RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (382) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3179
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2012,16:58   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 31 2012,22:13)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 31 2012,00:21)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 30 2012,21:45)
           
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 30 2012,20:59)
           
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 30 2012,20:40)
Gary, I saw this in a conversation you had online:

             
Quote

Control Of Krebs Cycle By Molecular Intelligence

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.



At any stage through the assembly cycle a molecule of proper fit may be drawn by molecular forces into a nearby self-assembly interaction to where it fits. At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once common planetary chemistry.[11][12]

Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it. A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.

Intelligence to exploit this cycle could easily form in its local environment. Once active it would have little problem controlling this existing metabolism. We can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that produces a genome from scratch, instead of a genome first being required to produce this intelligence.


Elsewhere, you've said that you are revising your text constantly. Is this the latest stable text that you have about the citric acid cycle?

Due to the extreme amount of work putting this theory together (and its politics) I only have time and resources for what most matters to science.  Here's my latest project:  

http://www.biology-online.org/biology....p146133

That doesn't have anything to do with the citric acid cycle.

So let's put it another way: Is your statement that I quoted above about the citric acid cycle something that you feel is defensible? Or are you saying that it isn't, but you've been too busy to retract it?


There is some older material to elaborate on that here:

https://sites.google.com/site.......ull.doc

And I can add a paper under construction that might be helpful, for summing other things up:

https://sites.google.com/site.......fID.pdf


But I don’t see anything inherently wrong with what you quoted (other than not going into as much detail as is possible):

           
Quote
Citric acid cycle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......d_cycle

The citric acid cycle — also known as the tricarboxylic acid cycle (TCA cycle), the Krebs cycle, or the Szent-Györgyi–Krebs cycle[1][2] — is a….


If you can show that it is wrong, then I would first have to blame it on Wikipedia, before agreeing that you are right. :D

From my experience though, they are used interchangeably, even though where I have to look for differences can say that the chemistry varies in a way that the forward/reverse TCA of origin of life papers is a more simple way of achieving the present day Citric Acid Cycle and Krebs.  They are otherwise the same to me.  But since what you are describing is more of a details thing that’s maybe more a mission for you to improve the wording of.  

Getting sidetracked on the Chromosome Illustrator project was the result of the paper also needing to better explain how “addressing” (as explained at Biology-Online) works, to make a molecular intelligence model relatively easy to program.  It’s one of the things that I do have to focus my attention on, because of it being needed by all experimenting with the computer model and theory.   But if you find a more precise way to word things then that will become the new priority and I will in minutes make the change so I can get back to work on what makes this theory unique, and scientifically valuable.


You are using the citric acid cycle as an example confirming your concept of "molecular intelligence". If you don't have the biology right, though, it seems that the conclusion would be that "molecular intelligence" fits a counterfactual biology, not the actual biology that we see. I'm not a biochemist, and my biology coursework touching on intracellular processes lies decades in the past, but precious little that you described meshed with my recall.

As for establishing that your description of the citric acid cycle is incorrect, we can utilize your cited source, Wikipedia.

Gary:

       
Quote

It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.


Wikipedia:

       
Quote

The name of this metabolic pathway is derived from citric acid (a type of tricarboxylic acid) that is first consumed and then regenerated by this sequence of reactions to complete the cycle.


There aren't "two identical copies" produced.

Gary:

       
Quote

At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once common planetary chemistry.


Wikipedia:

       
Quote

The reaction [Reverse citric acid cycle] is a possible candidate for prebiotic early-earth conditions and, so, is of interest in the research of the origin of life. It has been found that some of the steps can be catalysed by minerals.


The reference linked makes clear even in the abstract that they are talking about chemical reactions in the lab, not observations of in vitro biochemistry. ZnS catalysis is not what is happening in the bacteria.

Gary:

       
Quote

Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it.


Wikipedia:

       
Quote

Products of the first turn of the cycle are: one GTP (or ATP), three NADH, one QH2, two CO2.
Because two acetyl-CoA molecules are produced from each glucose molecule, two cycles are required per glucose molecule. Therefore, at the end of two cycles, the products are: two GTP, six NADH, two QH2, and four CO2


The citric acid cycle does not produce cells.

Gary:

       
Quote

A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.


Wikipedia:

       
Quote

The regulation of the TCA cycle is largely determined by substrate availability and product inhibition.


I don't see any basis for your conclusion in what Wikipedia is saying. That lack of substrate or overabundance of products inhibits the citric acid cycle indicates that regulation doesn't require much in addition to those.

Gary:

       
Quote

Intelligence to exploit this cycle could easily form in its local environment. Once active it would have little problem controlling this existing metabolism. We can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that produces a genome from scratch, instead of a genome first being required to produce this intelligence.


Mark Twain:

       
Quote

There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.


All of that last bit quoted from you is speculation without the slightest grounding in empirical data.

As noted at the outset, you do not have the biology right concerning the citric acid cycle. You don't even get simple things right that Wikipedia gets right. Your use of a bizarre alternative citric acid cycle as a point of "verification" for your claims about "molecular intelligence" indicates that "molecular intelligence" is premised upon a biology that we know does not correspond to the terrestrial biology that we have on hand.

I can see a few scenarios following.

(1) Declare that you are actually describing the "real" citric acid cycle, never mind what Wikipedia and biologists have said, and that therefore no change in your concept of "molecular intelligence" is necessary. This leads others to further solidify a classification of you as a Timecube-like source of information.

(2) You alter your description of the citric acid cycle to come a little closer to actual observed biology but make no changes in your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads to others coming to a conclusion that either the example has no relevance to your concept (since such widely divergent descriptions of the example supposedly "verify" the same concept), or that the concept is detached from any empirical approach whatsoever.

(3) You excise the citric acid cycle as an example of "molecular intelligence" without altering your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads others to wonder why a supposed verification can be cut without consequence to the concept that supposedly was verified.

(4) You alter both your description of the citric acid cycle and your concept of "molecular intelligence" in such a way that the changes in the citric acid cycle description have clear correlated changes in the concept. This leads others to re-evaluate their initial assessments of your work.


What you found is described in this and similar origin of life articles and papers that are referenced from the theory:

 X.V. Zhang, S.P. Ellery, C.M. Friend, H.D. Holland, F.M. Michel, M.A.A. Schoonen, and S.T. Martin, "Photodriven Reduction and Oxidation Reactions on Colloidal Semiconductor Particles: Implications for Prebiotic Synthesis," Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry, 2006, 185, 301-311.
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/environ....007.pdf
 Xiang V. Zhang and, Scot T. Martin, “Driving Parts of Krebs Cycle in Reverse through Mineral Photochemistry”, Journal of the American Chemical Society 2006 128 (50), 16032-16033
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/environ....006.pdf
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin....03k.pdf
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/environ....emistry

There is more detail and this illustration in the full version of the theory:  


https://sites.google.com/site.......ull.doc

I can now see how quickly summing it up that way can cause confusion.  Looks like I better include more detail, and put the illustration back in.

In the opposite direction of the cycle there is of course disassembly, as opposed to assembly.  

Another that better shows how the reverse cycle makes a structurally mirror image molecule that next splits in half is here:


http://bitesizebio.com/article....now=off

The theory is correct in saying that this type of cycle is something that can be controlled, hence meets the first requirement of 4 that qualifies a system as intelligent.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
  11441 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (382) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]