A beef stew or spaghetti sauce needs to cook for a good long time for the flavors to blend together into a delicious repast. So we will leave history, religion and politics to simmer on the stove for a while. It will all be served up together later.

A new language of Molecular Biology will have to be learned. Now, pay attention!

References to blood were mentioned before in passing. A more detailed discourse is now in order. There are a whole slew of white blood cells, some of which are neutrophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, eosinophils, and basophils. Each one's job is to fight a specific kind of infection. The white cells are always floating around in the blood. Any time the number of one of these white cells increases, that is an indication of an infection of some kind is going on somewhere in the body. The white blood cells are the body's first line of defense against disease.

Red blood cells or red corpuscles have an entirely different function. They are the most common kind of blood cells. They have no nucleus. Produced in the bone marrow, these cells are the smallest and have a short life span, only about 90 - 120 days. Their primary function is to carry oxygen from the lungs throughout the body and return carbon dioxide to be exhaled by the lungs. Hemoglobin is the protein in a red blood cell that does the actual work. The old dead cells are removed from the body via the liver or spleen.

If bitten by a rattlesnake, you can die because the venom is a hemolysin. That means it breaks down the walls (called stroma) of the blood cell, the hemoglobin leaks out and oxygen cannot be transported to the body. The tissues suffocate from lack of oxygen. This little tidbit of information is apropos to nothing other than it is interesting to know exactly why you can die from a rattlesnake bite.

Plasma is the liquid part of the blood that the red and white blood cells float around in. Also floating around in the plasma are blood platelets. Now, these are very important because, believe it or not, they have had historical, political, religious and social implications!

Blood platelets are not cells but just fragments of large cells called megakerocytes. As long as everything is humming along fine they don't do anything. However, if there is a breakdown of any kind in the tissues, like a small cut, they go to work. These fragments release thromboplastin, which in turn becomes fibrinogen and then fibrin. Fibrin is a blood clot. That is what keeps you from bleeding to death.

In turn, thromboplastin is made up of Vitamin K, the Stuart Factor, the Haggaman Factor and Calcium.

Got all that? It gets even more complicated.

The other interesting phenomena relevant to this discussion has to do with Vitamin K.  We all know what vitamins are and that they are good for us.  Actually there are two forms of Vitamin K.  Vitamin K-1 is a by-product of photosynthesis in the green leaves of plants.  (We gave up the ability to synthesize all the amino acid nutrients we need when we uprooted ourselves and started ambling around instead of being stuck in one place like trees.)

The significance of Vitamin K is its role involved in blood coagulation.  There are a series of complex reactions of chemical substances in an ordered sequence that are affected by Vitamin K-1 and K-2.  Two of these substances, a protein named prothrombin and another called "factor vii" are affected by Vitamin K to aid in blood clotting.  Without Vitamin K there is an ever present danger of serious hemorrhaging.

The normal adult human's body weight consists of roughly 6% blood.  However, the newborn infant's blood makes up between 10-15% of its body weight.  At birth, the  blood of the infant has a safe level of prothrombin, "factor vii", Vitamin K-1 and K-2 and other necessary substances.  Soon after birth, this supply begins to drop and reaches its lowest level after about three days.  By the eighth day of life the normal safe level has returned.

There are two reasons for this drop in coagulation factors.  (1) the fetus receives its blood supply from its mother via the placenta.  (2)  The newborn's intestines are sterile.  Thus there can be no Vitamin K-2 in its own bloodstream until micro-organisms have been introduced into the digestive tract.  Adult intestines are teeming with micro-organisms that aid digestion.  The mother supplies her fetus with her own Vitamin K, just as all other nutrients for development of the fetus are transferred from mother to baby through the placenta.

The placenta is a filtering system that separates the mother's blood from the fetus' blood.  Still, the filter allows through whatever is necessary for the fetus.  The baby is certainly going to need a safe supply of Vitamin K for the passage of birth and the first oldest surgical procedure,  the severing of the umbilical cord.  Granted, there is little or no blood lost by the baby when the umbilical is cut in human deliveries.

We must bear in mind however, that other forms of mammal life do not have a doctor or midwife with sterile twine and surgical scissor handy to help with the birth of their offspring.  Many mammal mothers chew the umbilical cord to free it from the placenta.

It is interesting to note that the second oldest surgical procedure, circumcision, is deferred until the eighth day after birth, unless it is performed immediately after birth.  The ancient culture of societies that chose the eighth day for circumcision practiced in accordance with the natural pattern by which Vitamin K is built up in the infant's bloodstream.  There might have been a lot of trial and error with the accompanying infant mortality rate until humanity got the message either directly from God or figured it out for themselves after millennia, through Science. 

There are also factors in the blood group systems that have clinical significance. These factors or blood types are the "ABO" systems, the "Rh" Positive and "Rh" Negative systems and the "MNO" systems. These factors are protein substances on the surface of the red blood cells. There are seventeen or so other types of factors but they have no medical significance so far as I know.

For instance from the "ABO" system, if the blood from an "A" type person is mixed with that of a "B" type person, the cells clump together, and that is not good. It is the same to a certain degree with the "Rh" factors. To make an oversimplification, it is similar to one type of blood being allergic to the other.

For transfusion purposes, type "O" is the "universal donor". That is type "A", type "B" and also type "AB" can receive type "O" without the cells clumping. Conversely, type "AB" is the "universal recipient". A person from type "AB" can receive blood from either type "A", type "B" or type "O".

All blood types are inherited.

In the United States and Europe these are the distributions of the blood types throughout the populations:

45% - O type

41% - A type

10% - B type

4% - AB type

Rh Positive - 85%

Rh Negative - 15%

Polynesians:

48% - O Type

52% - A type

Gypsies have a high percentage of "Rh" Negative.

"Rh" Negative pre-dates humans.

Some of the cultures that have not migrated widely have these distributions:

African Pigmies:

31% - O type

30% - A type

29% - B type

10% - AB type

Pure Peruvian Indians:

!00% A type

The "O" gene pre-dates humans. The "O" and "A" genes are present in apes. The "B" type gene is relatively recent in mutation and seemed to have originated in central Asia. Genghis Khan perhaps?

The "MNO" systems are also inherited and operate in a similar manner to the "ABO" system.

We hear frequently about DNA, especially having to do with trials. DNA is more accurate than fingerprints, thus extremely valuable in convicting or exonerating people suspected of committing crimes. It is not possible for any two people to have the same DNA with the exception of identical twins. So what exactly is DNA? Read on.

Some characteristics are inherited and some are environmental. For instance, a plant inherits the potential to be green. However, if the environment does not provide light, the plant cannot become green. Remember this point for future reference.

Characteristics of a species are common to all members of that species and do not often change. Characteristics of individuals within that species are variable.

In 1953 two scientists, Watson and Crick, published their remarkable work in Molecular Biology.  There was a woman who did a great deal of preliminary work, but Watson and Crick get the lion's share of credit.

DNA is the Rosetta Stone of life.  If we can suspend judgment on the merits of the Theory of Evolution for the moment, life evolved from its simple forms up the phylogenetic scale into the most complex forms for these fundamental reasons: to sustain and reproduce itself in the physical environment.  The physical environment is quite indifferent as to whether life survives or not, to say nothing of reproduction.  This survival is absolutely dependent on the organism's ability to adapt to the physical forces surrounding it.  Otherwise, the species simply becomes extinct.

The simplest form of life is the tiny one-celled organism.  The organism got its start floating around in water.  It survived by the chance nutrients contained in the water.  To call this organism simple, however, is the master understatement. It is a bustling little manufacturing plant of active complexity.  It has an outer skin made up of three layers; one of protein, one of lipid (fat) and the third of protein again.  Yet the skin or membrane is tough enough to contain the necessities for its life, but porous enough to allow nutrients in and waste products out.

Inside the membrane is a fluid, the cytoplasm.  Floating around in the cytoplasm are a myriad of tiny organs, or organelles, each with a specific function.  The combined functions of the organelles carry on the manufacturing business of the cell's complexity in such a way as to be a marvel beyond the description of my little narrative here.

The nucleus of the cell contains the conductor of this symphony of organelle activity.  The nucleus, like the cell itself, is surrounded by a membrane also.  This membrane houses the symphony conductor, DNA, whose full name is deoxyribose-nucleic acid.  DNA comprises the chromosomes, which in turn are made up of genes, that is, all inherited characteristics.  DNA is a wonder of living chemistry.  In shape, it is a double helix.  The double helix has been described in many ways. 

I have always envisioned it as a micro-mini spiral staircase all the way up a micro-mini skyscraper.  The sides or railings of the staircase are made up of alternating molecules of a sugar compound and a phosphate compound.  The micro-mini treads of the spiral staircase are composed of four chemical bases:  Cytosine and Guinine are always side by side on one tread.  Thymine and Adenine are always side by side on another. There are never more than two of these chemicals on one tread.  They are all hooked together by bonds of hydrogen to form the long, long, long, long, long, long side railings of the tiny spiral staircase.  It takes from several to a large number of "treads" to make up a gene.  There are specific sites on the DNA genes that foretell specific functions and characteristics of not only the individual but also the species.

The order in which Cytosine, Guinine, Thymine and Adenine are arranged from tread to tread determines the genetic code for each organism.  Each order is different for any given species, but that order is maintained consistently in the DNA of each cell of each multi-celled organism.   There is an exception to this rule.  As we have noted before, red blood cells have no nucleus, and therefore, no DNA.

The six basic ingredients of DNA do not seem like much to even begin to make up the variety of living forms.  Still, how many hues can be made from the three primary colors?  The sound frequencies of tones in a single octave were all that were needed to begin the world of music.  And how many words, sentences, papers, magazines and books can be made from twenty-six letters of the English alphabet?

DNA directs life in its quest for survival.  But for how long?  Life as we know it is finite.  In fact there are some indications that certain organelles in the cytoplasm function to inhibit or limit the span of activity within the cell.  Thus the normal life span of each species may be predetermined by the presence of the organelles that step in to slow down and ultimately stop the activity of the cell.

If life cannot sustain itself indefinitely, then it must reproduce itself.  The one-celled organism accomplishes this by simple fission.  It has no love life.

Inside the nucleus of every soma cell, that is the body cell, is an identical string of  DNA made up of chromosomes.  After the cell has matured, it is ready to divide into two cells.  The micro-mini spiral staircase of DNA begins to uncoil and straighten itself out.  When this has been accomplished, the DNA unzips or splits into two halves, right through the middle of each tread.  When the DNA has split or divided itself into two strands, each half is now called RNA for ribose nucleic acid.  The two RNA meander to opposite sides of the cell and set up the beginnings of two new DNA. 

Each RNA sends out scouts of itself, messenger RNA and transfer RNA into the cytoplasm to round up the necessary amino acids in order to begin the task of rebuilding two new micro-mini spiral staircases.  The various organelles in the cytoplasm have been busy assembling these building materials from the nutrients that have oozed across the membrane of the cell.  There are over twenty amino acids necessary to complete the job. 

Messenger RNA and transfer RNA bring back the exact sequences of sugar, phosphate, Cytosine, Guinine, Thymine and Adenine so that in due time two replicas of the original DNA have been constructed.  Each new DNA recoils itself into its new micro-mini spiral staircase.  The outer membrane of the cell slowly pinches itself together and then, presto, separates itself into two cells, precise duplicates of each other.  Voila!  The original clone!  Two brand new identical cells have been born.  Ingenious!

Then the process begins all over again.  Soon there are are four new cells, then eight, then sixteen and on into the billions.  What is it that directs this wonder of chemical engineering?  Cognitive life knows exactly what it is doing.

Cognitive life could have stayed at this level of survival and reproduction indefinitely.  The fact is that it has in many instances, as evidenced by the number of one-celled organism species still in existence.  Further, this asexual division still goes on in every living organism as fission or meiosis.  Yet there are two monumental problems encountered at this level.  An exact replica can only survive and reproduce in the exact same physical environment as the original. 

If the physical environment changes, as we all know it is prone to do, there is no built in mechanism for the host of cognitive life to adapt to external change.  With insufficient nutrients in the environment to sustain and replenish the cell during reproduction, it cannot survive.   To make matters worse, the one-celled organism has an enemy too.  The virus.

The virus is a form of pure RNA for its species, nothing more.  What makes it so insidious is that the virus can sneak into the nucleus and trick the poor cell's RNA into doing the virus' reproductive work in the same way the cell copies its RNA.  The cell's own RNA unwittingly turns traitor to itself and reproduces the virus, to the detriment of the cell's reproduction.  In the process, the virus deprives the cell of nutrients it needs to maintain life. 

Pretty soon the cell is overloaded with virus and weakened beyond the point of sustaining itself.  All the nutrients the organelles can muster are going into virus reproduction.  That is the end of cognitive life for that particular cell.  The by now numerous viruses move on to their own selfish purposes and infect adjacent cells.  That is why it is so hard to kill viruses.  Whatever will kill the virus will also kill the cell.

Viruses have a spooky characteristic.  A virus can be smashed to smithereens with all its chromosomes, genes, amino acids, et al, scattered all over the place.  For all intents and purposes, one would say that the virus was dead - just particles of matter lying around.  Yet, if the particles are carefully reassembled in the correct original order, the virus begins to function just like its old parasitic self.  This characteristic makes the sharp line between physical matter and cognitive life somewhat fuzzy.         

Confronted with these two formidable problems for continued existence, cognitive life found itself with an escalating mortality rate.  It was necessary to find more sophisticated and adaptive housing than the one-celled asexual reproducing organism.  Thus cognitive life began its ascent up the phylogenetic scale into more complex forms.  It began with mitosis, the origins of sexual reproduction, wherein the RNA of one parent joins the RNA of the other to form the DNA of the new generation.

Most of the time DNA replicates itself into an exact copy.  Occasionally genes and/or chromosomes are bumped around in the process of replication and do not line up in the exact same way as the original.  This modifies the information in the DNA.  When this happens, the resulting DNA has mutated.  Radiation, chemicals and other factors can be the cause of mutations.

It is not clear whether each species developed by mutation, or whether each species had a new original blueprint of DNA.  There is still a great deal to be unraveled in solving the mystery of DNA.  Mutations occur when some of the four base compounds of the treads on the staircase are jostled, juggled or reshuffled.  This can happen any time during the uncoiling or coiling of DNA, or they may be rearranged while in the process of meiosis.  Occasionally, mutations are the result of accident and are maladaptive.

Mutations can be either beneficial or harmful to the individual.  If they aid the species to adapt better to its environment, they are helpful.  The permanent salutary effects of mutations become firmly established after they have been passed down over time and through many generations. Thus, some genes are receptive to changes that can be useful to cognitive life in its physical environment.

Conversely, a mutation can be detrimental.  Generally, if the mutation is not suitable for the survival of the individual, then that person does not live long enough to have a chance to reproduce and pass the defective gene on to succeeding generations.  Most mutations of this sort result in recessive genes.

It appears that it takes at least three "treads" of Cytosine-Guinine or Thymine-Adenine on the micro-mini staircases to constitute even the simplest of genes. There are approximately 100,000 genes.  Many of the genes and, indeed, the chromosomes, produce overlapping characteristics for heredity.  This makes for infinite possibilities of genetic traits.

There is another exception to the rule of DNA consistency in each cell of multi-celled organisms besides red blood cells.  The process of mitosis takes place in producing mature reproductive cells.  Human male reproductive cells are called spermatozoa;  female reproductive cells are called ova.  Since the discussion here encompasses all forms of cognitive life, we had better stick to correct nomenclature.

Collectively, reproductive cells are known as gametes, (either male or female).  Two gametes join together to form a zygote. Mitosis produces a gamete that retains only the RNA, or half of the DNA in the cell.  The cell membrane pinches itself into two cells after the DNA has split, but before it has made two replicas of itself.  So the two RNAs may have some differences.

Suppose your mother has blue eyes and your father has brown eyes.  There is an allele situated on a site or locus of the gene for the specific characteristic of eye color.  An allele for blue eyes is recessive; an allele for brown eyes is dominant.  Since your mother has blue eyes, she had to have inherited two recessive alleles.  Like alleles are said to be homozygous.

Your father's brown eyes indicate that he received at least one dominant allele from his parents.  He could have inherited two dominant alleles, and would then be homozygous, as your mother is.  But if he inherited one dominant allele and one recessive allele, genetically speaking, he is heterozygous.  This means that although he has the distinguishing feature of brown eyes, half of his children could have blue eyes.

The dominant allele prevails over the recessive allele for a specific attribute of the individual.  But the recessive allele remains in the DNA.  After mitosis the recessive as well as the dominant alleles are present in the gametes.  A heterozygous individual produces both dominant and recessive gametes.  The recessive characteristic can be passed on through several generations without manifesting itself until it is paired on the corresponding gene locus with another recessive allele of the same characteristic.

I do hope you have been attentive throughout these intricacies of heredity so that a quiz at the end of the chapter will not be necessary.  I could have gotten into multiple genetic traits to make it a lot tougher!

Recessive alleles account for someone turning up to be the "spitting image" of a great-great-great grandparent.  It also accounts for the advantages and disadvantages of inbreeding.  It is all very well and good to produce hybrid plants and thoroughbred race horses.  The best genetic characteristics are carefully cultivated.  The problem with inbreeding is that the worst genetic characteristics can also be cultivated, lying dormant for several generations before they emerge.

Whether or not an allele is dominant or recessive does not automatically make it good or bad.  Epilepsy is dominant.  Cleft palate is recessive.  Most of the other dominant or recessive characteristics that have been discovered have relatively little importance other than having provided cognitive life with a means for adapting to an ever changing physical environment.

 To insure the integrity of each species, it is not possible for one species to reproduce with a different species.  Each species has its own diploid numbers.  A species has an assigned diploid number, that is, the exact number of chromosomes in its DNA for that specific species.  Homo sapiens has a diploid number of 46.  It receives the haploid number of 23 from each parent or, said another way, 23 pairs of chromosomes.  These are the blueprints of what we are destined to become.   

The size of the organism has nothing to do with how large the diploid number of the animal or plant may be.  A mouse has a diploid number of 40 and some worms have diploid numbers in the hundreds.  In fact, I believe the elephant has a lower diploid number than 46.  Offhand I do not know exactly what that diploid number is because I am not especially interested in elephant diploid numbers.  Suffice it to say the diploid number keeps the species intact within itself.  You cannot cross a canine species with a feline species to get a litter of kitpupies because they have different diploid numbers.  The chromosomes (and their composite genes and loci of alleles) just will not line up precisely with each other to form the DNA unless the haploid number of each parent is the same.  Incidentally, a calico cat is always female as a result of the inherited sex-linked fur color.

This fact lends support to the Creationist Theory and should help to reconcile the Evolutionist vs. Creationist controversy somewhat.

There are a few exceptions to the haploid rule however; i. e., the mule, whose parents are horse and donkey.  But both parents are ungulate species and further, a mule is invariably sterile.  Maybe the innate cognitive life of the mule balks at this travesty of its DNA, which would account for its characteristic stubbornness.

I have taken some bounding leaps up and down the phylogenetic scale, from the simplest asexual one-celled organism to the enormously complex sexual reproducing species.  We, ahem, "theoreticians" can get away with making all kinds of bounding leaps by the very nature of being just that - "theoreticians".  It is somebody else's problem to support or refute.  They can feud and fight it out amongst themselves while I sit back and expound.

Nonetheless, it makes more sense for environmental adaptive purposes to have sexual reproduction.  Cognitive life rigged it, too, so that it not only makes more sense, but provides for some exquisitely pleasurable experiences for itself as it travels along through its life span.

The new offspring get a new set of genes from each parent.  The different genes in the chromosomes of each succeeding generation help to keep pace with the changing environment.  If a member of any species survives long enough to achieve biological success, that is, long enough to reproduce, then that member is probably better adapted to the changes in the environment than the member who does not.  The surviving member is the "fittest".  Homo sapiens is one notable exception in that from time to time the young, strongest and healthiest young male members are squared off in wars to kill each other, often before they have a chance to reproduce.  This certainly makes no sense from the standpoint of the Theory of Evolution!

There are two kinds of cells, soma cells and reproductive cells. The soma cells have the full complement of DNA. It has already been noted that only the sperm and egg cells do not have complete sets of DNA. Each has one half. These are the sex cells.

The egg cell only has an "X" chromosome; some sperm cells have an "X", some a "Y" chromosome. When the egg and sperm unite to form the new DNA of a baby, the mother's egg can only donate an "X". The father's sperm can donate either an "X" or "a Y", but not both. If the baby receives two "X"s, she will be a girl. If the baby receives an "X" and a "Y", he will be a boy. So fellas, if you want to have either a boy or a girl, it is up to you!  Down through the ages when a man blamed his wife for failing to produce a male heir, he was placing the responsibility on the wrong shoulders!

To recap with the eye-color-thing example, when each side of the pairs of genes line up on the chromosomes, sometimes they are dominant and sometimes recessive. The dominant genes furnish the phenotypes, that is, the total visible or physiological traits or characteristics of an individual. If a man has brown eyes, he may have inherited two dominant genes from his parents but he could have inherited one dominant from his father and one recessive from his mother. The gene from his mother does not show up in his eye color.

Now, if the mother has blue eyes, she has inherited two recessive genes from both her parents. It is therefore quite possible for a brown-eyed man and a blue-eyed woman to have children with either brown or blue eyes. It is also possible for two brown-eyed parents to have blue-eyed children if they have both inherited recessive blue genes. (That's genes, not jeans!)

Mutations can remain hidden for many generations if they are recessive. They are sneaky. A recessive gene can stay there in the DNA until it is united with another recessive gene of the same kind and then emerge in the offspring with that characteristic.

The primary purpose of the reproductive cells is of course to determine the sex of the offspring. However, there are other attachments to those cells that have ramifications seemingly unrelated to the sex. These are somewhat like "pork barrel" additions to bills in Congress and are called sex-linked genes. One is the male pattern baldness gene.

The mother can pass that gene to her son because she always gives him one of her "X" chromosomes. There is no corresponding site, allele, on the "Y" chromosome he receives from his father to negate the baldness gene. She may not be bald herself nor would her daughters necessarily be. But her sons may become bald in adulthood. Further, the mother may pass the gene on to her daughters, in which case, some of the sons of those daughters may become bald and on down through successive generations. Of course, the daughters could have an "X" chromosome from their fathers that would negate their mother's bald pattern gene so the girls would not become bald.

Thoroughbred horses have been bred for their speed for generations. Selective breeding over eons has produced the wide variety of dogs from Pekingese to St. Bernard that we have today. Nonetheless, inbreeding carries the possibility of horrendous abnormalities.

The Egyptians as well as some other ancient societies were known to have practiced incest between brother and sister to preserve the royal bloodline of the Pharaohs. History does not tell us exactly how well that worked out. They probably found out the hard way though, that inbreeding in humans is not a good idea. There is a whole catalogue of inherited diseases, some of which are the result of too many like genes being passed from similar parents to the child.

Perhaps the biblical admonition of the "sins of the father are visited on the son" alludes to or foretells these genetic problems.

The task of the Genome Project is to pinpoint the exact sequence of every gene in DNA and what its function or functions are. Where abnormalities or inherited diseases are found, it has been postulated that these could be fixed. A very tall order. Still, the technology of science has and will continue to make astonishing strides in understanding the complexities of the physical world we live in. The better we understand the whys, the better we can deal with the hows and whens or ifs.

The intricacy of all this is mind-boggling. As a matter of fact, this little treatise herein has only skimmed a smidgen of the surface of the body of scientific knowledge already in existence.

Remember way back when in this discussion, the meaning and interpretation of dreams was explored from a religious standpoint?  There has been a great deal of scientific research done on brain activity during sleep.  There is a lot more to be done!  However, it has been discovered that there are four stages of sleep that are repeated over and over again in the course of a night's rest.  One of the most interesting is the REM state in the sleep cycle.  REM stands for "rapid eye movement".  During the REM stage, the eyes are moving rapidly under the closed lids.  At the same time, the body's muscles are rendered immobile.  (This prevents sleep walking, except in rare cases.) 

A great deal more time of an infant's sleep is devoted to the REM stage than that of adults.  If a person is wakened during the REM stage, invariably he reports that he has been dreaming.  Another curious phenomena is that when a person loses sleep one night for any reason, the next night the REM stage is at least doubled to make up for the lost sleep.  People deprived of sleep for a lengthy period of time usually exhibit mental confusion.  So dreaming seems to be an essential function of the brain's physiology for reasons yet to be fully understood.

Dreams are often emotionally charged, as all of us can attest to!  There are several theories as to the purpose of dreams.  It has been postulated that the REM cycle is just the brain's way of housekeeping - sorting out and putting memories in their proper place while the brain and body are at rest. Another theory states that dreams reflect unresolved conflicts in the person's life and the brain is trying to make sense of it and find a solution.  Most REM sleep or dreaming is forgotten as the individual lapses again into one of the more deep sleep cycles. Unless you need to go to the bathroom or the alarm clock goes off, the natural waking time is at the end of the last REM cycle of the night.  During those few twilight moments between sleeping and waking it is often confusing as to whether what is happening is real or a dream.  This is especially true of children.

Whenever a child wakes in the middle of the night with a nightmare, do you, as a parent launch into a lengthy theological dissertation on communication with the dead, the meaning of immortality and such?  Or a scientific discussion of sleep cycles and REM stages?  I hope not!!!  No, you hold the child, calm his fears and console him until he is comfortable again and falls back to sleep.  Theological and scientific discussions can wait for a better time when the child becomes older and has the intellectual capability to deal with such information.

Instincts derived from heredity interact with the local environment to produce conventions and culture that eventually evolve into traditions, invariably at the local level.  In turn, these traditions provide stability to the society and become the impetus for the adoption of laws.  Yet, culture is often a much stronger force than the law.

Funding for Science and Technology are OK for developing high tech weapons to kill and destroy but not for birth control worldwide in order to protect the life, health and well being of women and thus the children the women already have to care for.  But.....

It is all about this primitive Law of Supply and Demand: Hunters have always needed the Gatherers to produce more Warriors!!!!

Different societies around the world have varying over-population problems.  These are examples of two countries and how they have and are addressing the questions.  India, a democracy and the second most populous country on the planet, has had a two child policy.  Finally, it is illegal to test for or to abort girl babies solely on the basis of gender.

Communist China had its one child only per family policy to address its huge over-population problem. Our guide in China told us that he had an older sister. His parents had received a dispensation to have one more child so they could have a son.  I understand that China has relaxed that policy somewhat now, but poverty and the high cost of raising and educating children prevents large families.  Many, many Chinese have never known a brother let alone a sister.

I understand it is permissible in China to abort a pregnancy if ultra-sound and/or amniocentesis determines that the fetus is female.  Here's what has happened though. After more than a generation of that policy, there is now an excess of young men with their raging testosterone energy and not enough young women of marriageable age to go around. That has turned out to be a rather monumental OOPS!

Here we have the clash of generation after generation of cultural thinking (the preference for sons rather than daughters) as opposed to the technology to produce or not produce the desired outcome.

Abortion should not be used as a method of birth control, but only in circumstances to be determined by a qualified physician and the woman with her well-informed partner.  Regardless of the philosophical debate over the origin of life at conception, an embryo is not viable outside the uterus until well into the second trimester.  Technology has yet to perfect a "test tube" to care for and nourish a fetus to anything near full term.

A single ear of corn has perhaps hundreds of kernels, each with the potential of becoming a mature stalk of corn.  Without soil, sunlight and water however, not one of those kernels can grow into a plant.

With the exception of some post-coital pills, an abortion is an invasive surgical procedure. It is not without risk to life and health. A tooth extraction is a surgical procedure. (The old string on the doorknob works for loose baby teeth, but impacted wisdom teeth????)  One would seek the advice of a licensed dentist or oral surgeon before proceeding. Aside from medical personnel and the fun parts, most men are appallingly ignorant of female physiology and health. On the abortion issue, politicians and clergymen are not trained and qualified physicians and, to put it politely, would do well to butt out!

Regarding sex education in the schools and the controversy over teaching abstinence versus birth control, abortion and sexually transmitted diseases. Should it be left out of the classroom and remain with the authoritative sources where it is and traditionally has always been - during recess, over coffee, at the water cooler and the corner bar?

The moral of this story is: Good health and longevity are often the result of genetics. Choose your ancestors very carefully!

There is a wise old saying that goes something like this: If the lessons of history are not learned, then we are destined to repeat the same or similar mistakes of the past.

Part Three of this chronicle will re-examine some fascinating history of roughly only one hundred years ago when what we know now was unheard of then. Politics, religion and science, or the lack thereof, all come together to tell the true tale of people caught up in a tangle of tradition and treachery.

Are there parallels going on today? Perhaps. Perhaps not. You be the judge.