 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Bio Evolution Forum » Let's Prove the Idea Wrong... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Tom Hendricks... |
 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Let's look at this idea the other way around,
There is a way to prove my hypothesis about catabolic and anabolic,
evolving, and evolving separately - wrong.
If the following are right then my idea is wrong.
1. Though catabolic and anabolic processes have separate regulation,
they somehow can never evolve separately. They must always evolve at
the same time.
2. Anabolism uses ATP. But if anabolism can never evolve, and/or
evolve separately; then the first use for ATP is the first and only
way any living thing can use ATP. There can never be more than one way
to use ATP. If there was then it would have to have evolved to
different uses.
3. Life evolves but not from metabolism. Somehow there are examples
of natural selection that does not involve metabolism, does not
involve catabolism and anabolism.
Those who suggest my idea is wrong, then must defend the idea that
catabolic and anabolic processes cannot evolve. Nor can they evolve
separately.
And there is evolution outside of metabolism.
Thoughts? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom Hendricks... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 8:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 11:37=A0am, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
[quote]Let's look at this idea the other way around,
There is a way to prove my hypothesis =A0about catabolic and anabolic,
evolving, and evolving separately - wrong.
If the following are right then my idea is wrong.
1. Though catabolic and anabolic processes have separate regulation,
they somehow can never evolve separately. They must always evolve at
the same time.
2. Anabolism uses ATP. But if anabolism can never evolve, and/or
evolve separately; then the first use for ATP is the first and only
way any living thing can use ATP. There can never be more than one way
to use ATP. If there was then it would have to have evolved to
different uses.
3. Life evolves but not from metabolism. =A0Somehow there are examples
of natural selection that does not involve metabolism, does not
involve catabolism and anabolism.
Those who suggest my idea is wrong, then must defend the idea that
catabolic and anabolic processes cannot evolve. Nor can they evolve
separately.
And there is evolution outside of metabolism.
Thoughts?
[/quote]
There has been little comment here. I think catabolic and anabolic
processes have to evolve
and evolve separately.
Here's more:
1. If catabolic and anabolic processes did not evolve separately then
both are the same as they started. And the mix of catabolic and
anabolic processes should be exactly the same - if one is 50% of the
biological processes, the other is 50%. If one is 40% the other is
60%. And this never changes, no matter the species, no matter the era,
no matter the environment.
But this is obviously not true.
2. If a positive mutation happened on the anabolic side, does that
mean there is an immediate change in the catabolic side to exactly
match? How could the 2nd side mutate instantly to keep the anabolic/
catabolic processes working exactly the same?
But if they cannot evolve separately, then that would have to be true.
This is again obviously not true.
Thoughts? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| verulam... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Tom,
I have read your threads about anabolism and catabolism with some
interest, because this aspect of metabolism has previously interested
me. As you know, I take a metabolism first view of the origin of life
and that view raises serious issues about how metabolism could have
produced genetics and the other aspects of life as we now find it.
However, although I find the topic of the discussion interesting, I
have never been able to make much sense of your own approach to it. I
do not like the way you link organelles to this distinction which, to
my mind at least, plainly does not work. Also, you seem unaware that
some aspects of metabolism defy this anabolism - catabolism
classification. For example, the pathways that Kornberg called
anaplerotic. (Rather an ugly word, but there you go.) Because those
pathways feed the TCA cycle, their net effect may be either anabolic
or catabolic. I will shortly mention a more significant point where
this anabolism - catabolism distinction breaks down.
Nonetheless, the distinction is real enough but you should be able to
do much more with it than you have done. From an origin of life point
of view, which is your concern and mine, the anabolism - catabolism
distinction seems to me to relate to the nucleic acid bases, to their
evolutionary origins and to the roles that their nucleotide
triphosphate derivatives play as energy transducers.
The thing is that A (adenine) can be plausibly taken as originating in
the primordial soup by prebiotic chemistry and is universally involved
in metabolism. ATP figures in both anabolic and catabolic pathways.
Anabolic pathways, in general, hinge around a compound abbreviated to
PRPP, phosphoribosyl pyrophosphate, which is involved in the metabolic
synthesis of all the nucleotides, including the pyrimidines. This
metabolic synthesis was, presumably, the first appearance of the
pyrimidines since these compounds were not plausibly present on the
prebiotic earth. (A Manchester group did recently attempt to find a
reasonable pathway for pyrimidine formation but, even if one accepted
their proposal, these compounds are quite unstable to hydrolysis and
would still not have achieved significant concentrations in the soup.)
Nonetheless, pyrimidines seem to control anabolism, at least CTP
transduces an important step in lipid biosynthesis and UTP transduces
a major step in polysaccharide synthesis. So, in effect, I would
suggest to you that pyrimidines emerged alongside anabolism.
PRPP is also important in purine biosynthesis and leads to both A and
G. This would have been a second route to A but the emergence of G
would, I suggest, have been later than any of the other bases and
would have been neither anabolic or catabolic; it would have been much
more interesting than that. G would, so to speak, have completed the
set of nucleotide bases and would have introduced the possibility of
matched, Watson-Crick base pairing, in other words, sequence
specificity in nucleic acid copying. Further, I do not think it a
coincidence that GTP, as an energy transducer, plays an important role
in sequence specificity for protein synthesis - its hydrolysis
transduces error correction during protein chain elongation. In other
words, the emergence of G would have been the event that introduced
sequence specificity into the synthesis of both nucleic acids and
proteins.
This is certainly the way I go in thinking about these things. It may
be just a personal approach but, nonetheless, you might also find it
fruitful to consider things that way.
Sincerely
John Hewitt
On Nov 6, 5:37=A0pm, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
[quote]Let's look at this idea the other way around,
There is a way to prove my hypothesis =A0about catabolic and anabolic,
evolving, and evolving separately - wrong.
If the following are right then my idea is wrong.
1. Though catabolic and anabolic processes have separate regulation,
they somehow can never evolve separately. They must always evolve at
the same time.
2. Anabolism uses ATP. But if anabolism can never evolve, and/or
evolve separately; then the first use for ATP is the first and only
way any living thing can use ATP. There can never be more than one way
to use ATP. If there was then it would have to have evolved to
different uses.
3. Life evolves but not from metabolism. =A0Somehow there are examples
of natural selection that does not involve metabolism, does not
involve catabolism and anabolism.
Those who suggest my idea is wrong, then must defend the idea that
catabolic and anabolic processes cannot evolve. Nor can they evolve
separately.
And there is evolution outside of metabolism.
Thoughts?[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lorentz... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 16, 1:07=A0am, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 11:37=3DA0am, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
Thoughts?
There has been little comment here.
[/quote]
I haven't gotten any comments as to the ear bones of cetaceans. I
was hoping with your background in music, you would be able to tell me
how the stapes are useful underwater.
You haven't made any comment on whale hearing, or come up
with any opinion. This doesn't mean you are threatened by dolphin
hearing. Apparently, some topics don't interest people as much as
others | |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom Hendricks... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 18, 11:35=A0am, verulam <johnhewit... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]Dear Tom,
I have read your threads about anabolism and catabolism with some
interest, because this aspect of metabolism has previously interested
me. As you know, I take a metabolism first view of the origin of life
and that view raises serious issues about how metabolism could have
produced genetics and the other aspects of life as we now find it.
[/quote]
Yes I agree.
[quote]
However, although I find the topic of the discussion interesting, I
have never been able to make much sense of your own approach to it. I
do not like the way you link organelles to this distinction which, to
my mind at least, plainly does not work. Also, you seem unaware that
some aspects of metabolism defy this anabolism - catabolism
classification. For example, the pathways that Kornberg called
anaplerotic. (Rather an ugly word, but there you go.) Because those
pathways feed the TCA cycle, their net effect may be either anabolic
or catabolic. I will shortly mention a more significant point where
this anabolism - catabolism distinction breaks down.
[/quote]
I never meant to imply that catabolism and anabolism were always
separate,
no more than they always evolved in tandem, or that they always
blended.
I meant to suggest that life is complicated, and sometimes - more and
more as time went on - they evolved separately. That is where my
interest is -
where and how they evolved separately. That is where I think we will
see
some new insights.
Now as to organelles. They, like all parts of living things, follow
the same
arguments above. To say that all organelles have the same exact mix
of catabolism and anabolism doesn't ring true. There is no magic ratio
that never changes in organelles. I suggest that organelles have
evolved
in ways that may emphasize either the catabolic or the anabolic
aspects.
That means that some organelles are more 'catabolic' in nature, and
some
are more 'anabolic' in nature. Now which is which?
When I first started this, I thought there might be a pretty even
split
between the evolution of the two processes, Catabolic / Anabolic.
Now I think differently. I think the bulk of metabolism, specially
in multi-cell organisms, has evolved to be anabolic.
And that catabolic, when somewhat separate from anabolic, is more
involved,
with these basics - breakdown of molecules, digestion, and through
natural selection
that has evolved to also waste out, and protection (digestion of non
self).
[quote]
Nonetheless, the distinction is real enough but you should be able to
do much more with it than you have done. From an origin of life point
of view, which is your concern and mine, the anabolism - catabolism
distinction seems to me to relate to the nucleic acid bases, to their
evolutionary origins and to the roles that their nucleotide
triphosphate derivatives play as energy transducers.
[/quote]
What follows is very interesting to me. When we look at
the origin with both catabolic and anabolic in mind, it may give some
real clues. I think this is what you saw too.
[quote]
The thing is that A (adenine) can be plausibly taken as originating in
the primordial soup by prebiotic chemistry and is universally involved
in metabolism. ATP figures in both anabolic and catabolic pathways.
[/quote]
I tend to think that ATP is the main currency, because it was the main
nucleotide. It must have been the most abundant at the OOL.
[quote]Anabolic pathways, in general, hinge around a compound abbreviated to
PRPP, phosphoribosyl pyrophosphate, which is involved in the metabolic
synthesis of all the nucleotides, including the pyrimidines. This
metabolic synthesis was, presumably, the first appearance of the
pyrimidines since these compounds were not plausibly present on the
prebiotic earth. (A Manchester group did recently attempt to find a
reasonable pathway for pyrimidine formation but, even if one accepted
their proposal, these compounds are quite unstable to hydrolysis and
would still not have achieved significant concentrations in the soup.)
[/quote]
I have suggested this offbeat idea. Purine world, with some U.
G can loosely form with A, and A is WC with U. There fore you don't
have
to have C at the start (the one most difficult to make IIUC).
Pyrimidines
are susceptible to UV dimers, and UV was everywhere, and may have
played a key role in all of this (I think so.)
[quote]
Nonetheless, pyrimidines seem to control anabolism, at least CTP
transduces an important step in lipid biosynthesis and UTP transduces
a major step in polysaccharide synthesis. So, in effect, I would
suggest to you that pyrimidines emerged alongside anabolism.
PRPP is also important in purine biosynthesis and leads to both A and
G. This would have been a second route to A but the emergence of G
would, I suggest, have been later than any of the other bases and
would have been neither anabolic or catabolic; it would have been much
more interesting than that. G would, so to speak, have completed the
set of nucleotide bases and would have introduced the possibility of
matched, Watson-Crick base pairing, in other words, sequence
specificity in nucleic acid copying. Further, I do not think it a
coincidence that GTP, as an energy transducer, plays an important role
in sequence specificity for protein synthesis - its hydrolysis
transduces error correction during protein chain elongation. In other
words, the emergence of G would have been the event that introduced
sequence specificity into the synthesis of both nucleic acids and
proteins.
This is certainly the way I go in thinking about these things. It may
be just a personal approach but, nonetheless, you might also find it
fruitful to consider things that way.
[/quote]
What do others think of Hewitt's ideas?
[quote]
Sincerely
John Hewitt
On Nov 6, 5:37=3DA0pm, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
Let's look at this idea the other way around,
There is a way to prove my hypothesis =3DA0about catabolic and anabolic=
,
evolving, and evolving separately - wrong.
If the following are right then my idea is wrong.
1. Though catabolic and anabolic processes have separate regulation,
they somehow can never evolve separately. They must always evolve at
the same time.
2. Anabolism uses ATP. But if anabolism can never evolve, and/or
evolve separately; then the first use for ATP is the first and only
way any living thing can use ATP. There can never be more than one way
to use ATP. If there was then it would have to have evolved to
different uses.
3. Life evolves but not from metabolism. =3DA0Somehow there are example=
s
of natural selection that does not involve metabolism, does not
involve catabolism and anabolism.
Those who suggest my idea is wrong, then must defend the idea that
catabolic and anabolic processes cannot evolve. Nor can they evolve
separately.
And there is evolution outside of metabolism.
Thoughts?[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 28, 2009 11:07 am
|
|