprints are needed to design scaffolding which is needed for laying the corner-stones of a three-sided structure. Conversely, why was a three-patterned blueprint put into play?

Current theories of Physics use a "Three Families of Fundamental Particles" organizational formula which includes ideas such as the aforementioned three large sub-atomic particles, as well as the existence of three quarks and three anti-quarks. In short, it is replete with three-patterned configurations. Such a usage begs the question of whether or not this actually is the way the Universe is organized or are our ideas merely human-specific cognitive tools which permit some level of comprehension? If the usage of "three" is as fundamental as we humans consider, then was that from which the "three" derived also (1) "three" based, (2) part of a one- two- ... maturational type of development, or/and representative of the same cognitive limiting structure identified by historians of number concept development?

How we interpret and define life is determined by cognitive processes. Without a clear understanding of how we think might well lead us to misinterpretation and misdefining. It is therefore necessary to acquire some grasp of our cognitive processes in order for us to attempt a clearer appraisal of how we organize information. Such as: Is the "three" formula/phenomena an expression of a cognitive limit having been reached and is presently acting as plateau that is being described as a fundamental truth such as triplet codon system of DNA and RNA, the three dimensions of the Universe, or the Primary - Secondary - Tertiary structure of Proteins?

Whereas when someone suggests the existence of one or more than the original three, there is some form of a "pause" placed after the three before any additional entity is used, which designates that a cognitive limit has been reached? Yet, information that is added is further lumped into a similar "three" array which, in turn, is followed by a "pause" of some sort? example is in our usage of a comma to represent the difference between hundreds and thusands. The first three (ones, tens, hundreds) is a three-patterned array representing a cognitive limit that must be somehow separated (in this case with a comma), in order for the next series of three to begin (thousands, ten thousands, hundred thousands), which, no matter how "high" we count, we use series of three value placements.

The following are examples of "Threes" ideas containing "pauses" which proceed the addition of another element (though some pauses are merely linguistically applied in overlooked or taken-for-granted conventions of expression or subtleties of accepted speech, with no graphic symbol being used to give an indication thereof such as in the case of a comma placed as a pause between hundreds and thousands):

  • DNA: Adenosine - Cytosine - Guanine... Thymine
  • RNA: Adenosine - Cytosine - Guanine... Uracil
  • Papa Bear - Mamma Bear - Baby Bear... Goldilocks
  • Three Fiddlers... Old King Cole
  • Three little Pigs... The Wolf
  • Three dimensions of the Universe... Time
  • Proteins: Primary - Secondary - Tertiary... The Quaternary Composite
  • 3 solar moments: Dawn - Noon - Dusk (paused by night) 3 moment Sun... etc.
  • 3 vending coins: Nickles - Dimes - Quarters... Dollar bill (paper money)
  • Computer: Minimize - Maximize - Exit... Turn machine off
  • 1, 2. 3... etc.
  • Boolean logic: And - Or - Not... etc.
  • Childrens Hokey Pokey: Put your right foot in, Put your right foot out, Put your right foot in "and" then you shake it all about (The "and" is the pause.)
  • A, B, C... etc.
  • One for the money, Two for the Show, Three to get ready "and" four to go.
  • Marching: Gimme' your left, Gimme' your left, Gimme' your left... Right (The last [third] segment is frequently repreated three times and the overally cadence call may have several repetitions with intervals/pauses of silence between them.)

Is the concept of a triple structure found in DNA, RNA and Proteins but another expression of this same cognitive limit which appears to display a pause of some type after the three before one or more additional items is attached (respectively, Thymine, Uracil, Quaternary)? Regardless if we answer either yes or/and no, we remain left with the question: Was that from which the "three" organization arose, also a three-structured entity? Hence, with such in mind, I have ventured into an attempt to discern what might the originating "three" look and function like. However, other questions arise such as:

  • Whether or not the "originating three" still exists in some fashion?
  • Can the originating three be replicated?
  • Is that which influenced the "threes phenomena" in the bio-polymers (DNA, RNA, Proteins) constrained to have only one type of influence that can only be interpreted by using numerical, or number-related word symbols?
  • Or can alternative "three" forms exist such as triangular configurations, varying proportionalities, mixed media forms, etc...?

  • For many people, looking at examples (in this case, "threes") from multiple subject areas leads to too much generality and might be referred to as a fishing, hunting or lost treasure expedition. While to some extent I agree it is a make-shift rafting trip down an unexplored water-way; for me, specifics found in a particular subject venue can have application to enhance a greater appreciation of one or more other subject areas. However, I do not equate my efforts with those who expend time, money and energy to climb the same mountain as others have in order to place "I was here" flag, or take a picture of themselves at the top like some wild game hunter believing themselves to have made a great accomplishment by subduing a beast they believe they have tangled with in a fair and sporting manner.

    Far too many express a mentality akin to the biblical notion that THE right or one way (to some ultimate prize or achievement) can only be acquired by following a very narrow and structured path... that, like the game played in childhood, if you fall from the edge of the curb you will get eaten by alligators. Be it in academics, business, politics or religion, they feel that by wandering too far afield leads to an undisciplined mind. While they like to harbor a versatile mind for the purposes of manipulating others because of a greater knowledge, they don't want others to share in this ability. They want you to be tied to an intellectual leash of their designed parameters. However, some people do get so caught up in flights of fancy that they render themselves muted in any purposeful action beyond that of acquiring simple day to day needs. While some say you needed a well "rounded" education, they want to design the height, depth, width and overall breadth of the circular configuration. In many instances, they want your actions to confirm the choices they have made.

    The use of comparisons from different sources can serve a purpose for explanation and assist in one's understanding. (This is why my favorite places are museums and libraries... but I don't really care for zoos.) For an example of such an eclectic approach: a doctor might well use the analogy of plumbing or electrical wiring when describing a particular function of the human body to a certain patient because a strict usage of medical terminology would be like speaking to them with a foreign language. Likewise, a mixing and matching of terms or ideas from different subject areas may facilitate a greater comprehension of an idea, even if the idea is later found to be little more than intellectual amusement... like a cartoon describing some foible of human interaction. Some people prefer to venture into many subject areas in a search for correlating information in an attempt to breaks the bonds of intellectual consideration which can grow limiting roots and shoots, whether or not the information is felt (by one or more others) to be applicable to a stated or generalized supposition.

    If there is no actual animation (movement) in DNA, RNA, and Proteins, how then is it possible for life forms to move,... to be dynamic? Aside from those who resort to answering this with the typical blueprint, chemical biology or interactive cell environment comments, this is an important question because its application to experiments in chemical evolution may make or break a researcher's expeditionary efforts to uncover the mystery of life's genesis, whether or not the question is a consciously active element in their Origin-of-LIfe experimental procedures. (Assuming of course this is their stated goal.) If an experimenter in Chemical Evolution succeeds in producing simple Amino Acids, have they created Life? Is the creation of DNA or RNA in the laboratory the development of a life-form?

    The question of "What is life?" goes hand in hand with the question of "When did life first appear?". In other words, in attempts to recreate those early Earth conditions which (assumedly) supported the origin of life's building blocks, it needs to be considered whether the initial environment was static (still, as in an isolated pool of brackish/oil-like water), or dynamic (moving, as in a wave-filled lake, sea, or ocean). However, the "movement" may not have occurred due to waves created by a huge hovering moon whose appearance and tidal impact would have been enormous many billions of years ago; it may have been due to earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, lightning strikes, tsunamis, whirlpools, wind, or even (if you will permit including) some sort of Bermuda-like triangle effect... and let us not forget to add an extra-terrestrial example for those who might imaginatively entertain the notion of an alien species' summer camp troop taking regular (or irregular) afternoon dips in one of our oceans. (However, a less imaginative extra-terrestrial source might well have been comets or asteroids creating huge splashes or depressions in which water and/or lava was redirected.) Hence, stirring the "Primordial Broth" could have been alternatively accomplished in different places over different expanses of time. (Cooking a potato till it is soft is different than cooking an egg till it is hard-boiled.)

    If we say that there is no movement, and hence, no life occurring on the fundamental structures of life (in DNA, RNA or Proteins), are we going to consider a similar proposal made by those attempting to understand the origin of consciousness; by describing the origin of life arising due to an accretion of materials such as in the "city/social community" of a cell? Then again, is it "proper/politically correct" (as opposed to purposeful) to say that consciousness is alive or that it is merely a tell-tale sign of something we ascribe with the term life? In other words, those attempting to discern the origin of consciousness (or complex thinking for that matter), consider that it may have arose due to an increase in information, however you would care to define "information". Yet, this appears to assume the brain had/has the capacity to acquire (receive and store) more information than was actually necessary for its "survival primivity" (simple survival/functioning). Then again, do we claim that the movement of brain waves is life or, again, simply a tell-tale sign that some form of definable life-substance is present?

    Some readers might venture into the supposition that life itself is little more than a tell-tale sign of something "larger than life", and I don't mean the concept we label as God. Whether this is defined by complexity or some standard of survival capacity (accelerated rate of adaptation, resiliency of physical form such as body part replacement, etc.); or is defined by depth, breath, and perhaps duration-of-existence placement... even if those or that which lives (endures) a long life do little during an extended existence; we tend to think a long life is an accomplishment to be honored and remain in awe of. This type of mentality is similar to those who think staying up late at night (whether they have to work the next day or not) is an achievement deserving of great respect... amongst like-minded peers. It is no less similar to those in the American public school system that reward mediocrity because it is a standard above and beyond the norm of many parental academic achievements; unfortunately resulting in a lower standard of overall acceptable public education requirements.

    And speaking of tell-tale signs of life, it is of some interest to note that since DNA exists in most, if not all biological forms of life, the variety of these life forms may be little more than tell-tale signs of DNA. In other words, the many different kinds of biologically-designed life forms are hosts which increase the survivability rate of DNA. If one species dies out, DNA will still exist in another. In a sense, DNA is mobile whether or not we extend this to claim it also is animate, may be more due to a personalized perspective that overlooks yet another possibility. In attempting to underline this possibility, many of us utilize a (undefined) retrograde type of analysis which frequently resorts to using enumeration as a means of eliminating generalities which cause our developing equation to digress from a result.

    For example, with respect to my own "Threes Phenomena" research efforts, I "retrograde" verbal expressions of "Threes" (such as: Home - Sweet - Home, Veni - Vidi - Vici, I love you, etc...) by not only looking into the basics of language structure and grammar (as well as infant babbling), but also audiology, since speech is quite difficult without an ability to hear. Yet, this leads to additional research into physiology, then biology, then genetics, chemistry and physics. In all of these subject areas I seek out fundamentals, hoping that the fundamental structures will provide an insight into the origin(s) of the "Threes Phenomena". These fundamentals frequently become expressed with numerical values. Necessarily so, the usage of numerical values also leads to an analysis of number development. What is and has been identified is a recurring three-part organization.


    --- 3-patterned slogans, sayings and expressions ---
    --- 3-patterned ear structure/Infant babbling ---

    However, with respect to a three-part formula, some readers are not flexible in their thinking. They expect to find a "three" each and every time without taking into consideration that a precursor development took place in the form of a "Two" preceded by a "One" and that though some are quick to claim a "four" structure furtherance is an acceptable label, they are slow to consider the possible reality of a 3 to 1 ratio structure. By this same token, a 1 to 1, and a 2 to 1 structuring formula may be that which is being presented like expressed formulations of transitional stages. In some cases there will only be a one though it may be associated with a two and/or a three. For example, the concept of one God with that of the three of the Trinity, while the Trinity, in my perspective, is a tell-tale sign of a three-to-one ratio made easily more visible by the expression "three persons of the one godhead". Yet, I consider the possibility that there also are reversals where a three may become a two and a two become a one, depending on context. In short, a singular focus on the "three" limits the accountability of variability that may have application to the research efforts of those in the future. If you see a five I want to know if it actually is a five or is it a two/three/ combination. If you see a seven (plus or minus two), do you overlook that you are referring to a pattern-of-three: (5-7-9)?

    See short article half way down the Page about George Miller's, "magical number seven, plus or minus two":

    --- Internet 3's page 4 ---

    There was, and perhaps still is, a plasticity to the brain. This being said, consciousness as well as life are made possible by this so-called "plasticity". However, I am not talking about the maturationally developing "plasticity" or resiliency of infancy, childhood or teenage years. The usage here is more in tune with a plasticity or "moldability" in evolutionary terms. And I am not necessarily implying this to be analogous with the word "plastic" applied to singularly designed containers or molded parts (such as kitchen ware, toys or car parts)... thus inferring we are not as the old song says "dust in the wind", but instead are a type of scavenging plastic bags (a.k.a. urban tumble-weeds) blowing in the wind... hence, in a sense, we (as plastic tumbling bags) are animate.

    It is easy to see how the discussion can lead us down divergent paths of consideration... many of which turn out to be humourous conglomerations of over- ventured imagination.

    In contrast to a dynamic, moving environment, a static, non-moving environment suggests total, unvarying darkness or total, unvarying lightness; both of which would exhibit a particularly static point of origination. Unvarying darkness might well produce life forms without the need for photo-receptive eyes, (that is if the life-form was already in existence), while an unvarying lightness might well produce very primitive photo-receptive eyes. Yet distinctions of genetic variability suggest a varying environment with both static and dynamic variation. This would account for distinct similarities between species, yet also account for variation.

    Likewise, adaptive changes (creating some types of variability) would ensue due to a creature's own movements away from and/or towards a static light source, such as moving towards a deeper water depth or burrowing beneath a rock. Similarly, a dynamic, moving environment on the other hand, suggests varying levels/types of darkness or lightedness. Such a change, from light to dark or dark to light produces a flickering effect. In other words, it is a type of animation. Such a type (or form) of animation may have influenced the pristine processes of development from which life has emerged.

    However, other types of "flickering" might well occur in chemical (evolution) processes since they do occur on the atomic level even though such "movement" is otherwise labeled, described and defined with terms developed by those using some other type of analogy in helping themselves or others to better grasp some measure of comprehension. For example, the fast on/off electrical switching underlying computer functionality which might be described as binomial (two number alternations) involving (contrasted and paired) zeros and ones (0's and 1's), albeit at a very fast rate. Put more simplistically, a computer works by by electronically switching between alternating sequences of being on and off which have been algebraically replaced with the values of zero and ones. The alternation between the two is a type of "flickering" effect even if our human type of eyes are unable to see this.

    While it is relatively easy to suggest the plausibility that (animated) life and its processes arose due to the flickering effect(s) of the Earth-relative night and day sequenced flickering, it is not so easy to suggest the same for the origin of atomic particle "movement" unless we too describe it as animation... that atomic activity is alive in more than just a philosophical sense. However, we might also want to alternatively describe life (as we know it from our human form of sentience), is just an extension of the same type of movement thought to occur on the atomic level. (Providing contradictory points of view at a given moment when such is unexpected, is sometimes interpreted as wit.) In other words, despite all our humanistically-derived illusions about human uniqueness, we are merely more of the same mechanistic movement thought to apply to human behavior by ancient philosophers.

    The alternation between night and day as well as between seasons have produced various effects upon both animate and inanimate forms. The length of a day or the length of a night as well as how much or little water, ultra-violet light, nutrients, etc., can effect the life and death cycle of both an animate or inanimate object. While it is easy to appreciate the life and death cycle of a living creature, some readers have difficulty understanding I am speaking metaphorically when describing the "life and death" cycle of an inanimate object such as a rock or mountain. Yet, the "birth" of a mountain (or galaxy), though it may take millions of years, can well be followed by its "demise/death" through weathering over a similar amount of time. We should not let the span of our human life-time be a conclusive determinant of what is to be considered a life span. Different "species" of both animate and inanimate "creatures" have to have their life and death cycle measured accordingly.

    If we consider that dynamic life began as a static entity, were the conditions in which the static entity was subjected likewise static or dynamic? What were the circumstances of the static or dynamic environment? (A third type of environment would be a static/dynamic one though someone might want to argue that a composite is not necessarily a distinctly different circumstance.) In terms of the Earth's environment many billions of years ago prior to, during, and after the genesis of life's building blocks (or if your prefer another analogy such as: legos, house of cards, dominoes, erector set, etc.,), it is common to find illustrations suggesting a very volatile (dynamic) environment. It is these conditions (sometimes referred to as a primordial soup or broth) that many chemical evolution researchers (chemical evolutionists) are trying to reproduce in order to re-create the events from which life's building blocks emerged and the ensuing scaffolding arose. (Although it might be advantageous to look for the worker elves/aliens as well. One must give credit where credit is due though some have a limited imagination and simply conclude that an entity called God made it all happen. They're not interested in details as to how, why, where, when, what, etc... because those oriented religiously are very often static minded... in other words, tunnel visioned.)

    Is the triplet codon (coding) systems of DNA, RNA as well as the Primary, Secondary, Tertiary structure of Proteins the result of and a dynamic representation of a three-patterned "flickering" event, even though they appear to be static? However, before furthering this line of consideration, with alternative commonalities, it is necessary to interject the existence of a numbering sequence occurring with these basic bio-polymers:

    Single (1) amino acids pair (2) into a triplet (3) codon [coding] system with a three- to- one (4) alignment:

    1. Singular = 1
    2. Pair = 2
    3. Triplet = 3
    4. Three to One = 4

    Likewise, in Proteins, we find Single, Double, and Tertiary- stranded variations, with a composite of these being called a Quaternary structure. Hence, the first three are "fused" together to create what can be called a sequential aftermath though some would prefer to use a numerical designation such as "4"... calling it a 4th structure when in fact it might be more useful to label it as a 3 - to - 1 ratio.

    And just for purposes of comparison, let me provide a short list of 3 to 1 ratio examples which occur in a variety of subjects:

    • 3 face cards (Jacks, Queens, Kings) aligned with 1 non-face card, the Ace.
    • 3 colored lights affixed in one unit: Street lights and Television cameras.
    • 3 typical public school divisions (Elementary, Jr. High, High School) to 1 pay-as-you-go College/University.
    • 3 fingers typically used to hold 1 pencil or pen.
    • 3 computer screen control buttons (Minimize, Maximize, Close) in 1 upper right-hand corner.
    • 3 prong holes on 1 electrical outlet (modern version... older version uses two).
    • 3 basic fundamental particles in 1 atom.
    • 3 "numbered bases" (1st, 2nd, 3rd) to 1 unnumbered home plate/base.
    • 3 first football downs contrasted with last 4th down.
    • 3 mouth parts (upper/lower lips and tongue) to designate "French kissing" (that was derived from the act of French mothers chewing food to make it easier for their infants to swallow during a time when typical infant food was scarce. After softening food they would then use their tongue to push the food from their mouth into the infant's.)

    For some additional examples:

    --- 3 to 1 ratio examples page A ---

    Though the "Three - to - One" distinction is not actually a "4" in quantity, some readers might want to quibble that it is a separte designation and should be referenced with its own sequentialized numerical label. However, from my perspectvie it does allude to the suggestion of being an analogous point of stoppage akin to a cognitive limit in a "number quantity concept" identification which has been discussed in the history of humanity's development of number/quantity usage. Such a consideration is an alignment with a modern sense of quantitative enumeration that may help present day readers to acquire some level of appreciating the existence of a numerical sequence occurring in other areas of consideration that may only use linguistic or other non-number referencing; but are nonetheless linked with the same underlying cognitive stratification which exhibited cognitive limits in the development of number/quantity concepts..

    In continuance of the initially discussed "flickering" examination, let us ask: was (and perhaps is) the flickering event one that is solely based on light wave-length? Or is it a combination of different types of flickering (not to mention considerations of absence of one or more types)? Cam a two-patterned flickering event arise from a single non-flickering event? Is there such a thing as a non-flickering event? Can a three-patterned structure arise from a two-patterned flickering event such as the adoption of 3-based boolean logic to the binomial (on/off switching) structure of basic computer functionality? Are two-patterned flickerings the result of two-patterned types of occurrences still affecting us and creating such cognitive designed conditions (dichotomous ideas) as:

    • organic/inorganic
    • schizophrenia (ambivalence: such as feeling love and hate for the same person, place or thing )
    • bipolar (such as in self-defeating or socially abusive/intrusive mood swings)
    • activity/inactivity (such as being physically active or a couch potato )
    • dynamic/static
    • moving/still
    • Right/Left (such as in politics)
    • Right/Wrong (such as in morality)
    • UP/Down, Here/There, In/Out (such as in direction or placement)
    • Etc...?

    Does a "two" perspective portray a primivity of development, function or structure?? Do such perspectives contain the necessary plasticity to adopt a three-patterned "flickering" such as we find in various three-patterned portrayals as:

    • Major premise - Minor premise - Conclusion
    • Red - Yellow - Green (street lights)
    • One - Two - Many (early words-for-numbers development)
    • Period - Question mark - Exclamation point (sentence ending marks)
    • 3 pigs, 3 bears, 3 billy goats gruff (fairy tales)
    • Bachelors, Masters, Ph.D (university degrees
    • Father - Son - Holy ghost/spirit
    • Etc...

    It is easy to consider that the existence of three-patterned entities such as the foregoing examples may have been preceded by some two-patterned variation, consistent with a natural (or rational) number sequence (1, 2, 3... etc...); thus implying that a two-patterned entity can be a fore-runner to a more (presumed-to-be) advanced three-patterned entity. ("Entity" referring to any form of three-patterned expression.) However, we are assuming that a greater quantity does in fact go hand-in-hand with a more desirous (three-patterned) entity, as one might conclude with a financial accumulation, even if in some circumstances this is not the case. Likewise, a two-patterned entity succeeds a pattern-of-one, despite human egotisms to the contrary, with respect to singular uniqueness (evidenced by the expression "The Chosen One") or the insistence of a single supreme God instead of multiple gods. and the many types of search which seek out "the" source, with the word "the" standing in for the concept of singularity. In other words, the multiplicity, the "Many" becoming one.

    Note: in humanity's development of number to quantity association (as discussed by historians of number concept development), the word "Many" is a cognitive limit, a cognitive stopping point, so to speak, of human intellectualization regarding the early attempts to organize quantity with some linguistic and graphic symbol. While the historians are not focused on the "Threes Phenomena" and do not explicity reference the "Many" as part of a three-part "One - Two - Many" expression, let us recognize that it is the 3rd number concept (after a group's language equivalent word "one" for the quantity 1, and a word "two" for the quantity 2). Hence, the "One, Two, Many" enumeration scheme is a reference to brain activity that no doubt becomes expressed in a similar manner with respect to other ideas that may not exhibt clear indications of any number association.

    For the primitive mind in their counting efforts, the word "Many" represented quantities in excess of 2. Yet it must be considered that this same three-patterned sequencing might well be used as an unrecognized mental formula by modern peoples in different areas of their life. Even though we can find most people being able to count past three, their brains are still manufactuing thoughts within a "One, Two, Many" paradigm without being aware of it because the human brain has not, cognitively, developed beyond a primitive's mindset regardless of how sophisticated a person's language usage or topic is presented, defined or interpreted.

    Hence, the many, the multitude, the much, etc., might well be, on different occasions, synonymous terms which can be associated with a third and final cognitively limited construct. In short, this same cognitive limiting process is being expressed in many of our ideas without an appreciation thereof. Notion after notion after notion is still referencing the old primitive cognition, regardless of all the insistence that we are more intelligent than our forebearers. Further-more, with respect to the present discussion, it is a cognition that remains linked with the same environmental processes from which biological/physiological patterns-of-three arose... and are continuing to follow as the environment changes; which are directed towards a demise (life on Earth is linked with the deteriorating solar activity, even if most people are as yet unable to measure the decline... unless of course we want to suggest that ideas about an apocalyptic future are metaphors of this environemnt-in-decay scenario being projected onto "because-of-human-events/activity").

    Yet, the notion of a natural (or rational) number sequence such as 1, 2, 3, ... etc., should not lead us blindly along a path of repetitive thinking whereby alternative suggestions are off-handedly dismissed as being irrelevant, even if the language employed is from a topic that appears to be far removed from the discussion. I do not want to give the impression that my suggestions are inviolable laws "set in stone" like the ten commandments, but are, analogously, metaphorically like the "sword in the stone". Which, by the way, has far too often been misinterpreted because it is not about an actual sword stuck in a stone, but about someone having a knowledge of metallurgy to the extent of being able to smelt ore from which swords (and other metal items) can be fashioned in a forge.

    While it is easy for the practical (or insecure)- minded person to become an adherent of the 1, 2, 3,... formulation, discussions involving genetic substances should evoke considerations involving mutation; whereby a distinct 1, 2, 3,... sequence may not be visible or have occurred as cleanly. We should also be sensitive to the possibility of intermittency of appearance and degradation. However, even amidst all this seeming confusion of placement exists some sort of order even if it is not in a primary school formulation: [A, B, C,... 1, 2, 3,... Yes, No, Maybe,]... etc., The very existence of Earth-polar (and eleven year Sun-polar) reversals suggests genetics may, at given intervals, can exhibit a similarity of design and/or function.

    Yet, are patterns exceeding "one" (such as "two") little more than composites of the "one" even though humans may be inclined to interpret and define any addition in a separate way? For example, we do not say "One and One" as might someone in distant antiquity at the threshold of developing words for quantity, instead, we so-called intelligent beings of the present will count sequentially: One, Two. Is a "two" reference nonetheless a distorted facsimile of the one, and a three yet another distortion of the one (one and one and one) and/or a version of the one and two, with the distortion labeled with a qualifying term describing uniqueness from the perspective of the originator or follower thereof? In other words, metaphorically speaking, is the Two and Three nothing more than the addition of a hat and a cane to a stick figure labeled One? Yet, despite this interlude of digressive conjecturing (that we might label a conjectural transparency... (to make transparent a/our conjecture); let us venture into speculations aimed at trying to deduce what environmental patterns may have been the impetus for triggering the three-patterned flickering influence which produced the three-patterned (and three-to-one ratios) of DNA, RNA, as well as Proteins.

    One of the patterns (and I bring this up because it is a recurring consideration by those in Origin-of-life theories and experimentation), is the existence of lightning (or laboratory equivalent as in Stanley Miller's use of electrodes). While lightning flashes (permit me to interchangeably use the word "flicker" without an intent of diminishing intensity), it does not do so in a characteristicly discernible 1 -2 -3 pattern, at least none that I have witnessed... though perhaps it did so billions of years ago during the frothing of the original primordial soup ingredients. Parenthetically stated, experimental hypothesis explore considerations from various attempted vantage points such as an experimenter trying to envision what the Earth's early environment might have looked like from the perspective of a virus, snail, fish or bird.

    3 (gases) to 1 (water) ratio for Stanley Miller's Chemical Evolution experiment:

    Methane ~ Hydrogen ~ Ammonia + water

    (Perhaps a type of three-electrode system should have been tried?... such a "3-electrode" system was used with the advent of the Earth's rotation slowing which created a Dawn - Noon- Dusk [Triple- patterned] stroboscopic irradiation. See the following page for comments on the Earth's rotation:

    --- Earth's Rotation Rate ---
    (Are humans rotation- rate specific?)

    In the following example, I have placed Stanley Miller's Experiment next to a 3-electrode system configuration so you can make a visual comparison.

    Stanley Miller's Experiment
    Stanely Miller's Experiment
    3 solar-electrode example
    3 solar-based electrode system (4K)
    ---EXOBIOLOGY: Stanley Miller---

    Above images and content from:

    --- Bio-physiological 3's page two ---
    (See this page for an alternative description of the double-helix representing a wave pattern.)

    Experiments in chemical evolution are focused on a variety of interpretations related to an early Earth environment. One of my own interpretations has been from the perspective of speculating on the possibility that the triplet (codon) pattern and the helical structure of DNA might be representations of "flicker" patterns which were present billions of years ago, if in fact they do not now exist in some fashion (such as the "flickering" of water motion called waves). (In other words, the DNA strand may exhibit an environmentally influenced biological rhythm that we might be able to replicate it in a laboratory. However, the initial environmental influence may not now exist at all or in the form which originally influenced the so-called "coiled, encapsulating, barrier, ladder", etc., formation in DNA.)

    With respect to experiments in chemical evolution, let us consider: If the genesis of life took millions{+} of years to "cook" (and then cool down) in early Earth-like conditions (that are not yet fully understood; can these circumstances never be re-created in a laboratory setting with the intent of re-producing the genesis of life at an accelerated pace such as a few minutes, days, weeks, or months? Or, if life is created, will it be the same as that from which humanity arose, or the building blocks of a new species? Hence, instead of a test-tube baby, it will be a test-tube species.

    Another "flickering" pattern may have occurred by an extra-terrestrial event which, when combined with Earth-present phenomena (daylight/ultra-violet irradiation, water availability, methane, ammonia, minimal ozone, low oxygen, etc.,) produced a 1- 2- 3- sequencing development. Additionally, the existence of STOP and START amino acids might well give credence to a "flickering" idea. If the STOP and START sequencing occurred at an accelerated rate in the past (or even if it didn't), the "stop and go" (off and on) activity of "Stops and Starts" is a sequence of movement just like the on/off sequencing of basic computer funtionality.

    A third example (and I do not want to suggest I have exhausted alternatives), is the three-patterned solar irradiation event known as Dawn- Noon- Dusk, which would have occurred at an accelerated rate in the distant Billions-of-years-ago past. These three "moments" are distinctive as evidenced by plant and animal behavior that act as clues to the phototropic three-patterned event such as flowers blooming at particular times of the day which clearly represent solar "moment" position. While some might argue that the Primordial Soup "stuff" was too biologically primitive to exhibit recognizable phototropic behavior, the three-moment positions may nonetheless have exhibited a "biologically motivating" influence such as the light of dawn after a period of darkness, the intensity of the sun at midday, and the loss of light/heat at dusk... taking into consideration what, if any oxygen (etc.) existed as well as ozone covering.

    With respect to humanity and an orientation towards light [phototropism] (though let us not overlook the existence of an orientation towards the Sun [helio-trophism], or an orientation due to magneticism [magneto-trophism], etc...), the effects of the Sun (and the moon as well as the Stars )have influenced the development of gods which are aligned with these objects or some aspect thereof, which, in the case of the Sun, describes a topic known as Solar Mythology that needs to be discussed more fully on another page. Plants and other life forms do not, as far as I can tell, develop ideas as solar, lunar or other celestial body representations. Simpler forms of life use "expressions" of solar effects that are commisurate with the ability of the species to communicate the effects. By this same token, an advanced sentient species might view the human representations of solar effects as little more than a rooster crowing at dawn or a coyote howling during a full moon, that, in the case of a coyote, may be synonymous with high noon... or otherwise viewed as an increased/decreased lunar intensity which we might correlate with an act of howling.

    Let me again state that flickering need not occur solely or at all on an optical (visual-like) level as one might see when looking at an old overhead fluorescent light tube. (The very same which used to sometimes distract me when I was in the public school system.) For example, though we can see flashes of lighting and entertain the notion of flickering, we can also feel flashes in terms of electrical stimulation. And let us additionally comment about sensitive olfactory (smell), auditory (hearing), as well as gustatory (taste) abilities whose variabilities of distinction could be termed as alternating (flickering) perceptions. Take for example the ability to sense (or be alternatively affected by) temperature variation such as hot and cold. The temperature variations may not be described as "flashes", but they are nonetheless flickerings. An extreme example of the hot and cold "flashing" is placing a hot glass in a cold substance such as water and watch it crack. Analogously, some people "crack up" when subjected to "flashes" (varying stressors) of experience they are particularly sensitive to, with the duration and intensity of flashing being person-dependent. In short, both animate and inanimate entities can be affected by flashes in terms of absence, scarcity or abundance (that some may define as internal and/or external environmental/social pressures).

    However, though some readers might be inclined towards devising a dichotomy between flashing and flickering, with the word "flickering" defined as the lesser polar opposite intensity; and even though I can appreciate the value of doing so, I am not doing so in the present case. I am using the terms interchangeably as do people when naming the same tool a spanner, crescent wrench or monkey wrench. Some people say Tomato (with a sharp "a" sound) and others say Tomato (with an "ah" sound.) No less, some people refer to a Tomato as a vegetable while others say it is a fruit based on the presence of seeds.

    Here are some "Less —or— More" examples:

    • Chemical/gaseous variations (water, sodium, petroleum precursors, acidic/non-acidic, Nitrogen, Oxygen, methane, etc.),

    • Depth variations (Subversion in soil, rock, liquid [such as water or "goo"])

    • Altitude variations (mountainside, "air-borne": Mesosphere- Stratosphere -Trophosphere, etc.,} or even extra-terrestrial)

    • Planetary/Weathering variations such as rotation rate, geologic changes in terms of volcanic eruption and earth-quaking, tidal motion, rain, wind, polar-magnetic flips/ [full, half or partial reversals], etc...)

    Granted, some of the early Earth/Galactic/Universe developments may not have had any affect on the development of life even if we of today would describe an event as monumental. For example, though volcanic activity may have created the conditions of multiple tidal waves, such events may have had little if any affect on the genesis of life. In other words, while the volcanic activity took place, life was developing in some isolated pool of muck. Just because we of today would claim an atomic bomb as a life-altering event does not mean it will in terms of permanent genetic alterations when the total spectrum of genetic inter-play unfolds in centuries to come. Yet, this is not to say such explosions (or nuclear waste dumping) could not do so if human (or food/insect- stuff) is subjected to such in a life-altering "flickering" rate. In other words, if the rate of exposure repeats at a sustained life-altering measure.

    None-the-less, in our efforts at trying to reproduce conditions of the early Earth in trying to re-create what may have influenced the genesis of life, we of today our limited by ability to analogize presumed circumstances into a configuration that can be reproducible in a laboratory setting, given the restraints of our present technologies and imaginations used there- for. For example, we may ask what in the laboratory of our day and age will help us to mimic the assumed early Earth characteristics of an accelerated rotation rate? More specifically, will a laboratory applied model of an "over-head" planetary event help to create the same type of ground level situation? For some, the first part of our question might bring to mind the usage of a centrifuge or other centrifugal apparatus. The second part of the question is a little more difficult to determine without an actual attempt and a third question of exposure variability may or may not have a large expanse of variability.

    The latter variability comment entertains the possibility that what we might today describe as life had (and has) a larger scale of opportunity to develop. In other words, multiple variations of a (present day) laboratory reproducible early Earth environment may produce life, whether or not an individual researcher would argue for or against some variable that may or may not have been in existence at the billions-of-years-ago time. What comes to mind at this moment is a test tube being spun in a centrifuge and giving evidence of life existing, in variation, at different levels. Like DNA existing in different life forms that can be seen as symbiotic hosts which give DNA a greater chance of continued existence through variability. However, this is not to say DNA or that which initiated the development of DNA did so with a designed intent. Let us not presume an "intelligence" whether or not the description is a projected inference of what we think about ourselves. We should be mindful of projected distortions of personally defined self-images.

    The following two test tube portrayals are taken from:

    --- Earth's Rotation Rate page 2 ---

    The first image is more closely in-tune with the discussion at hand while the second is more (playfully) philosophical. Similarly, a third image could be presented that more closely describes what I previously mentioned concerning different variations of life's early development, but for now, I will leave it to the individual reader's imagination to to visually make the changes. Noting that the changes include variability of genetic material design which might be minuscule and that the different test tube "layers" might well describe alternatively viable environments which for one reason or another became extinct due to changes in the Earth's environment in a given location such as meteor bombardment that, if it hadn't occurred, might well have stirred the development of a non-human type of sentient species.

    Test tube analogy 2 (5K) Test tube analogy 1 (9K)

    While we can make some educated guesses as to what was or was not in existence billions of years ago, we are nonetheless stuck with either the usage of a lottery-like experimental approach or use a method like that employed by Thomas Edison in search of a viable substance to be used as a filament for the electric lightbulb.

    Some readers may or may not agree with the possibility that the "three" phenomena in DNA, RNA or Proteins was affected by the three "moment" (Dawn- Noon- Dusk) flickering of the billions-of-years-ago solar irradiation. Be this as it may, these same readers may ("consciously flicker") more or less (one way or another) when I ask of them to now look a bit more closely at DNA, RNA and Proteins in order to recognize that each of them has a three-to-one ratio aspect such that DNA and RNA have:

    ~ Item ~ ~ Three the same ~ ~ One is different ~
    DNA = Adenosine- Cytosine- Guanine Thymine
    RNA = Uracil

    Yet, the "three the same, one is different" notion is not readily appreciated if we were to look separately at either DNA or RNA. Such an apparent distinction requires both to be placed side-by-side in order for us to make the comparison and highlight the existence of such a pattern. However, once the generalized idea of a "3 to 1" ratio is consciously affixed to our considerations, a list of other examples starts to gain application to various ideas that would otherwise suggest a pattern-of-four to an unsuspecting collector of diverse information, whether or not their research intent is to describe a recurrence that another prefers to use a numerical label in order to record the instance. The 3 to 1 ratio has thus become another cataloguing tool that is differentiated from and complementary to a strict "threes" formula.

    And let us now add a simplified perspective of Protein structure (though there are others):

    Item --- Three the same --- --- One is different ---
    Protein = Primary- Secondary - Tertiary conformations Quaternary as a composite of the first three

    This link provides the beginning of several pages involving examples of the 3 to 1 ratio:

    --- Three "to" One ---

    If we claim that the Secondary is a composite of two primary strands (1 + 1); and the Tertiary is either a composite of "reduplicated" primary strands (1 + 1 + 1) or of a primary and secondary arrangement (1 + 2); and the Quaternary a ("reduplicated") composite of the primary strand (1 + 1 + 1 + 1), or the primary and tertiary (1 + 3), or the secondary (2 + 2), should we intentionally overlook the usage of three different available configurations to achieve a presumed 4th called the quaternary?

    Note: I use the word "reduplicated" in the foregoing as a means to link this idea to infant babbling constructs that are referred to as "reduplications", with no attempt by researches to identify an overall single, double, and triple babbling structures following by an extended array of "reduplications" prior to the onset of a three-patterned (one, two three-) word usage development. Such early 3-patterned linguistic representations might well be tell-tale indications of an underlying brain structure which influences the reproduction of three-patterned ideas in various subject areas. No less, such a brain "floor plan" might well be a tell-tale sign of an underlying three-patterned physiology which, in turn may be a tell-tale sign of a three-patterned genetic structure... leading to a three-patterned environmental event which influenced the 3-part genetic structure.

    Well, OK, you say. you agree that there is the presence of a three- to- one ratio as determined through an identification of internal elements such as the different amino acids in DNA and RNA. But you may not see the point I'm trying to make. This point is that along with the sequential three "moment" (Dawn- Noon- Dusk) "flickering" sun which would have occurred due to an accelerated rotation of the Earth, these same three "moments" are (so to speak) fusing together as the Earth's rotation slows and the Sun expands in its eventual demise.

    Since I don't have a ready-made Time Machine to take you physically back Billions of years ago to witness the length of a day, let us say that the usage of a mathematical model to determine the increased rate of rotaion provides us with the result of an 8-hour day in contrast to our present (approx.) 24-hour rate. The daytime period back then would have been 4-hours in duration. From Dawn to Noon would have been 2 hours long and the same for the Noon to Dusk period. The intensity of the Sun is different during Dawn, Noon and Dusk. For purposes of discussion, if Dawn occurred at 6:00 AM, then Noon would be at 8:00 AM and Dusk would be at 10:00 AM. Instead of the Earth (at the Equator) spinning at the approximate rate of 1,000 miles per hour, it would have been spinning at a rate of about 3,000 miles per hour. (24/ 8 = 3 X 1,000).

    By looking at the following image in which the three moments are "fusing" together and the Earth is becoming engulfed, we must also consider the possibility that there will be a resulting biological counterpart. While I don't know if this means the amino acids will (or do) have a fusion taking place, it is a second biologically affecting solar circumstance we should consider.

    3 Earth Moments fusing (15K)

    However, let me introduce a third solar event that may well have played a part in affecting animate (and in some instances also inanimate) entities. This event refers to the from dawn to noon to dusk path which, in times past, was alternatively described as a type of arch or "across the sky" scenario. In geometric terms, the solar path was described as linear (across the sky) and/or circular (like a roundish arch). Placed sequentially in time with respect to the development of human consciousness (brain evolution), we might surmise (perhaps with historical references), that the first perceptions were linear and the second were circular. Analogously, to view the Earth (or one's country) as the center of time, the Universe, or God's attentions would, to me, suggest a linear (singularity) formulation and the evolution of thinking in terms of planet rotation about themselves as well as each other clearly suggests a more advanced (or if you prefer, educated) perception.

    This third solar event has a triangular shape, which is correspondingly attenuated with the perspective that the Earth itself is not round, but is an oblate spheroid. (It is shaped like a pear.) The following image illustrates the triangular images (of the Sun and Moon) which might well have played a part in providing an impression on the very impressionable primordial soup (biologically sensitive) materials as well as the behavior of more complex biological creatures as the building of triangular-shaped termite mounds might suggest not to mention where the idea for a triangle-shaped pyramid arose despite some claiming the Sun/s rays shining through a cloud might have been the impetus.

    See the discussion via the following link:

    Sunrays page 1

    Triangle pathways of Sun and Moon (18K)

    In order for most people to see the triangular path of the Sun (or Moon), time-lapsed photography would have to be used. An accelerated rotation rate of the Earth billions of years ago would have made the "triangular path impression" occur more frequently, thus creating a more (flickering) repetitive circumstance for early life and pre-life forms to be subjected to with an intensity magnified by a different ozone layer than what we of today experience.

    Long before I came across a picture illustrating the triangular image (it was actually only one "leg" of the triangle and illustrated the Moon's path), I can not accurately tell you how I came to realize the triangle pathway except to say that I experienced the appreciation by observing the Sun's daily movement with the naked eye. Whereas I did, on occasion try to look directly into the Sun, doing so created the condition of gasping... sort of like a startled breath. Otherwise, my observations of the Sun's path was by way of visualization born from an askewed visual participation since I didn't have some other type of eye protection (not even sunglasses in those early years).

    Using an analogy, my brain was working like a piece of time-lapsed photographic equipment. And I must confess that I was taken aback by what I saw and eyed it with a bit of incredulity since like so many people with a naive understanding of the Sun's path, the idea of a triangular path seemed awfully strange. Even with an understanding of planetary movement about the Sun, most people might well describe the Sun's path associated with a primitive person's perspective. As I saw it, the Sun didn't go "across" the sky as if in a straight line and nor did it go "over" the sky as if in an arch. When I pointed this out to others, they didn't believe it because they couldn't see (nor visualize) it. Anyway, the path of the Sun was, and remains for most people, a negligible piece of knowledge without personal value. It was as if I had stood on the Earth and was whisked via time machine into the distant past when the length of a day was very much shorter than it is at present.

    By the same token, in our attempts to get some glimpse of where biological activity might be headed, if we can assume that past environmental events played an identifiable role in shape and/or functionality; extrapolations of future planetary activity (such as a slowing rotation, enlarging Sun, receding Moon, etc.,) may advantageous us in determining what to be prepared for... and the concomitant alterations to be found in overall societal behavior such as fiscal planning, governing structure, vulnerabilities to disease or injury, genetic composition/yields of crops and livestock, duration of seasons, etc... Even though some of these may appear to be too variable and unpredictable, predictability in one area may assist another in deducing some level of projected direction. Additionally, in an attempt to be cognitively aware of all possible scenarios, we will also have to determine whether the changes will be progressively minuscule over long expanses of time or take on a more profound if not poignant expression over shorter intervals.

    For example, if we say that the triplet structures found in DNA, RNA and Proteins has in some way been influenced by the three moments of the Sun with respect to an accelerated rotation rate of the Earth, does a decreasing rotation rate and an expansion of the Sun, which is producing a fusion of the three moments, likewise alter these three substances accordingly? And will the change(s) be obvious (in a type of one-to-one corresponding way) or be limited in appearance according to the ability of the constituent parts to be molded? For example, a candlestick would exhibit a different structure when exposed to a flame than would an iron bar. Likewise, DNA, RNA and Proteins may exhibit their own expressive peculiarities given different time, place and exposure values.

    For those readers more interested in conventional ideas with respect to the question of "What is life?", the following is some information from: - Biology

    By , Guide

    Characteristics of Life

    Living things include both the visible world of animals and plants, as well as the invisible world of bacteria.

    • On a basic level, we can say that life is ordered. Organisms have an enormously complex organization. We're all familiar with the intricate systems of the basic unit of life, the cell.

    • Life can also "work." No, not the daily employment variety, but living creatures can take in energy from the environment. This energy, in the form of food, is transformed to maintain metabolic processes and for survival.

    • Life grows and develops. This means more than just getting larger in size. Living organisms also have the ability to rebuild and repair themselves when injured.

    • Life can reproduce. Have you ever seen dirt reproduce? I don't think so. Life can only come from other living creatures.

    • Life can respond. Think about the last time you accidentally stubbed your toe. Almost instantly, you flinched back in pain. Life is characterized by this response to stimuli.

    • Finally, life can adapt and respond to the demands placed on it by the environment. There are three basic types of adaptations that can occur in higher organisms.

    1. Reversible changes occur as a response to changes in the environment. Let's say you live near sea level and you travel to a mountainous area. You may begin to experience difficulty breathing and an increase in heart rate as a result of the change in altitude. These symptoms go away when you go back down to sea level.

    2. Somatic changes occur as a result of prolonged changes in the environment. Using the previous example, if you were to stay in the mountainous area for a long time, you would notice that your heart rate would begin to slow down and you would begin to breath normally. Somatic changes are also reversible.

    3. The final type of adaptation is called genotypic (caused by mutation). These changes take place within the genetic makeup of the organism and are not reversible. An example would be the development of resistance to pesticides by insects and spiders.

    4. ...In summary, life is organized: (It) "works," grows, reproduces, responds to stimuli and adapts. These characteristics form the basis of the study of biology.

      Basic Principles of Biology

      The foundation of biology as it exists today is based on five basic principles. They are the cell theory, gene theory, evolution, homeostasis, and laws of thermodynamics.

      • Cell Theory: all living organisms are composed of cells. The cell is the basic unit of life.

      • Gene Theory: traits are inherited through gene transmission. Genes are located on chromosomes and consist of DNA.

      • Evolution: any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations. These changes may be small or large, noticeable or not so noticeable.

      • Homeostasis: ability to maintain a constant internal environment in response to environmental changes.

      • Thermodynamics: energy is constant and energy transformation is not completely efficient.

      H.O.B. note: I beg to differ with the author concerning the growth in dirt. She obviously hasn't been around a bunch of kids going in and out of the house on a a weekend. In fact, the dirt cany multiply very quickly and finds niches you wouldn't think could support the growth of dirt. No less, we might at times find different food items interspersed such as pieces of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, cookie crumbs all over the place... not to mention assorted pools of koolaid, pop or whatever the kids are drinking at any one moment. So does dirt grow? You better believe it can. It finds an existence in niches that defies the logic of all evolution- promoted developmental patterns. And it can even mutate into mud and some other forms I don't even care to try to place in the stratification of some biological kindom.

      Your Questions, Comments or Additional Information are welcomed:
      Herb O. Buckland