Message from discussion the House will likely say "system"
Received: by 10.216.213.105 with SMTP id z83mr649140weo.5.1353230876297;
Sun, 18 Nov 2012 01:27:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Timothy Sutter <a202010ï¿½@ï¿½lycos.com>
Subject: Re: the House will likely say "system"
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:26:32 -0500
Organization: Absolute Zero
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03 (WinNT; I)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Inducible enzymes are produced ("turned on") in cells
in response to a particular substrate; they are produced
only when needed. In the process of induction the substrate,
or a compound structurally similar to the substrate,
evokes formation of the enzyme and is
sometimes called an inducer.
see, you have these 'inducible' enzymes
that 'turn on' and 'turn off' in response
to substrate need and availability, and
the inducing 'switches' are not as specific
as the enzyme itself can be made to be.
so, a bacterium that eats arylalkyamides
is in an envirmnment that has no arylalkylamides
but does have nylon, and the nylon carbonyl
function is recognized as a potential food source
because it is structurally similar to the
arylalkylamide, whereupon, the size and shape
modulating function simply breeds the poodle
from the pekinese, in likeness.
so, basically what you have is another gene
that regulates the size and shape specificity
of the inducible traits enzymes.
one gene is induced by substrate to turn on
and another gene modulates the size and
shape of this inducible enzyme.
so, when one suggests that the -enzyme- is specific,
and does not function on other amide types,
the host -bacterium- is -not- so specific so as to
be prevented from being -induced- to generate
generic enzymes which may then be specifically
enhanced to any inducer substrate,
and this is seen.
so, in this case;
there is a family of enzymes that
catalyze the hydrolysis of linear amides.
at present some 100 members of
this family have been catalogued.
what we would suggest is that all of
these enzymes or at least subsets of
this family possess a fundamental similarity,
which -is- the hydrolysis of the amide carbonyl.
now, what we would also suggest is that the
genius of the thing is that the genes regulating
this fundamental portion are able to breed variant
functionalities engineered specifically for
whatever food source is available.
sort of like this;
the gene has a fundamental portion which
is the 'teeth' of the enzyme which will
facilitate the clipping of the amide at
the nitrogen by carbonyl hydrolysis,
essentially 'biting' the bond apart,
and the gene has now only to functionalize
the hands and fingers into place which will
best grab the molecule so as to hold it
in place which the teeth do their biting,
and this is why you see this slough
of apparent specificity all breaking
the same bond, where the 'difference'
lies in the sizes and shapes of the
substrate molecules on which this
amide carbonyl is located.
what it's doing is this;
the amide carbonyl is the functional group
that is instantaneously recognized as
a potential source of energy.
the gene already has an ability to try and
'take a bite' even using a -non-specific-
and then, the gene which produces
these amide hydrolyzing enzymes,
breeds specific attachments for the shape
of the molecule on which this function is found,
so that it can best 'hold' the substrate
in place while the carbonyl attack takes place.
it is a form of 'dog breeding' and it
happens quite fast in bacteria.
this does not involve any sort of
'lucky genes' which just happen
to hit on the correct formula
but instead relies of a very simple gene regulator
mechanism which is able to engineer specificity
of substrate -handling- within weeks.
and these 'specific' traits are merely 'phenotypes'
of the fundamentally similar breed of gene.
it is 'built in -adaptability-', -not- 'lucky genes'
and this is how a synthetic compound like nylon can be
incorporated into a pre-existing biochemical pathway
which engineers specific hydrolases.
this sort of situation for this particular
case can be generalized to account for
much adaptability found in nature.
and the reason this is more descriptive of the process
than one which cites "lucky genes" is that the process
itself in far too -efficient- and selective to -be-
attributed to random happenstance and 'lucky genes.'
it's not 'luck' which is driving this,
but preset, mechanical adaptibility.
it's not just a 'personal preference'
on my part, but the statistical
probabilities now come in to play.
'lucky genes' should be ruled out.
sort of like, you go to Vegas
and not just get a black jack 10 times in a row,
but draw to a straight flush 100 times in a row.
you can -say- 'luck'
but the House will likely say "system"