2nd draft "Marconomic Theory of Regressive Evolution"

Mainly for clarification, disambiguation and to match experimental evidence?

My theory, is concerned with "Macro mutations" and in its plainest form just expands on what is already known. I will use the term DNA subroutine for a gene that can be switched on or off to express the macro mutation in question.

Fact: an organism under stress exhibits considerably higher mutation rates.

Theory: Different types of stresses will confer different spectrum of mutation - ie. the mutations will favour more likely beneficial mutations for a predicted future requirement which the stress would signal.

The mechanism proposed is that over a window of genetic experience (say a million years) the DNA stores information regarding which mutations were more appropriate for the given stress and which ones weren't. A "bank" of hundreds of thousands of DNA subroutines that has built up over time and proved their worth are either expressed or switched off to save metabolic resources. If a subroutine has been switched off long enough it can be relegated to "junk DNA" status and will not further be trusted in the field due to it being no longer valid in the new context (or from an orthodox perspective become unusable due to genetic drift)

A word on micro mutations:

Micro mutations are classified as completely random errors in duplication of genes. These are strongly evident and well studied. However, the orthodox view is that the only way for these micro mutations to avoid eventually destroying the function of the gene in question is for them to be field tested by natural selection. To put it another way, the whole organism has to die before reproducing to avoid one crucial micro mutation from being copied. I find this argument incomprehensible. It is like as if the only way to avoid errors in programming the oxygen intake valve of the space shuttle is to launch it anyway, let it crash and avoid using those blueprints again. I call it the crash, burn and learn concept. It might be alright for a virus with millions of launches every second, but I don't think it would quite be so good for the Emperor Penguin.

This lends itself to my belief that there is something else at play other than natural selection. There must be some sort of error correction or testing mechanism on individual DNA subroutines, and if there is, they can just as easily apply to non-expressed genes (or, much more likely, there is a system that expresses these, but localises them for testing only, thus suppressing the evolved purpose of the DNA subroutine for that generation at least).

Marconomic Theory of Regressive Evolution

I will start with a generalised genetic disproof of inheritance of acquired characteristics from Wikipedia.Genetic disproof
There are many formulations of the genetic disproof, but all have roughly the same structure as the following:

Acquired traits do not affect an organism's genome.
Only the genome is passed to the offspring.
Therefore, acquired traits cannot be passed to the offspring.
While this proof may be logically valid, it suffers from the material fallacy of begging the question, since no one who believes in inheritance of acquired characters would believe both assumptions.


My theory throws these assumptions away and replaces them with this observation. The inheritance of acquired characteristics is not evident because the genome has embedded within it thousands of generations of experience as to what genetic traits are worthwile and those that aren't. In *general*, genetic mutations mimicking acquired traits do *NOT* make the organism any *fitter* to survive in nature.

Instead, the following rules of regressive evolution apply:

-Genetic mutations in offspring are a result of stresses on the parent(s).
-Mutations have a directed element that depends on the exact stress involved.
-The directed element is programmed into the genetic code via association between the stress which is acting as a trigger, and the mutation which has been "proven" to be appropriate to survive better under new conditions indicated by the stress.
-The strength of association between the trigger and the mutation is entirely dependent on the reliability of the trigger being an indication that the mutation is appropriate to the new "environment".
-Many of the mutations concerned are simply switching on or off complex functions that are permanently programmed in the genetic code whether they are active or not.
-Certain combination of stresses may create combinations of mutations without precedent in itself, but each mutation would have been "field tested" individually in distant or more recent history.

Examples that should be quite clear-cut:

Darkness stress: Species adapted to cave conditions or permanently underground (moles etc.) are uncannily blind whereas their closest relatives have full sight. The stress of being in darkness your whole life would cause a considerable proportion of your progeny to have genetic vision defects - all other things being equal.

Wetness/dryness stress: Kamerrers experiments on the midwife toad (Chapter 7 Panda's thumb) had some merit. Clearly, one must separate the selection pressure from the stress trigger to prove the point that mutations to switch back on genes that helped in water are not evident without the wetness stress. Experiments need to be formulated with this in mind. River-courses changing their path makes sudden changes in local environments.

Radiation stress: In Earth's history every single large scale event would have radiation associated with it. Volcanoes erupting, asteroid impacts, solar activity, and possible magnetic field fluctuations would all send rare radioactive elements in the atmosphere or increased radiation. Is it any wonder then that the most obvious, largest scale mutations are caused by radiation? It is a clear signal that radical mutations in any direction might cause some to survive better.

"Regressive evolution" as a term has been almost exclusively used in describing reduction of features, such as in the loss of eyesight and pigmentation in cave dwelling fish. In "Marconomic" terms, reduction in features is also the clearest example of it in nature. Switching off something that was there appears a backwards or downwards move, while the re-switching on of a previously inactive feature appears to be either a leap or not a truly new feature, depending on whether it had been observed before in related species. Philosophically speaking, backwards, downwards and leaps are artificial concepts based on thinking of evolution (falsely) as a ladder rather than the reality of it being a "bush". Switching on or off of features that are then passed on is adaptive either way. Thus I group losses and gains of such features in the same "regressive" boat.

I call it "regressive" evolution because the process almost always borrows tricks that have developed in the past with selection pressures optimising them. Switching them off saves resources when conditions dictate they are unnecessary. However, they are there for when they are required, and perhaps almost all of the evident "faster" evolutionary processes have borrowed perfectly working genetic tricks and combined them in new ways.

At first glance regressive evolution is not really evolution because it never introduces truly *new* changes. However there is such a large number of possible combinations of trigger-responsive genes that the number of species in the Earth is dwarfed by it. If there is a million genes that can be switched on or off depending on triggers, that makes two to the power of a million possible combinations. Virtually all of them will be truly new changes. Also triggers will almost always produce a spectrum of mutations - This is because the future cannot be predicted perfectly. Chance, probability and statistics is a big part of the process. Truly random mutations, however are almost certainly an evolutionary dead-end.

So I have said that in *general*, genetic mutations mimicking acquired traits do *NOT* make the organism any *fitter* to survive in nature. However, this begs the question: Is there any *specific* genetic mutations that do? (Mimick acquired traits that triggered the mutation)?

The trait/mutation would have to fit the following conditions:
A) The organism must be in a state of life or death stress or reproduction-challenging stress(1)
B) The "situation" must be very analogous to situations repeated in the genealogical history (2).
C) The mutation must clearly help progeny in analogous stressful situations more than just being shown/trained/helped by the parent(s) etc. (3)
D) The disadvantages of the mutation must be clearly outweighed by the advantages given assumed environmental constraints. (Needs a clear cost/benefit advantage)

(1) It is not enough, for instance, that a giraffe stretches their neck reaching for higher food. For a trigger situation, the giraffe must see other giraffes dying of starvation, be short in food itself, and endure the frustration of seeing lots of leaves just out of reach. (Using a well known Lamarckian example) If it isn't a life or death situation, the mutation will be both unecessary and resource-depleting.

(2)The "knowledge" associated with the trigger must be on firm statistical ground. The trigger will never be something only associated with proximal individual adaptation. For instance one 1930's experiment devised to investigate inheritance would chop of an insect's antenna that generally grows back. Any number of generations "experience" would not offset the natural experience of the insect, which is - that a more ideal regrowth of an antenna is unnecessary for survivability and reproduction in any conceivable natural environment. Even if it was - chopping off an antenna would not be an indicative trigger.

(3) It is tempting with certain features, to assume that if strength in one arm is important to survivability, and a person strengthens that arm for a greater part of their life to suit their job, and that their children are likely to have the same constraints - that a genetic mutation that would strengthen that arm without as much training would have evolutionary merit. However, if the feature is being passed on to the child by training from the parents, and very few are dying due the the arm being too weak, a mutation may be less reliable than just letting the parents train their children specifically.

A Rundown of evidence that supports my theories:

1) Experiments show that general mutation rates increase as a result of stress.
2) Humans and bacteria have some parts of their genome that are extremely similar. Even though these same parts are quite resistant to random mutations (ie. random mutations do no noticeable change to the organism). As with most parts of the genome, the specific functions of these segments are unknown.
3) Natural selection needs mutations to select from. Stressful situations lend themselves to particular mutations. This article lays out a clear example of adaptive mutation. Because almost no research is looking for similar adaptive mutations, it is unclear whether this is the exception or the rule.
4) My theories do NOT rule out random aspects to the process. Genes that *Are* under constant selective pressure will have (seemingly random) mutations and will use natural selection as a process of refinement, quality control and mutations that don't affect the purpose of the gene will build up in that gene over time -*at well researched rates*. Selective pressure is the error-correcting mechanism in this case and certain critical sequences can stay the same for Billions of years by this mechanism. This fits in perfectly well with my theories.
5) The apparent extension of this randomness into virtually all genes fits the data quite nicely. However, this should not rule out that the apparent randomness overall, is due to the randomness of the factors that cause mutation triggers. The orthodoxy is that the apparent randomness rules out environmental feedback causality of most of the overall apparent mutations. As pointed out in (3) there is some clear counter-examples to the orthodoxy.

In defence of the Apex Predator

A recent theme in ecological research has been the discovery that not all species are as important as eachother in a regional ecosystem. In fact, if one has to choose a species to protect, it is always the apex predator (top of the food chain) that should be chosen. For instance the extermination in the 1920's of the Wolf from Yellowstone National Park had been found to cause damage to the whole ecology without a single other animal or plant being damaged by human hands. This has been found to be true for all regional ecosystems. Thus the Crocodile really is due protection in the rivers, The Lion really is the king of the beasts in parts of Africa, Cougars, Bears etc. are very important in their ecological niches as well. In Yellowstone for instance, the elk (Reindeer?) are perceived by humans to be important because they are big and beautiful, but the Wolf is more important even though it is unpopular both with tourist and ranchers, and often kill weaker, though intelligent animals in very cruel ways.

Also in the Ocean this is found to be true. And the vicious killers of the deep blue are denegrated by a large swathe of the population. This is wrong, because even if they are natural born killers and kill intelligent and feeling popular mammals of the deep, they are more important than the species they are killing for food. Thus I believe the apex predator in this case - the Japanese whaling and fishing fleets - should be regulated to more mimic the activities of more conventional apex predators such as Great Whites and killer whales, and not be vilified for choosing to kill whales in certain circumstances. Whales are like giant Elk of the deep, and uncontrolled populations may devastate populations of lower species - especially if shark hunting continues uncontrolled!

Steve Irwin

I have been reading "My Steve" by Terri Irwin and it has given me mixed feelings about life, mortality, children and animal liberation. The way that he lived his life in some ways made me jealous. I used to think of him as a bit of a "Jackass" - the way he placed himself with dangerous animals in front of the camera for shock value. I realised more recently that he was just like that, and the fact that he made an impact at the same time suited multiple purposes. The crazy stuff I did in my youth I can just put down to my youth, but Steve certainly carried it right through his whole short life. He is a reminder that life is too short and one must take that into account.

Also the way Steve (and Terri) exposed the children to wildlife astonishingly early and had an expectation of them continuing the family "business" strikes a chord with me, as I have similar ambitions for our family business. I am concordant with Steve and Terri that experiences even just before or after birth have a significance in moulding an individual, especially with things to do with wildlife. I find the "wildlife warrior" message to be inherently inconsistent, yet noble and impossible to argue against. Animals they deal with have been elevated to human status, yet no quasi-religious arguments for vegetarianism are proffered nor a suggestion of laws needing to be changed. There is a distinct push for the purchasing land for private habitat reserves, and they put their money where their mouth is in that regard. New concepts like the "Crocoseum" have been wonderful.

Strategic analysis of Global warming

From Marconomica Principle #5 I've grouped entities strategically as countries. In the global scale, it is countries leaders making the commitments on behalf of all their citizens. The Dillemma's leaders of democracies face is that signed committments get votes now, but may lose them votes if they fail to achieve them later, or if it ends up costing more than voters are willing to pay. The over-riding strategic concern must be "the tragedy of the commons". I have imagined scenarios in which generalised fears cause emmissions to accelerate, with every country more or less blaming every other country. Individual countries obviously try to make any committments at such a long term as to ensure they won't lose personally by failing. As the long term committment nears maturity, the gap between the committment and reality will be so wide that no Government would accept responsibility. The proposed targets are framed in such a way that it is only the end result that is being argued over - not anything in between that will necessarily have to happen to get there (eg goals within an electoral term window). Examples that perhaps ought to be copied if we were serious about it, have their own horrors associated. For instance, Russia is the only Kyoto ratifier to obviously achieve their goal. Clearly, having an economy tank is an obvious way to reduce emissions, but no environmentalist is seriously suggesting it (except Peter Garrett before he became a politician:)). Also examples of rich countries with a very low carbon intensity exist (France), but this contradicts heavily with environmentalists hatred of Hydro and Nuclear power (and hatred of France). Having all but strategically ruled out strategies with proven records, my prediction is of a 10% increase in emmissions in developed countries by 2020 (from 2000 figures)

Marconomic Analysis of the state of play in Climate change

In Principia Marconomica
principle #2, I have stated that perception is not reality, and having a quick look at Wikipedia's Determining political spectra, the climate change state of play is that people's views are highly correlated on this, thus a one dimensional line is very apt to describe it. Principle #2 states that it is very likely that none of the points on the line reflect reality. The perception of the majority, including those that are uncertain, is that if the "alarmist" is right about one thing (say rapid increasing temperature prediction) that they will also be right about a correlated view (Disaster will befall the Earth). Similarly for "denialist" views.
Politics is certain to use this line to influence certain peer groups as units to obtain votes; activists are going to try to influence individuals to join their peer such as to increase their numbers and weight as efficiently as possible.
The unfortunate thing is that a set of views that is without peer almost always gets misunderstood, ignored or forever questioned. What we need is a set of scientists and other professionals that is unburdened by their peers or lobby groups. I just wonder whether "Peer review" leads to "peer pressure" when it comes to the spin on scientific research.

Trading Hot Air

I realise I have perhaps been too harsh to completely dismiss the current state of affairs with "Carbon offsets". I have claimed that these are a "bastardised" form of *allocation* trading. My reasoning is that trading allocations works because the number of allocations is finite and controlled. If one starts to use something like planting trees or buying incandescent lightbulbs, you can buy an infinite amount of these and obviously this would break down the system. Contrast this to a carbon tax, that like any sin tax will reduce demand for the sinful product (in this case carbon), punish bigger users in proportion, and if it replaces other non-carbon-proportional taxes, will be revenue neutral, thus there should not be any net capital flight away from the taxing country.

However, adopt cumulative palatable changes to this system and something strange happens. First, these offsets can move from being voluntary to being compulsory for a certain energy class. Say with electricity, an automatic calculation of carbon based on your electricity bill is used to bill you for the offset. Ditto with fuels. This would not be too controversial. Next, these could be further refined by more accurate metering. CH4, NO2 etc. levels could be monitored over different urban areas and these could form the basis for more compulsory offsets.

In the long term these offsets would be collected by the government and become quite proportional to the carbon usage. The offsets would no longer necessarily go to the lowest price, nor to the one decided on by the payer, but be decided pretty much like any other Government project. This way it would end up being indistinguishable from a carbon tax. This is just a pathway for the Government to sell the idea of something that is essentially increasing cost for basic utilities without any added direct value - generally a fatal policy move.

Chicago, Canada, Alabama, Key West

As part of our whirlwind 87/88 US tour, we made good use of our 15 day Greyhound pass to get around. I can't quite remember the context and dates for these :( Yes I can :).

These photos are all from early January 1988. After a chilly New Years Day stop-over in Fargo North Dakota (no photos), where we were locked out of the bus station and a kind beekeeper puts us up for the night so we don't freeze in the -40degree (Farenheit, Celcius take your pick:)) wind chill, we make it to Winnipeg Canada, where by the 3rd of January, I remember that we hadn't taken any photos so I take one.
Winnipeg, Canada We were walking to (Eatons?) shopping centre.

This next photo is a re-enactment of a very notorious scene in "Ferris Bueller's day off", where the youngsters risk their lives by standing on the railing and lean into the window with their head when they are at the top floor observatory! It was probably the 5th of January.

Sears Tower, Chicago Not as scary as it looks. Maybe the security guards knew something we didn't.


The next photo was taken in Birmingham, Alabama, where the trees had ice on them. Must have been around the 9th of January. We were awaiting our bus out of the place and I realised we didn't have a photo, so I demanded one next to the phone box because it looked a little interesting.
Alabama! I had my winter suit on, but the Doctor seemed to be warm enough without.

The next photo is the place at Key West which was rather warm in comparison, so we bought some singlets with stuff written on them. Must have been about the 11th of January?
Key West

Lesson: Do not throw snowballs at AMERICANS

Australian Andy should have learned the lesson I did almost twenty years ago.



















Trust me! It can never end well. This goes for Islamic extremists who like to throw something more substantial... eg. Suicide bomber, Aeroplane etc. etc.

Even if you lead a country and even hint at suggesting America may have asked for it, you are seen to be fair game.

25th November day

If you're going to have a day to remember - Have it twice. On 25/11/1987, we take off, have a stop-over in Sydney for several hours where we do some stuff, then get on a plane overnight to Honolulu, then have 25/11/1987 all over again. If I'm not mistaken, 28/11/1987 is when Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen was ousted by his own party after being premier for 17 years.

In defence of not reading

How not to read a book

Christmas 1987 - Durango, Colorado

After having seen unusual snow in Tucson and the Grand Canyon, we decided to have a white Christmas in the Colorado Rockies. Activities were basically toboganning in Hawaiian costume, climbing a nearby mountain peak and celebrating Christmas.

Mexico Leg 1987

Mexico December 16th to 22nd? 1987. My entry document indicates that we entered Mexico on the 16th. I recall that we stayed several days in Mexico, but we went to Colorado for Christmas. The order of the pictures in the album suggests we went to the Grand Canyon after Mexico, but that seems a litle too close to Christmas by my reckoning. I remember catching a train to Guaymas, hiking a lot, sleeping in the rain on an island near Club Med, nearly missing our vital train trip back, jumping onto the moving train with luggage, being searched on our way back to the US.

The Groose with club Med in the background
Me with "Tetas de Capra" (Goats' teats) mountains in background.
On A sand dune with Cacti in backdrop

Arizona Leg Nostalgia 1987

4th December to 15th December 1987. After one day living it up in LA and visiting Universal studios, we catch an overnight bus to Tucson Az. minus our luggage for a day and minus our tape recorder forever. Activities included golf, mountain climbing, the occasional party, pictionary, bowling, shopping (eg. boots, sleeping bag, mini-camera) trip to Grand Canyon - see pictures. I have a document that tells me we entered Mexico on the 16th of December. I remember staying about 5 days??? Anyhow, I've relegated Mexico to a separate leg of the adventure.

Concierto De Aranjuez (orange juice (sic))

From the movie "Brassed Off" .Townsville Brass actually played this at our last contest, and we have a young female Flugel Horn player and an older baldy conductor like this clip. We are playing it again at a concert on the strand "Brass on the Grass" Sunday 11th November.

More Nostalgia

28th November to 3rd December 1987 - Hitch-hiking around the Big Island (HAWAII) Trecking through volcanoes, to "green" beaches, acid rain deserts, Pakalolo plantations, dog/stunt/vehicles etc.

I don't remember pakalolo plantations, but so very much in such a little time- sheltering from a downpour in a Hilo high school- overnight at the Volcano visitors centre- the day we made money, picking up change along a highway through a desolate moonscape- camping on a picnic table at a haunted beach of black and white pebbles- begging for water- eating guavas off the vine- trying to find the Captain Cook monument- the cops coming to see if we were dead, camped outside a church on the edge of Kailua-Kona - then the best ever hitched ride, warned of the sheriff in Honokaa (or was it Ho'okena?, most memorable ever hitched ride passing trucks on double white lines on twisty mountain road with watefalls sitting with the dogs in a ute with no sides... trying to peer through the windows of the Miss Teen USA competition and the drug dealer who was the only person who *didn't* offer us pakalolo...





Wide angle - Foreground is untouched wilderness, background is volcanic lava flow destruction







close up of me and the Doctor from the original image surveying the eerie moonscape of lava destruction





Best ever hitched ride
Sign says do not climb loose volcano ejecta

9/11

Reminiscing about 20 years ago reminds me about 18 years ago today. In fact I believe three young tourists were instrumental in generating momentum in 1988 that culminated in the wall coming down. I believe I said to some German "Ich bin Ein Hamburger" - you see we couldn't get into Berlin so we had to make do with Hamburg, and that's why it took so long for the message to get through to the border guards.

Arguments for modern specific experiments for Lamarckism

I have been reading The Panda's Thumb and there is a nice chapter devoted to the discussion of Lamarckism. Essentially the tenets of "Lamarckism" is that evolution can be "directed" by environmental factors, rather than by undirected genetic variation being winnowed out by death or lower reproduction rates of fellow individuals of the species allowing the remaining individuals to pass on genes appropriate to the environmental factors. Lamarckism has been rejected by biologists because "Darwinism" explains all facets of evolution satisfactorily, and no direct evidence of Lamarckism has been discovered, as well as the fact that particular examples (giraffe necks etc.) oft quoted have been discredited as being both explainable by darwinism and having no measurable direct evidence of directed genetic change.

A new approach would be to look at it from a completely different angle as follows. If Lamarckism is a force in evolution, what are the best genetic strategies to follow given a pre-reproductive youth to experiment on what genes are useful and which not. The issue to me is that genes would have to predict what future environments will require. Genetic variation would hedge its bets on an environmental change being a temporary or permanent one. I would suggest that modern controlled experiments on a range of different animals over a large number of generations would demonstrate it. Essentially, almost no experiments have been done since the 1920's and 1930's. With a greater understanding of the complex role of RNA, more nuanced experiments, I believe would find a subtle but pervasive pathway for some direct/accelerated forms of evolution.

Neither the rat/maze learning experiments and antenna/amputation/regrowth experiments have natural environmental analogies, making them less explanatory than they appear. Direct adaptation would only happen where similar changes in environment had happened before in the distant ancestral history of the animal/plant in question. After all, the specific Lamarckian adaptation itself would have to evolve to suit probable dramatic shifts in environment (ie. selection pressures on species that had no Lamarckian adaptation vs species that did)

One particular experiment would be subjecting specimens to permanent darkness. It is a well known evolutionary theme that vision in a large range of beasts becomes impaired when adapted to permanent darkness. It also has reasonably common natural analogy where animals adapted to light have close relatives adapted to dark with common ancestry. Adaptation to permanently, cold, wet, hot or dry are similarly common natural events that lab experiments could weed out direct vs undirected variation.

Nostalgia

Honolulu 25th-28th November 1987
Left Townsville 7:00 am 25th November - Arrived Honolulu 25th November 6:00 am. Gotta love that date line :)

In the first few days of our 1987 trip, we hung out around Honolulu trying to make nuisances of ourselves. We had a tape recorder but nothing too interesting got recorded other than being thrown out of a hotel for wearing shorts. We didn't steal any cars but we did pretend to own them.

What I didn't realise was that the hotel we stayed at - the Edgewater Hotel - was a historic building. Some info From link Waikiki Beach Walk builds on Outrigger's deep history in the area. The 184-room Edgewater Hotel -- which opened in 1951 and is at the heart of the new Waikiki Beach Walk complex -- was the second hotel built by company founders Roy and Estelle Kelley, and for years was the only major building in that area of Waikiki. (The Kelleys' first hotel, the Islander, was built in 1947 on the site of the former Waikiki I and II Theaters and has long since been demolished.) The Edgewater Hotel was the first hotel in Waikiki to have an automatic elevator and a swimming pool, and it set the standard for Outrigger's growth in Waikiki in the succeeding decades, meeting the needs of generations of travelers seeking moderately priced rooms in Waikiki.

Picture of me at the Edgewater Hotel.

and this link explaining some more of the history of the place.

linkOutrigger Hotels had a large investment in the area, including its once landmark Edgewater Hotel. Built in 1951, in the burst of postwar optimism that anticipated as many as 50,000 Waikiki visitors a year, it was the first Waikiki hotel with an automatic elevator and a swimming pool. John Wayne, who often stayed there, once locked himself out of his room naked, and had to be rescued by the owner himself. John Wayne should have just climbed down :)


Dude

Thanks for the links .... I'll checkem out when I have some more time. At the moment Carleah and I are living it up in China. It's great. We can get a restaurant meal including drinks for 3 people for the pricey sum of $7.... an expensive taxi ride is $3.

I'll be celebrating our 20year anniversary on the 25th November in Korea :-)

Regards
The Groose

Watching the big waves near Sunset Beach, Oahu
Waves are deemed too big for the surfing championships being held on Sunset Beach - so we go in for a swim at Waimea Bay

You were allowed to go to Schoolies weren't you?

This is a question that Belinda put to me recently when I made obvious my loathing of the organised activities of youngsters at the end of grade 12. My initial reaction was that "Schoolies" didn't exist when I finished high school. But then I thought about it and I really have no idea what status "schoolies" had back in 1987. To tell you the truth when I did think back to what I actually did in the week after school finished, I am not sure I should bring up the details with my kids, lest they think it ok to act irresponsible and stuff.