What Darwin and Dawkins Didn't Know

135 Pages·2.522 MB·English

by  John A. Rush

JOHN A. RUSH
Contributor/Editor of Entheogens and the Development of Culture:
The Anthropology and Neurobiology
Of Ecstatic Experience
\
'
Epigenetics, Symbiosis,
Hybridization, Quantum Biology,
Topobiology, the Sugar Code, and
The Origin of Species
Table ofC ontents
Preface
Chapter 1 - Introduction
What Darwin and Dawkins
Chapter 2- Classical Genetics and Neo-
Darwinism
Didn't Know:
Chapter 3 - Epigenetics
Chapter 4-Symbiosis
Chapter S - Hybridization
Epigenetics, Symbiosis, Hybridiza-
Chapter 6 -Quantum Biology and Con-
tion, Quantum Biology,
sciousness
Topobiology, the Sugar Code,
and the Origin of Species Chapter 7 - Hominin evolution
Chapter 8- Conclusion
John A.Rush
Bibliography
Index
Amazon/Kindle Publications Author Profile
Copyright © John A. Rush All rights reserved. No
portion oft his book, except for brief review, may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or trans-mit-
ted in any form or by any means - electronic, mechan-
ical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise-without
written permission from the author. For information
contact: [email protected].
Published by Amazon
ISBN 978-1-64871-162-6
Preface
Human behavior is highly ordered, highly ritual-
ized. We create narratives and models regarding
how the world works in order to satisfy a need for
order or meaning in our lives. But sometimes our
initial assumptions are wrong and the models we
create lead to misunderstanding and following a
false path that leads nowhere.
On the Origin of Species,
Charles Darwin, in his using materialistic science. How (the process)
presented a simple model, one that matched his one would convert inorganic matter into organic
view of the world, and that is the idea of common matter, and then to self-sustaining life has never
descent. Looking at the paleontological data one materialized. How, through random acts, can you
suggesting
can see that animal forms show common fea- create a functioning protein let alone a cell or any
tures gradual change over long periods complex biological system such as glycolysis or
uni-formitarianism.
oftime resulting in new species. This was termed blood clotting? This has never been elucidated
Darwin, however, didn't have in any tangible, demonstrable way by the Neo-
a mechanism illustrating how this occurs, but it Darwinists.
On the Origin
sounded good and appeared correct. But appear- When looked at through a scientific lens,
ofS pecies
ances can be deceiving. Shortly after random mutations can't create anything outside
was published (1859) sociologists, in of perhaps a point mutation and perhaps a minor
the likes of Hubert Spencer, equated biological phenotypic change. Most mutations, however,
evolution with social evolution and "social Dar- are lethal. All genetic coding can be changed
winism" raised its ugly head. This eventually - if you follow the rules, some of which we are
entered the politic with a belief that the most fit now beginning to uncover. Random mutations
should rule. This then led to eugenics, socialism, do not follow the rules. In short, when you alter
Nazism, and communism where a small group of an amino acid, in most cases, other changes
elite scholars and politicians should set the rules have to occur as well or information is removed
for everyone else. In colleges and universities from the system leading to death, ill health, or
there is a great push to indoctrinate students nothing happens. One aspect of genetics the
into believing that socialism and communism Nee-Darwinians didn't contemplate is that cells
should be the rule of the day, disregarding the can think and make decisions. Life forms are
history connected to these elitist systems and the not simply at the mercy of the environment and
common misery caused by this philosophy. Once what the environment throws at them. Biolog-
Darwin's position was connected to the politic it ical systems, and the cells out of which they are
became an unshakable truth, repeated over and composed, are active participants in their own
over again. evolution, making choices and altering coding
With the rediscovery of Mendelian genetics sequences in response to environmental stres-
and the isolation of DNA in the early part of the sors. What the Nee-Darwinists assumed were
Twentieth-Century, and then the discovery random alterations may not be random at all but
of the double helix, nucleotides, and amino purposeful alterations, and when the cell alters
acids, Nee-Darwinism was born. In short, the a coding sequence all the auxiliary systems are
mechanism of change was clear; the process altered as well. Moreover, most of these complex
was random and without purpose - life just ac- alterations occur in the wave form, which would
cidently emerged in tidal pools during the early solve the problem connected to the construction
part of Earth's history. All that had to occur was of irreducibly complex systems. This, as the
the alteration of base pairs, or the sequence of reader will appreciate, might also help to explain
base pairs, by random copying errors and other the Cambrian explosion and the development of
acts of nature over a long period of time, and, many new species in general, especially after cat-
the na"ative became the process
bingo, new species are born. Thus, the model, astrophic events. Of course, thinking and choices
and, unlike the smack of purpose, and purpose reeks of intelli-
theory of gravity, was never described or tested gence, something the Nee-Darwinists actively
+
using the materialistic science of the day. The fear and fervently deny; heaven forbid we live in
+
model, Random Mutation Natural Selection an intelligent, purpose-directed universe! And
Time = New Species, has never been proven
what might that purpose be? At a very basic level, tion," just that change was slow and accumu-
life slows entropy.
lative. However, he had reservations about his
The following represents what Darwin
position, especially considering the Cambrian
and Dawkins did not know, and, in the case of
explosion, with different phyla just showing
Dawkins, pushed aside as irrelevant; this is what
up without precedents. He thought, however,
I term, Hound Dog Science. Let's look at these "ir-
geologists would uncover the precedents or in-
relevant" processes as they promise to lead us to-
termediate forms in time; he had faith. He also
ward a more scientific, and realistic exploration
stated:
of the origins of life and the origins of species. I'll
let the reader decide if the academic community
!fit could be demonstrated that any
has, out of political motivation, misrepresented
complex organ existed which could not
science for over 100 years.
possibly have been formed by numerous,
I would like to thank Katie Nemer and Ron
successive, slight modifications, my theory
Baioni in the production of this manuscript, and
Hannah at 99designs.com for cover design. would absolutely break down (Darwin
1988 [orig. 1859): 154).
John A. Rush
Summer2020
The concept of"irreducible complexi-
ty" (Behe 1996) shows that most biological
systems (the structure of a cell membrane,
citric acid cycle, glycolysis, blood clotting,
immune functions, on and on) could not have
"formed by numerous, successive, slight mod-
ifications." To date, no one has proved other-
wise, although there are hollow claims that
some alleged irreducible complex systems "are
entirely reducible" (see Chapter 8).
We term the Twentieth-Century upgrade
Neo-Darwinism and it is a good example of
where a little knowledge is misleading and a
danger to scientific method. The double helix
Chapter 1
and the identifiable nucleotide bases cinched
INTRODUCTION it for the Neo-Darwinists. The process of evo-
lution involved alteration of base pairs or their
CHARLES On the Origin of Species
+
sequence. The formula for Neo-Darwinism is:
Darwin's,
Random Mutations Natural Selection + Time
(1859), is seen as an attempt to identify the
= New Species. The mechanism for developing
origins oflife on this planet and the biological
new species is random, spontaneous muta-
changes that followed. His basic premise is
is the
tions acted upon by natural selection. In short,
that change occurs gradually over long periods
process. +
random mutations plus natural selection
of time leading to new species. Darwin did not,
idea,
In fact, Random Mutations Natural
in any detailed way, describe the process of
Selection+ Time= New Species is an a
evolution, nor did he ever use the term "muta-
hypothesis. The process would be explaining,
in detail, using materialistic methodology (i.e., explanation for the past 100 years, despite
math, chemistry, and physics), how random solid evidence to the contrary, will be exposed
mutations can lead to self-sustaining life in Chapter 8.
forms and new species. Surprisingly (or not Science is a process of discovery and one
so surprisingly) Neo-Darwinists have not, to of the best and recent examples of this is cos-
date, been able to prove their case. Yes, there mology and the discoveries revealed through
has been research on fruit flies and bacteria, by advanced telescope and sensing technology,
inflicting mutations through radiation, for ex- space probes, and so on. Many old models were
ample, but instead of developing new species replaced almost overnight with new data that
they have developed monsters (fruit flies with could not be ignored. For cosmologists these
extra limbs sticking out of their heads, etc.) or days, data comes in at such a clip there is no
weakened the insect or strain of bacteria (see time to establish dogma, ideas and interpre-
Behe 2007). Those that cling to this formula, tation, yes, but intrenched dogma, no. Many
How the Universe
random mutations, natural selection, and time of the cosmologists, for example presented
Works,
leading to new species (bitter clingers to use a on the TV science program,
political jab) do so on faith, just as many have still present the random mutation, Neo-
faith in the existence of gods and demons. The Darwinists' model as the way the universe and
Neo-Darwinists leave it up to others to prove life forms came about. Within their own disci-
their case; the proof does not lie in the idea, pline, however, cosmologists are open to new
hypothesis, or word, any more than the word interpretations.
"gravity" explains why an apple falls from Paleoanthropology had its dogma turned
a tree. The word gravity is compressed data around when Piltdown man, through fluorine
(Australop-
that includes material science (the math and dating, was revealed to be a hoax, allowing
ithecus africanus) Homo erectus
physics) to explain the effects. Random muta- legitimate finds, the Taung infant
tion is also compressed data but with no sup- and from Java,
(Austra-lop-
port from material science. to take their proper place within what we think
ithecus afarensis
For over 50 years a steady influx of research we know about our origins. Lucy
data from many academic fields, including cell c. 3.2MYA-Million Years ago),
biology, genetics, and mathematics/ statistics, Johanson's 1973-74 find, was considered the
Orrorin tugenensis
confirms the dominant theory of biological base of the family tree, dogma, for many years
evolution, Neo-Darwinism, is inadequate to until (c. 6MYA), also a biped,
explain the sudden appearance of numerous showed up creating doubt. For the past two
separate phyla at the beginning of the Cam- decades more bones of our supposed ancestors
-Homof loresiensis
brian (5 50-450 MYA), let alone the origins emerged in various places (e.g. Flores, Indone-
Homo naledi
of life itself. Nor is the hypothesis adequate sia c. 90-12KYA; Rising Star
to explain the complexity of DNA and all the Cave, South Africa, c. 25 0KYA-
intricate systems that support life leading to I have much more to say about hominin evo-
new species. Neo-Darwinism is a faith-based lution in Chapter 7), and through genomic
model; one has to have faith that the model is research paleoanthropological dogma is falling
correct without scientific evidence to back it apart at the seams. Yes, there are some who
up. Why this model has been the dominant consider Lucy the base of an imagined family
tree, which is highly unlikely (see Chapter 7); off such discussions during staff meetings,
these are the bitter clingers in paleoanthropol- and remove "infidels" from university po-
ogy and biological anthropology. sitions. This is politics and not science, just
For Neo-Darwinists and their view of evolu- as "global warming" has become a political
tion, we have a different situation. By the early issue with no rational debates as to cause. To
19 50s the model had become so in trenched contradict the concept of "man-make" global
that any critique was quickly pushed aside. warming invites harsh criticism. We are in an
This faith-based position had become political interglacial period and we're supposed to be
showing a weak faith in the model, so weak warming up, and in 50 KY (thousand years) or
in fact they have to demonize others offering so we will be back into another ice age. There
different perspectives. And, heaven forbid, any have been 6 or 7 major ice ages/interglacial
opposition could cause the rewriting of text- periods during the past 3 million years with
books, possibly undermining years of research, several less global (e.g., Younger Dryas - 10,900
and perhaps damaging reputations of the BCE). Staying with the Younger Dry as, it is
bitter clingers in that arena. New technologies interesting to note that after 1200 years (by c.
have allowed researchers to understand cellu- 9,600 BCE) the mini-Ice Age ended, after which
lar biology and RNA and DNA and the effects there was a rapid warming period almost as if
of hybridization, symbiosis, and epigenetics, "nature" was trying to make up for lost time,
in great detail, far greater than Darwin (and with glacial melt occurring rapidly to make up
apparently Dawkins 1996, 1999, 2019) could for the lack of warming for 1200 years. What
or can imagine. In fact, if Darwin had access to causes these interglacial periods? Sun spots,
On the Origin ofS pecies,
our current information he would never have supernova explosions, pole reversals, vol-
written or at least he canos, too much oxygen in the atmosphere,
would expand his model to include what we methane extruding from animal life and the
have discovered in only the last 50 years. He sea bed, gasses released in the manufacturing
might have become a Lamarckian. process, humans breathing and politicians
Unlike cosmology, many in the academic talking, meteors and comets, atom and hy-
community ignore new concepts regarding drogen bomb testing, ants, farting cows, on
evolutionary processes and thus science takes and on. Once politics enters science, the data
second place to politics. A good scientist con- presented as "scientific" cannot be trusted. The
siders all the possibilities, without political scientists who wrap themselves in the political
prejudice, and tests to confirm or discard the blanket, in my opinion, can't be trusted either.
differing options. From a scientific stand- Neo-Darwinism is no exception.
point, Neo-Darwinism is the major model, or Before reading further, my focus in not on
we should look elsewhere. Neo-Darwinism is Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is just
not testable; and,just like gods and demons, a few words that originally meant "we don't
we can only accept it on faith, and that's not know; there appears to be some intelligence
good science. In fact, that's not science at all. behind this," and can stall the process of in-
There is such insecurity in their faith that vestigation by frightening Neo-Darwinists
Neo-Darwinism supporters often angrily talk and creating division in the ranks. Because
down the opposition, ruin reputations, shut organized religion hijacked ID, I prefer the
Congruent Construction
term (see Chapter 8). If no special place when it comes to morality
there is an intelligence behind the order of the and human decency. The anthropomorphic
universe or the origins of life forms, this "intel- gods supporting these traditions are demons.
ligence" has to play by the rules, whatever their Demons ask for absolute submission, to kill
origin; this energy can't say ABRACADABRA, when required, and mental and emotional
with a puff of smoke, and have life jump out enslavement. Those traditions that applaud
of a hat. "In the beginning was the Word and the Intelligent Design position, thinking the
the Word was with God and the Word was reference is to their personal god, help to con-
God" (John 1:1) is a good example of this think- taminate the investigation. Their models/
ing. A process would have to be followed. I'm beliefs, like cold fu-sion and Neo-Darwinism,
interested in the processes, the rules, how this should be placed on the shelf, in plain view,
all works, how you get from inorganic material awaiting further discoveries. Ift here is a god
to organic life forms, and so on. Invoking the that created all this, one would have to agree
supernatural or magical helpers, like random that the intelligence is far beyond anything we
mutations and natural selection, does not can image, and I have great difficulty believing
satisfy me at all and only leads to dogma and that this intelligence, this energy, is so insecure
misunderstanding. I have "faith" that some that it needs to be worshiped!
energy informs this universe, but I do not Although this book represents a short
understand what it is. None of the "religious" review of major pro-blems with Neo-Darwin-
traditions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, ism uncovered to date, my main thrust rests
Christianity, Islam, etc.) have a handle on this with the identifiable and testable processes
energy. In fact, these traditions (especially of biological evolution or change. In short,
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) believe that Neo-Darwinism presents an inade-quate,
morality stems from their particular religious/ untestable model, and in the following chap-
political tradition. This is untrue, morality ters I will present an alternative.
The Four Big Questions
is a social necessity and begins in the family
long before individuals have any inkling of
1) What is the origin of the universe (cos-
the supernatural world. In fact, Judaism,
mologists suggest many possibilities)?
Christianity, and Islam, and especially Islam
2) How did self-replicating life forms
in more recent times, are responsible for the
emerge from inorganic material? Or, what is
murders of millions ofinnocentpeoplejust
the origin oflife (biologists offer numerous
because they did not submit to their demonic
possibilities)?
code, God the Father for Christianity and Hil-
3) What is the nature of evolutionary
iah or Allah, the Moon God of War, for Islam
change (chemically, physically, mathemati-
(see Rush 2008). The Catholic Church was also
cally), how does this all work from a mater-
behind the killing of thousands and thousands
ialistic position, and are there parts missing
of innocent felines (cats), labeling them as
from our current model(s)?
instruments of the Devil and able to do His
4) What is the evolutionary basis for an
bidding; this attitude toward (fear of) cats has
evolutionary process? Where did the patterns
lasted into modem times.
and codes come from leading to enzymes,
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have
,
RNA and DNA? Are random mutations all that about some type of energy, densely packed,
is necessary to build the universe and the life existing somewhere at a particular point in
forms within? time, although space and time didn't exist. For
Origins of the Universe
some unknown reason this energy-obviously
highly organized and operating with a set of
Let's begin with origins of the universe.
defined rules (some of which we understand)
There is no testable, verifiable model regarding
encapsulated in physics, mathematics, and
the origin of the universe. The most popular
chemistry, is released, rapidly inflates, moves
position is the "Big Bang" theory, originally
out from a center, creating space and time and
suggested by a Belgian priest named Georges
a uniform universe in the process (although
Lemaitre in the 1920s, when he theorized
some researchers see space and time as mental
the universe began from a single "primordial
reference points for fitness rather than tangi-
atom." Edwin Hubble's research amplified
ble "things"; see Hoffman 2019).
this idea. Photographing gal-axies, Hubble
Thus, we go from a "singularity" to a Big
noticed "red shifting," caused by what we call
Bang, or release of energy (plasma/quantum
the Doppler Shift, showing that these galax-
wave form[sl) and the formation of a dualistic
ies are moving away from us at great speeds.
universe containing two general types of en-
Sound waves are a good example. Standing
ergy, plus and minus, the one type of energy
by the side of the road, a moving vehicle
tugging at or repelling the other. Then we have
approaching you is com-pressing the sound
cooling, the formation of hydrogen (particles),
generated by air friction, tires pounding on the
then clumping/gravity /heat, star formation,
road, and engine noise; this produces a high-
more heat/pressure pro-ducing helium, etc.
pitched sound. As the vehicle moves past and
Questions: What is a singularity? Where
away from you, the sound waves flatten out
did this "singularity" come from? Was this a
(decompress, lose energy) producing a lower-
random event? Where did all the energy in-
pitched sound. Light waves act in a similar
volved in this initial event come from? Would
manner. Light moving away from you shifts
not hydrogen have to be observed or measured
toward the red portion of the light spectrum,
before it can become a particle to compress into
while light moving toward you, like the An-
helium? Is there an end to the universe? Math
dromeda Galaxy (Messier 31), shifts toward
and physics help to build these models, but we
the blue portion. This suggested to Hubble ,
may never understand the origins of the uni-
and other researchers that there must have
verse where it came from or how it came into
been an "explosion" of sorts emanating from
existence. The origin of the universe and the
a point of origin, thus Lemaitre's "Big Bang."
origin oflife are intimately connected. After all,
The problem with the explosion metaphor
we are a product of star dust.
is the universe, yes, is lumpy because of the
Further, the Big Bang (I'll continue to use
formation of galaxies, but it is very uni-for-
this analogy for convenience) released a
m. Explosions are not like that. The suggested
tremendous amount of energy-again, where
time for this event was originally reckoned to
did this energy come from? Eventually hy-
be greater than 8 BYA; our current position is
drogen emerges with this release of energy-
the universe is about 13 .8 BYA. We are talking
is this now a random event? Why hydrogen
-why not gold? The way subatomic particles the electron? No one has a good explanation.
and ele-ments combine through cooling, But instead of a single solution, string the-
clumping, heating, and effects of gravity lead- ory's equations seem to have an unbelievable
ing to star formation, is this process random? number of solu-tions (perhaps 10500 -that's
Gravity is not something that just randomly 1 followed by 500 zeros or one-hun-dred-cen-
happens; neither is the clumping behavior quinsexagintillion!). To some scientists, each of
of hydrogen atoms. Ift his process of star and these solutions describes a different universe,
galaxy formation were random, either nothing each with its own physical properties.
would form or there would be much more vari- Another claim for the multiverse comes
ability in the constituents of stars. If the "Big from quantum theory. Quantum theory has
Bang" was truly a cluster of random events, in proven successful at describing matter on
my opinion, there would be no universe as we the smallest scale. However, quantum theory
know it, no galaxies, stars, planets, and the an- leads to several possibilities that defy common
cient alien hunters would be out ofbusiness. sense. The "many worlds" interpretation of
The Big Bang, the cataclysmic event that quantum theory suggests that the universe
many believe brought the universe into splits in two each time there's a so-called
random
existence some 13.8 BYA, was, according to "quantum event" (see Carroll 2019 for a clear
quantum physicists, triggered by a presentation of the multiverse position; also
fluctuation in what we call the "wave form," see Vaas 2017 for a critique ofmultiverse
with particles popping into and out of exis- scenarios). In the strange world of quantum
tence. Yes, they can, but scientists do not truly theory, a radioactive particle decays and
know what is happening in the wave form, and doesn't decay during any given period-and
whatever is happening it isn't random, an- each result exists in a separate universe. With
other term used when we don't see the bigger such quantum events happening more or less
picture. Cosmologists resort to metaphors to continuously, the argument goes, the number
express ideas about possibilities-few accept of universes keeps increasing. We can test none
these metaphors as absolute truth. of this outside of computer models, models
But while some physicists believe this bang, constructed by an intelligence using today's
pop, or crackle and the resulting "inflation" know-ledge and models that are admittedly in-
of the universe was a singular, unique event, complete. I will return to multiverses in Chap-
others say there could have been many such ter 6.
Teleological (Considering Purpose
events -leading to multiple universes. One
Rather than Cause)
argument for a multiverse (multiple universes)
develops from string theory. Matter is com-
posed of unimaginably small, vibrating Besides the laws governing the behavior
strings or loops of energy-not particles. Physi- and order of elements, there are also principles
cists hoped string theory might be a "theory of self-organization or the development of
of everything," or a group of equations that complexity over time not explained by those
explain why our universe has the exact proper- elemental laws (math, physics, and chem-
ties that it does. For example, why is the mass istry). Our models are incomplete (Kauffman
of a proton 1836.15 times greater than that of 2019). Teleology searches for a purpose, i.e.,
what is the purpose oflife or what is the pur- sulfur, phosphorus, and so on, and as they for-
pose of a nervous system that places values m in stars, the various star formations would
on objects and behaviors? How do ideas about probably give us a relative date. The first stars
"right" and "wrong" emerge from our nervous apparently formed about 300 million years
system? Why would we humans have a brain after the Big Bang and I would suspect that by
capable of putting a person on the Moon at at least 10 BYA (Billion Years Ago) (if the uni-
least 70 KYA (Thousand Years Ago)? Ift here is verse is 13 .8 billion years old) we would have
purpose, then that smacks ofintelligence; the neutron stars, which may be responsible for
Neo-Darwinists generate a great deal of fear producing the heavy metals. However, many
over this prospect. scientists suggest that planet Earth formed in
our galaxy around 4.4 BYA, with some think-
God, Grand Craftsman, Designer ing life first began on planet Earth 4-3 .5 BYA.
With the Earth proper forming 4.4 BYA, as we
will see, there is just not enough time for life
Then we have the easy way out. A specific,
generic
forms to emerge randomly. Life, or rather the
anthropomorphic "consciousness" set the
rules for constructing the cell and life
rules of the universe and put everything in mo-
forms that we know as bacteria, were available
tion. This consciousness is called God, Grand
in the wave form that spawned the universe,
Craftsman, Brahma, Tiamat, Pan Gu, etc. Call-
and most likely has been available since the
ing on a god to explain origins does not inform
beginning of time and space and not peculiar
how the universe and organic life emerged.
to planet Earth. Let's consider models that
Perhaps we live in a computer Matrix,
reflect the Earth-centric view oflife's origins
another easy way out. How about the Ancient
(see Fry 2000 for a history of this quest for life's
Alien hypothesis, that aliens from other
origins).
worlds or dimensions designed us primarily Carbon-based Life Forms
to work as slaves mining gold (Sitchen 2014)! I
don't know if any of these proposals are correct
Life on planet Earth is carbon based.
-but I do not discount them, for to do so is not
Science fiction writers, however, imagine
good science. So what ift here is intelligence,
beings made of silicone or perhaps aluminum.
consciousness, or God in back of this? Should
Before I get to the problems of using silicone
this stop us puny humans from discovering
or other materials besides carbon let me first
how all we experience came together? Those
state that all life forms on this planet use redux
who vehemently oppose such considerations
reactions (reduction-oxidation) for moving
appear to have little faith in their own models,
electrons from one molecule to another. One
or perhaps a great fear of these possibilities, of
molecule gives up an electron, and another
intelligence or God.
Origins of Life on Planet Earth molecule accepts an electron; it reduces the
substance that re2 ceives the electron. For ex-
ample, oxygen 0 during oxidation picks up
It is difficult to place a date on the beginning
two electrons and two p2 rotons, bala2ncing the
of life in the universe. It would have happened
charge and reducing 0 to water (H 0). In order
once necessary chemicals were available, i.e.,
for redux to occur, you need to put a certain
hydrogen, helium, lithium, carbon, oxygen,