Bgoatgruff

I have recently added a preview/review page with the whole book available. http://leftinthedark.org.uk/preview might stimulate some debate...

One central theme is the role of our primary/only tool for investigating who/what we are. Aside from the mysteries of self awareness, consciousness etc our brain/mind appears to be central to framing the questions we ask the protocols we implement and experiments we design including the engineering of the equipment we use. Then of course the interpretation of the data/information we perceive. I would suggest it is contrary to accepted scientific protocols to presume our brain/mind is fully functional given the role it plays. Even if there was no evidence to suggest any malfunction the question should at least be addressed if only to eliminate such a possibility. My hypothesis proposes that there is already significant if not overwhelming evidence of a major problem. In fact to propose out neural system is significantly compromised would require such evidence to be plainly apparent. Part of the conundrum is that our ability to recognise the evidence may be one of the symptoms. Left in the Dark attempts in simple language to join some of the dots that are already evidenced from orthodox research as well as evidence that does not fit accepted scientific protocols, it also predicts where further dots may exist. Simply asking the question and considering the possibility that there is a glitch in our perceptual equipment may be sufficient to dismiss the theory if you are willing, on the other hand it may not…. RE ‘enhancement through the use of certain appropriate chemicals?’ Part of my proposal is that the evolution/development /function of the human neuroendocrine system was significantly dependent on a continuous flood of relatively unique chemicals. Not only did these chemicals play a role in development and function they directly elevated/modified the activity of the neuroendocrine system. The loss of these chemicals and the associated enhanced/modified neuroendocrine activity has left us (amongst other things) clinically deficient in key neurochemicals. This offers an explanation for the traditional use of neurochemical analogues and why we are so predisposed to use/abuse of neuroactive chemicals. It also opens the door to judicious use of same as part of a hypothetical solution.

Yes I am one of the books authors (not the synopsis), it was co-written due to my abysmal English. The synopsis ‘tantalisingly ‘alludes to a hypothetical period of greater neural function prior to the stall in neural expansion. Yes its something to do with hormones contributing to brain expansion, in part the hormonal and neuroactive effects of flavonoids on the neuroendocrine system. The conclusions are not published in any journals, the conclusions cite supporting data from journals. Have attached the foreword as it may help provide some context. Foreword.pdf

Been a while since I posted anything on this forum, thought my recent publication 'Left in the Dark' might be of interest, it outlines a new theory in laypersons language that explains some of the unusual human traits that are not easily explained by classic adaptive selection. In addition I have proposed that the dominant left hemisphere in humans is simplistically a hormonally retarded version of the right. Despite the radical nature of these and other proposals it is already attracting academic interest. ‘This is a totally new way of looking at the evolution of the human brain. It is so totally fresh, unexpected and hitherto un-thought-of that it will probably take a long time before evolutionary anthropologists and psychologists begin to take it on board; but it will make an impact, of that there is no doubt. It will be, it must be, taken very seriously in any discussion of human origins.’ Professor Colin Groves A.N.U. I have attached a brief synopsis, more info at http://www.leftinthedark.org.uk Synopsis (Full).pdf

Suppose the neurological mechanisms that underpin belief were degenerate rather than adaptive. There is significant evidence that the dominant side of our brain is primarily responsible for our sense of identity. There is also significant evidence that our identity is constructed from concepts and ideas (not reality) particularly those that we are exposed to when young. Attempting to change those concepts that are part of our identity becomes increasingly difficult to near impossible with age. This is highlighted in a paper by Ramachandran http://kaleidos.org.uk/PDF/Ramachandran%20VS%20Evol.pdf I have proposed that this condition is the consequence of a relatively recent and major change in the developmental/hormone environment of the human brain http://kaleidos.org.uk/PDF/Human%20evolution%20brain%20expansion%20biochemical%20formula.pdf . In effect we are all deluded and driven to defend our deluded sense of self/beliefs to the point of death. Thought it might shed some light on the debate between creation and evolution, but there again perhaps not.

Well I thought it might create some debate or discussion as the evolution of the human brain is still considered a mystery, but maybe not. Perhaps the condition (anosognosia) apparently endemic to all humans outlined in a paper by Ramachandran http://kaleidos.org.uk/PDF/Ramachandran%20VS%20Evol.pdf is both a consequence of the flavonoid theory and a reason for being indifferent?

Tropical forest biochemistry, the driving force in human evolution. The evolution of the large human brain remains one of biology’s greatest unsolved mysteries. Primates generally have a relatively large brain to body ratio, apes, the extinct hominids and particularly humans have taken this trait to extreme. No theory to date has come close to explaining this phenomena. Some of the key elements The relatively large brain to body ratio exhibited by primates generally The continued expansion of the brain from apes through the extinct hominids to humans. The rapid and accelerating expansion of the brain in the later phase of human evolution. The abrupt stall in neural expansion c 200,000 years ago and the subsequent shrinkage. Associated traits that have also proved difficult to explain, i.e. retention of juvenile characteristics, fertility/menstruation, nakedness, gut morphology, dentation etc. Attempts to explain the large brain and other unusual traits have centred on adaptive selection i.e. identifying environmental/social pressures that may have led to such unusual physiological adaptations. The savannah was virtually accepted as the environment that must have driven these traits though it could not account for what was already a significant mystery i.e. the relatively large ape brain that had already evolved in the forest. However without solving that unique problem a totally new one was invented, how to explain the extra large brain of the hominids. That two such clearly related and unusual phenomena would have two utterly distinct causes seems unlikely. The savannah model has in recent times been significantly discounted, subsequent pollen analysis at famous ‘savannah’ hominid fossil sites has clearly indicated that the habitats were wooded or forested. In addition Dr Michael Crawford a biochemist from the Institute of Brain Chemistry and Human Nutrition at the University of North London has pointed out that there are insufficient fatty acids (specifically DHA, the brain is composed of 80% DHA) available on the savannah to grow a large brain. Crawford and others support a coastal dwelling scenario whereby human ancestors moved from the forest to live by the coast as this environment provides an abundant supply of DHA. The implication being that the expansion of the brain was limited by DHA and providing a ready source was all that was required to induce rapid expansion. (In recent correspondence I pointed out that an ape can grow a c400 cubic centimetre brain in around 8 months from essential fatty acids in a forest diet. By simply extending the growth window a much larger brain is feasible without recourse to additional DHA. Humans brain growth occurs over a much longer period than apes. Longer gestation and a very significant period of postnatal brain growth are a unique feature of human development.) Another contender is the aquatic ape theory, it suggests many human traits could be explained by a long period of living in a semi-aquatic environment. No mechanism is proposed to explain how the association was responsible for producing such a large brain. The reality is that no coherent model exists and there is no consensus to explain the unique features of the primate brain particularly the apes, extinct hominids and humans. Perhaps it is reasonable to consider that evolution of such rare traits may have required a novel mechanism to produce them. Genetic mutation and selective adaptation seems to account very well for virtually all traits in all organisms. In the case of primate/human evolution a subtle variation may have been at work. One well known anthropologist, Dr Colin Groves has suggested that the large brain may be a fortuitous consequence of neoteny (retention of juvenile features). This contradicts previous ideas where neoteny has been presumed to be a consequence of the expanding brain. In recent correspondence he stands by his proposal though he has not proposed a mechanism to account for this. A common factor central to juvenility and brain development is our own endocrine system and the hormones it produces particularly the sex steroids. They play a major role in governing windows of development and directly influence the structural development of the brain. In addition steroids are directly involved in the transcription of DNA, they are part of the reading mechanism dictating how the code is translated into bio-chemical structure. Anything that alters the action of steroids will inevitably alter all of the above. I have proposed that the powerful steroid modulating chemicals that are abundant in a typical primate diet were responsible for modifying the growth and development of the brain and the window that such growth and development occurs. The chemicals in question are particularly rich in fruit and flowers and typically inhibit the activity of sex steroids such as testosterone and estrogens. In addition they have mild to moderate neuroactive properties (Monoamine oxidase inhibitors). Flavonoids are increasingly the subject of research in part because they demonstrate such powerful endocrine altering properties. Any animal consuming these chemicals in quantity will be affected. A tropical forest environment has the capacity to provide these chemicals 24/7 for evolutionary time scales. In effect eating a diet rich in fruit/flowers significantly alters your endocrine system. This creates a blanket effect, all aspects of growth development and physiology will be modified though any part of the physiology that is particularly steroid sensitive will exhibit the most significant response ie developmental windows, developing neural tissue, fertility cycles etc. This almost certainly happened when proto-primates began to eat flowers and then fruit as well as leaves etc. The potential to extend the juvenile phase by inhibiting sex steroids and in turn allow a longer period of brain growth is perhaps the most obvious effect. These effects have never been considered in an evolutionary context. Rather than trying to explain brain expansion from an adaptive perspective in regard to single traits it becomes possible to see the brain and other features as a fortuitous by product of a biochemically modified endocrine system. (I have proposed one further step in regard to hominid/human evolution. Given sufficient variation in the effects of flavonoids on the developing neuroendocrine system it seems plausible that in some instances the modified endocrine system itself begins to add a layer of steroid inhibition. For example elevating the activity of the pineal gland produces more melatonin and pinoline, both powerful steroid inhibitors. In such a scenario the scene is set for a classic runaway feedback loop, more steroid inhibition further expansion of the brain and modification of the endocrine system equals more blanket steroid inhibition etc. As these effects are not locked into the DNA in an adaptive sense they are potentially unstable, lose any part of the positive feedback loop i.e. the tropical forest flavonoids and it will stall. There is some evidence for such a scenario.) There are undoubtedly a number of variables to consider The genetic predisposition/sensitivity of any given primate lineage. The variable % of fruit/flowers in a given dietary specialisation. The variable outcome in any combination of above. While these and other factors need to be considered the overall effect of these plant chemicals is not in doubt. Their power is sufficient that detrimental as well as beneficial effects may well have initially occurred. However it is entirely plausible that any primates that significantly specialised in fruit/flowers would exhibit the greatest effects. The question that needs to be addressed is how can our neuroendocrine system possibly function without a complex cocktail of powerful steroid modifying chemicals that were permanently present during 70 million years of evolution. Aside from proposing that plant chemicals initiated and drove the structural/functional evolution of our brain I have also proposed that the loss of these chemicals left our uninhibited endocrine system unable to provide an appropriate hormonal environment for our brain to develop. Once our connection with the forest was lost our brain stopped expanding and now fails to develop it full function. Due to archaic specialisation between the cerebral hemispheres I have proposed that the effects of the loss of these chemicals is lateralised one side being more affected than the other. Cerebral dominance and handedness etc are symptoms of this condition. Significant evidence is emerging to support this scenario, Professor Alan Snyder (Director, Centre for the Mind, Australia) Dr Darold Treffert (University of Wisconsin Medical School) and Professor Vilayanur Ramachandran (Director of the Centre for Brain and Cognition) amongst others have increasingly highlighted a somewhat perplexing scenario. The dominant side of our brain is considerably less functional than the non-dominant side, the emerging data is still considered within the framework of adaptive selection i.e. there must be an evolutionary reason for the phenomena. Shamanic techniques (i.e. sleep deprivation) and ethnobotanical use of plant chemicals were an attempt to address the emerging condition. For example the widespread use of plant DMT combined with MAO inhibitors was simply a crude attempt to ameliorate a progressive reduction in the production of neural DMT and pinoline in the brain. These and other deficiencies emerged as the human neuro-endocrine system struggled to function normally once the plant hormones were lost. Summary Flavonoids are extremely potent endocrine modulators. They were an integral part of our endocrine system for tens of millions of years, their impact on our general health is only just beginning to be researched. Their effects on growth and development in an evolutionary perspective have not been considered. Flavonoids powerfully inhibit the activity of steroids Flavonoids powerfully inhibit the conversion of steroids (androgens to estrogens) Flavonoids inhibit monoamine oxidase increasing pineal production of melatonin Melatonin powerfully inhibits the activity of steroids. Steroids are central in all aspects of development growth and function. Neural development in the uterus is particularly sensitive to steroids as are steroid governed developmental windows i.e. puberty. An increasingly specialised fruit diet rich in flavonoids would it seems explain many of the mysteries surrounding human evolution. The gross nutritional aspects are of some relevance i.e. larger fuel hungry brain requiring an ever greater quantity of simple sugars, however it is the hormonal effects that have thus far been ignored. Once equipped with an increasingly large brain and the intelligence it conveys it is feasible to survive in a range of hostile habitats. No doubt repeated waves of forest migrants did just that and survived and adapted as distinct species on the savannah or in temperate climates. The orthodox assumption is that the expansion of the brain must have been driven by selective adaptation in relatively hostile or challenging environments. Is there any evidence that the brain continued to expand in these environments or was it the relatively benign tropical forest and its complex hormone modifying biochemistry that played an essential part in the brain expansion formula? Any comments send to info@kaleidos.org.uk or visit http://www.kaleidos.org.uk

Hi, the warm up run highlighted a number of issues re online sleep deprivation. There were various technical hitches on day one that meant I was not online much until the evening, then during web cam switches between rooms my computer crashed a few times so there were periods of down time. The most challenging thing was being in an office staring at text in a chat room on a screen. This was much more difficult than staying awake, however completed 100 hrs more or less online then had a break from the screen and stayed up another17 hrs or so. Having done over 100 experiments ranging from 2-8 days the sleep deprivation was not a problem. Typically tiredness is replaced by a feel good factor from a couple of days on. The purpose of the 100 hrs was to try and attract some preliminary media interest in order to get some sponsorship in turn to rent a house for a couple of weeks for the long run. There is some press and TV interest but nothing concrete so will just have to wait and see. The whole thing is simply a stunt to publicise my research, a sleep record is it seems of more interest than proposing the discovery of a hitherto unknown neurological condition. I did contact Robert McDonald (via his web site) during my research into Guinness verified or otherwise accepted records. I was suspicious of the presumption that maintaining a very simple movement in a relaxed position automatically meant full consciousness. His reply to my question confirmed that while his 'rocking' record stands, he was not fully awake at all times. I wish to make it clear that Im not suggesting he made any attempt to mislead anyone re the his frequent mention in connection with longest staying awake, in fact his reply suggests otherwise. As Guinness do not or no longer recognise a sleep deprivation category its all a bit academic, I can simply choose the Gardner record as my objective. Gardner unlike McDonald was more closely monitored re sleep and his sleep record was the objective not an incidental claim. My basic objective is to demonstrate a relatively functional state during prolonged periods without sleep, the only variable being a long term primate like diet. I would propose that the biochemistry of such a diet can facilitate access to latent function under certain circumstances. This I would hope will generate some interest in the research behind the record attempt. However without some sponsorship it may not happen. I have yet to get a response from a number of sleep researchers who I recently contacted. I presumed a subject aiming to go at least 11 days would be of interest and provide me with some objective verification, so far nothing. Regards Tony

Thought you might find this of interest, while researching an attempt at a prolonged period without sleep c 300hrs I came across Robert McDonald's 453 hrs 40 min world record. Having conducted three 7 day experiments without sleep and being aware of the literature re sleep deprivatiuon I was a little suspicious of the pressumption that a task as simple as rocking automatically implied being fully awake. Im currently looking to exceed the monitored Gardner record if a suitable location can be found. -------Original Message------- From: info@kaleidos <mailto:info@kaleidos.org.uk> Date: 02/04/06 19:17:19 To: -------rob@-----artship.com Subject: Rocking chair marathon Hi I recently read that you continuously rocked in a rocking chair for more than 400 hours. Did you suffer any effects of sleep loss? Did you hallucinate or dream were fully conscious/wide awake all of the time were you allowed to sleep at all? Thanks Tony Wright ------ Forwarded Message From: rob <-------@planet.nl> Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 20:13:46 +0100 (W. Europe Standard Time) To: "info@kaleidos" <info@kaleidos.org.uk> Subject: Re: Rocking chair marathon "Ahoy Tony", (WOW) The Rocking Chair Record ?! That was a long time ago in Oakhurst California USA in April 1986 world record no.19 of the 30 attempts to date. At the time the record was set at 4.44hours 2hour and 20minute short of 19days. I was allowed 5min breaks every hour or 2hous everyday as I remember it. after day ten I could rock & sleep at the same time without stopping after day 400 I was suffering strange problems with my blood pressure & heart and at the end at 4.44hours ("I Was Hospitalized and made to sleep for 2days")..So Think Twice or Passably Three times First Before Trying it? Did I Hallucinate??? (NA) ..."I'm A Sea Captain" WEEEEEEEE !!!! .."Ha Ha"

Thanks its going OK, currently at around 90 hrs have done a couple of runs around 180 hrs so not too concerned. Tony

After an initial period of tiredness 24-48 hrs the tiredness rapidly diminishes and is replaced with a feeling of relaxed mild euphoria. All previous function is retained with improvements. The long term adherance to a raw primate like diet is an essential factor. Mosly leaves (salad) seeds nuts fruit. Currently at 55 hrs

Though it might be of interest, Im currently running (30 hrs in) an online sleep deprivation experiment Im planning to stay awake at least 100 hours as a warm up for an attempt to exceed the closely monitored record of c 264 hrs set by Randy Gardner in 1964. You can log in via the cam link at http://www.kaleidos.org.uk/News%5FUpdates%5FEvents/

Still looking for some comments re epigenetic inheritance theory that proposes the human neuroendocrine system was significantly influenced by the chemistry of our archaic tropical forest diet. Thought I would add a link to a recent study that showed a correlation between plant sterols and endocrine function. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12093826&dopt=Abstract In this case feeding marmosets Soya baby formula as concerns have been expressed re the hormonal effects on human development. While I do not think Soya formula is an appropriate source of nutrition for human babies the study illustrated an interesting effect. Basically plant sterols can significantly alter 'normal' endocrine function. This in turn can alter the 'normal' growth and development of the infant including the hormone sensitive brain. Permanent neural functioning is significantly influenced by factors affecting early neural development. The Soya fed marmosets showed a very significant reduction in the neonatal testosterone surge, something considered normal in many primates including humans. While the sterols in Soya may not have been part of our evolution, the related sterols in a typical forest dwelling primate diet certainly were. These kinds of chemicals were present 24/7 for millions of years during all stages of growth and development including the hormonally sensitive foetal phase. If Soya fed during the early post natal phase can significantly alter the level of one of the most developmentally important hormones (testosterone) what effect would the permanent presence of related chemicals have had on our development. More importantly what effect does the relatively recent near absence of these chemicals create. Perhaps the 'normal' brain sculpting testosterone surge is not as normal as supposed. Unless of course one assumes the brain evolved in isolation from the thousands of hormonally active chemicals found in fruit and leaves?

OK thanks that’s fair enough re orthadox opinion though still not sure how it relates to my post. The euphoria I mentioned was repeatedly experienced in conjunction with improved function and no sense of tiredness in fact a feeling of increased energy, much more so than when I slept normally. These effects became increasingly pronounced after 2-3 days without sleep. Also can anyone cite one sleep/sleep deprivation study or any neural function study for that matter involving subjects who ate long term (several years) a diet similar to our accepted ancestral forest diet. While I cannot yet conclusively prove the relevance of this factor it was the only significantly unique factor in the experiments I conducted. It therefore follows that any study without this factor (all neural function studies I know of) is of limited relevance.

So what exactly does ‘sleep deprivation euphoria’ mean? What do you suggest is it that creates euphoria? While I could accept the term ‘strange’ as in not typical it does not offer much of an explanation when it comes to improvements in function beyond those typical for ‘normal’ sleep quotient. Also the desire for 8 hours, what do you mean? As for dishonesty, why would you presume I’m being dishonest? Did you follow the links suggested? Anyway the formal study was supervised by Professor Dave Collins currently performance director for the UK athletics team. He would be happy to confirm the experiment took place though being exceptionally busy I tend not to contact him unless it is media interest related. http://www.ukathletics.net/vsite/vcontent/page/custom/0,8510,4854-13182 He was assisted by several scientists and technicians, Dr Mark Bellamy was present for much of the study http://www.performt.com/bellamy.html In addition Harvey Jones a producer working for the BBC at the time filmed the study and conducted interviews. Of course the whole thing may have been a hallucination while I was sleep deprived. More seriously I’m really not looking for confirmation that what I’m suggesting does not fit current thinking, I figured that out already. Rather could the results I demonstrated suggest a differential in sleep requirement between the hemispheres. Would such a scenario offer any insight into say sleep walking, or lucid dreams or the changes in handedness reported by other studies etc?

I became interested in sleep in 1995, It seemed in humans at least that some sleep related phenomena didn’t quite make sense. I began a series of experiments to test an idea I was developing that one side of our brain is less efficient than the other. I stayed awake for periods between 36 and 180 hours on a regular basis, typically once or twice a week for 60-84 hours for 3 years. I noticed quite rapidly that many assumptions about our sleep requirement seemed flawed. Rather than extreme tiredness and associated dysfunction I began to experience a reducing window of tiredness then a transition into a period that was free from tiredness and more functional than 'normal'. I also felt anything from generally very good to ecstatic. My normally right handedness would slowly shift to being ambidextrous with a more fluid balanced feeling in all movement. Sensory perception seemed enhanced, brighter colours, greater depth/clarity in hearing, improved sense of smell etc. In addition I felt more energetic less physically tired if exercising and a greater sense of strength. My mind seemed to work differently though more difficult to quantify, more visually based in my thinking etc. This may seem a little far fetched though similar experiences were reported by others who took part in some of the experiments. In 1998 a well known Professor of sports science at a UK university agreed to conduct and supervise a study to test my claim that amongst other things physical performance seemed to improve. They agreed with a remit to demonstrate that my perceived improvements were delusions associated with sleep deprivation. Myself and another subject were monitored 24/7 or in this case 5 days and tested every 3 hours for strength stamina dexterity balance coordination reflexes etc. The results were conclusive, no drop off as would be expected and significant improvements. As they could not explain the results and did not like my theory they declined to publish without further study. Unfortunately they had no funding for such a study, nor did I. The one factor that was different in the informal experiments and the formal study was the diet of the subjects, it was designed to replicate the typical diet of a forest dwelling ape rich in complex plant bio-chemistry. Some of the results are posted at http://www.kaleidos.org.uk go to downloads chapter 1. The manuscript is a first draft written for a non scientific audience, the performance graphs are near the end. A related post in the evolution section can be found under epigenetic inheritance. Comments welcome

In view of the lack of comment re epigenetic theories (too speculative I presume, though the individual elements are accepted) I thought I would mention an experiment I conducted in 1998. I had predicted that if my basic neural evolution/function theory was anywhere near the mark there would be a significant differential in sleep requirement between the cerebral hemispheres, the non-dominant hemisphere requiring considerably less. This would be disguised by the perceptual effects of cerebral dominance i.e. the dominant hemispheres ‘batteries’ get low, the experience is tiredness and less function. We tend not to question this, go to sleep and wake up with our dominant sense of self recharged. This cycle tends to continue from birth till death and is reinforced perceptually/subjectively and objectively (sleep deprivation experiments) when significant periods without sleep occur. This basic scenario is further complicated by a deficiency of essential biochemistry, poor build quality and the inertia of long term inhibition. These additional factors are only relevant to the potential functioning of the non-dominant hemisphere. As previously posted the dominant hemispheres function is limited by design/transcription errors primarily in the uterus. The limits in function re structural flaws make redundant the potential limiting factors re biochemistry etc. A trawl through the literature on sleep and cerebral dominance threw up enough anomalies and oddities that seemed to support such a scenario It seemed reasonable to try running the neural system in a different way and observe any changes in function. Looking at it from an engineering perspective I did not (like pretty much everyone else) presume the brain was currently fully functional and decided to change a couple of variables simultaneously as my theory suggested this would be required to access any significant change in function. So by looking at the basic research and development of the most complex delicate thing we know (following the engineering analogy) I combined the accepted biochemistry present for tens of millions of years (thousands of complex delicate biochemical’s, the products of the highly advanced forest pharmaceutical labs (trees), in pristine condition i.e. without denaturing via heating and oxidizing) with repeated periods without sleep (up to 7 days). The subjective experience was most surprising, reducing windows of tiredness/dysfunction then an apparent reduction in tiredness an increasing sense of function (mental, physical) plus a feel good factor. After two years of repeated informal experiments primarily involving myself and to a lesser degree a small number of volunteers I approached a university to objectivity test the most testable elements of the perceived changes. The sense of increased stamina, strength, balance and dexterity was something reported by several volunteers (as well as many perceptual changes). If these changes were real they would be measurable. I discussed this with Professor Dave Collins then head of sports science at Manchester Metropolitan University UK (Now performance director with the UK athletics team). He was intrigued but skeptical, having a military background with some experience of sleep deprivation he suggested the perceived improvements during prolonged sleep elimination were classic delusion. He agreed to supervise an experiment to demonstrate the delusionary effects of sleep deprivation re physical function and publish the results. So to cut a long ramble a bit shorter, a 5 day experiment was arranged, myself and another volunteer (previously retro fitted with the biochemistry accepted as integral to primate evolution for tens of millions of years) stayed awake under constant 24 hour supervision by a team of scientists (including some filming). We were tested every 3 hours for a number of functions. Briefly, no decline as would be expected (a result in its self) and significant improvements across the board. Due to the inexplicable results (at least re current thinking) publishing was cancelled until further studies were conducted though no funding was available. The results are available and Professor Collins remains willing to go on the record to verify them. This may seem somewhat removed from the evolution forum but it suggests latent and very advantageous function that is rarely accessed along the lines of savant function experiments at The Centre for the Mind (Australia). Whatever the merits or otherwise of my theory (which did predict such an outcome) an explanation is required??

Thanks again, the proposed inheritance mechanism could stand alone however its really just one part of an investigation into cerebral dominance/asymmetry. The overall proposal is that the left hemisphere is a hormonally damaged version of the right and we are looking at the problem with our perceptually limited left.

Thanks for your comments, few responses that might clarify what I’m looking for and why. Firstly if it was not already obvious I’m not a professional scientist, I have no formal qualifications in most of the areas I’m interested in other than plant sciences, have no organization and no funding. Like it or not this seems to make going down the science only route re peer reviewed journals etc a bit tricky. I did make a presentation of my embryonic theory at a small conference in the US in 1998 and a summary was reviewed and published. A couple invites emerged but due to lack of funds I could not attend. During that period there seemed to be an assumption that I had a doctorate in brain related science, when it would emerge that I did not attitudes seemed to change. Anyway I have quite intentionally decided to go down the science mixed with ‘doctrine’ route in the format of a laypersons book. This approach is simply to create some interest/ controversy from which I hope to engage in more serious dialogue. That said my writing skills are abysmal so the draft manuscript was written by someone else who brought greater doctrinal element than I am comfortable with. The current/ongoing rewrite will address that to some degree. The web site is obviously in the same mould though I would hope that it is not too difficult to separate out accepted scientific data/observation from doctrine or speculation. So much for my defense, What I’m really interested in at this stage is comment on the inheritance mechanism only, in principle and as a possible factor in primate evolution. If you like, separating out a more scientific element of the ‘story’. I have been requesting comment from biologists for some time and thus far no specific problems have been brought to my attention. As already stated the mechanism is very simple in principle and is based on mechanisms that are accepted and are known to play a role in neural development and regulating the windows of neural development. I am aware of the examples you mention (and others) though the mechanism I’m proposing is distinct. I accept its is potentially unstable (something I required) however the unstable factors in this case are specific biochemical/hormonal elements found in a typical forest dwelling primates diet. These external elements (steroid modulating plant sterols) were present day in day out for tens of millions of years (pretty stable re evolutionary time scales) and may as well have been part of the endocrine system. I have proposed that these hormone modulating elements initiated and supported a change in endocrine activity. The loss of these factors even for a generation would be enough to destabilize the proposed modified endocrine function. Specifically leaving the forest ecology behind. Once the mechanism stalls it will not restart, any extension in juvenile phase or neural expansion will stall and show some reversal. I apologize if chapter 4 is not academic enough in its presentation though I think the basic elements are clear enough. Thanks Tony

This looks like the ideal forum to request comments/criticism on a neural function/evolution hypothesis I have been developing. I have pieced together data observations etc and conducted a few experiments over the last 11 years, my conclusions are a little unexpected. To make the pieces fit I needed a non mendelian inheritance mechanism (a minor headache!) what I came up with based on some of the unusual aspects of human physiology was a variation on the accepted inheritance model that ran along side it. It might shed some light on nakedness and other traits particularly neotony and the rapid expansion and stall of our brain etc Below is an excerpt from recent correspondence. If you find it of interest visit http://www.kaleidos.org.uk and download chapt 4 its a rough draft in laypersons language. Thanks The hypothetical epigenetic mechanism I'm interested in is extremely simple in principle (my explanation may not be so simple!). Whether it ever played a part in primate/human evolution is another mater. If it did there are a small number of requirements that would need to be in place for it to work. (more later) Anyway the basic mechanism is already part of the accepted inheritance /transcription mechanism though it is usually relatively stable. Rather than variation and inherited traits being transmitted via DNA and DNA mutation my proposal is that part of the DNA reading mechanism could provide variation and inheritance of that variation. In addition as the mechanism is based on variation in hormone levels/activity there is potential for blanket effects on all aspects of growth/development. Finally as there is the potential for an accelerating positive/negative feedback loop there is potential for fast track evolution of whole growth/development traits ie juvenile phase. This in turn can radically alter many specific traits. Sex steroids ie estrogens, testosterone are central to DNA transcription and also play a role in development windows ie juvenility. The pineal produces melatonin and pinoline both modulate steroid activity. Melatonin also appears to play a direct role in DNA transcription. Pineal activity is significantly regulated by neural activity, the accepted model of daylight regulation is incomplete. So briefly, the neuroendocrine system of the adult female plays a significant role in the permanent structural/functional development of the early foetal neuroendocrine system. A hypothetical scenario--- a change in steroid activity during early neural devolvement in the uterus permanently changes neuro-endocine function in such a way that it elevates life long melatonin production. When that foetal neuro-endocrine system reaches maturity and becomes pregnant (female line of course) it creates the same modified inutero hormone environment. A slight increment with each generation is all that is required, very rapid change will likely be detrimental, no change no evolutionary effect. So a change in the hormone environment of the foetus slightly increases lifelong pineal activity. Melatonin and pinoline are both steroid modulating hormones and both play a role in the length of the juvenile window. So a direct effect on the structural development of the brain and an effect on the windows of neural development are initiated by the hormone environment in the uterus. If such changes are incremental ie more equals more then a potentially powerful inheritance mechanism exists. However as it is not locked into the genes it is potentially unstable with the capacity to rapidly accelerate into a runaway feedback loop or stall and reverse.