Two More Points
Tom Hendricks
1. Response to the argument that catabolic and anabolic did NOT evolve
separately.
IF catabolic and anabolic did not evolve separately, that means they
evolved together. That means that every positive mutation on the
catabolic side instantly produced a matching positive mutation on the
anabolic side. That means that for every mutation there were really 2
mutations - one on the catabolic side, and one on the anabolic side.
We should see mutations in pairs. This is not the case. Clearly
mutations do not come in pairs. Clearly a mutation on one side does
not instantly lead to a matching mutation on the other. This suggests
to me that catabolic and anabolic processes evolved separately - a key
argument to my hypothesis.
2. Response to the argument that catabolic and anabolic processes
blended and did not evolve separately.
IF catabolic and anabolic processes blended through time, then they
would not be separate today. Clearly there are separate catabolic and
anabolic processes today. That means they have stayed separate over
billions of years; and that separation of these anabolic and catabolic
processes has been selected for.
Lorentz
> Two more points to consider:
>
> 1. Response to the argument that catabolic and anabolic did NOT evolve
> separately.
>
> IF catabolic and anabolic did not evolve separately, that means they
> evolved together. That means that �every positive mutation on the
> catabolic side instantly produced a matching positive mutation on the
> anabolic side. That means that for every mutation there were really 2
> mutations - one on the catabolic side, and one on the anabolic side.
mutations are random with respect to their application.
> We should see mutations in pairs. This is not the case.
evolve together.
> Clearly
> mutations do not come in pairs. Clearly a mutation on one side does
> not instantly lead to a matching mutation on the other. This suggests
> to me that catabolic and anabolic processes evolved separately - a key
> argument to my hypothesis.
automatically mean they evolve separately. The fitness potential of
each mutation may interact.
Or maybe not. I am not really clear what you mean by "evolving
separately" and "evolving together".
>
> 2. Response to the argument that catabolic and anabolic processes
> blended and did not evolve separately.
>
> IF catabolic and anabolic processes �blended through time, then they
> would not be separate today. Clearly there are separate catabolic and
> anabolic processes today. That means they have stayed separate over
> billions of years; and that separation of these anabolic and catabolic
> processes has been selected for.
selection for keeping separate.
Tom Hendricks
> Straw man. No one says they the two evolved together. In general,
> mutations are random with respect to their application.> We should see mutations in pairs. This is not the case.
Not straw man. Many think they have evolved in tandem. There was much
talk on this
newsgroup that my idea that they evolved separately could not be. I
suggest these
basic reasons to counteract that argument.
>
> Surprise! No one before you has ever claimed that the two do
> evolve together.> Clearly
> > mutations do not come in pairs. Clearly a mutation on one side does
> > not instantly lead to a matching mutation on the other. This suggests
> > to me that catabolic and anabolic processes evolved separately - a key
> > argument to my hypothesis.
That is my point. We have never looked at life as a catabolic anabolic
split.
Now I suggest we do and first of all eliminate the idea that they
evolved together.
Which many have argued about when I first suggested it, right here on
this newsgroup.
By agreeing you say they evolved apart.
That leads to - they evolved apart? How?
That's where my other posts come in. I suggest many ways they have
evolved apart.
> Even if the mutations do occur separately, it doesn't
> automatically mean they evolve separately. The fitness potential of
> each mutation may interact.
> Or maybe not. I am not really clear what you mean by "evolving
> separately" and "evolving together".
Yes you are. You got it. They can't evolve together all the time . I
would think it rare.
There were times, most of the times, when they evolved separately.
That's my point.
Catabolic and anabolic are two main forces in evolution. Because
metabolism
is a main force in evolution. Metabolism and replication are major
parts of
any definition of life.
Evolution is basically changes in metabolism or replication. If
metabolism changes
then its catabolic or anabolic changes.
> > 2. Response to the argument that catabolic and anabolic processes
> > blended and did not evolve separately.
>
> > IF catabolic and anabolic processes blended through time, then they
> > would not be separate today. Clearly there are separate catabolic and
> > anabolic processes today. That means they have stayed separate over
> > billions of years; and that separation of these anabolic and catabolic
> > processes has been selected for.
>
> They are separate by definition. There doesn't have to be any
> selection for keeping separate.
I say there was stabilizing selection to keep them separate over the
years.
Because the basic metabolism processes are the same over the years.
Are you saying that the split of catabolic and anabolic processes is
a recent development?
When did it happen? I say they are separate, and have been separate.
My point is they are separate after all these years or we would not
see them as separate.
I would suggest that they have staid separate too in many cases.
They are now separate, not because of a recent change, but because
they always
have been separate. My point is that they evolved separately. Did not
blend.
You've hedged around it, but I think we both agree. Many catabolic and
anabolic forces
started separately and evolved separately from each other, and are
still separate today.
We agree? - so next. How did they evolve separately? In what ways?
And how did they
evolve together? In what ways? How has metabolism evolved to just
about all biological processes.
That's what my hypothesis suggests - the ways catabolic and anabolic
evolved, and evolved separately
Lorentz
> Resend:
>
> Catabolic and anabolic are two main forces in evolution. Because
> metabolism
> is a main force in evolution. Metabolism and replication are major
> parts of
> any definition of life.
"anabolic." Metabolism refers to the rate an organism uses energy. It
is measured in units of "Watts." The words "catabolic" or "anabolic"
refers to making joining molecules together, or splitting molecules
apart.
My point is that you use technical words in a way no one else
understands. Especially the ones who usually use these words.
Tom Hendricks
> On Jan 8, 12:18�pm, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri...@att.net> wrote:> Resend:
>From wikipedia
Metabolism is usually divided into two categories. Catabolism breaks
down organic matter, for example to harvest energy in cellular
respiration. Anabolism, uses energy to construct components of cells
such as proteins and nucleic acids.
There's much more in my post that you didn't respond to.
Do you accept all the rest?
When you accept that catabolic and anabolic are separate, and have
evolved separately then it helps build a foundation for the rest of
these ideas.
How about others? What are your comments on these ideas so far?
Lorentz
> On Jan 9, 6:27�pm, Lorentz <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 12:18�pm, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri...@att.net> wrote:> Resend:
>
> > > Catabolic and anabolic are two main forces in evolution. Because
> > > metabolism
> > > is a main force in evolution. Metabolism and replication are major
> > > parts of
> > > any definition of life.
>
> > � � Metabolism has nothing to do with being "catabolic" or being
> > "anabolic." Metabolism refers to the rate an organism uses energy. It
> > is measured in units of "Watts." The words "catabolic" or "anabolic"
> > refers to making joining molecules together, or splitting molecules
> > apart.
> > � � My point is that you use technical words in a way no one else
> > understands. Especially the ones who usually use these words.
> >From wikipedia
>
> Metabolism is usually divided into two categories. Catabolism breaks
> down organic matter, for example to harvest energy in cellular
> respiration. Anabolism, uses energy to construct components of cells
> such as proteins and nucleic acids.
>
> There's much more in my post that you didn't respond to.
> Do you accept all the rest?
about a theory so bad it couldn't even be wrong.
> When you accept that catabolic and anabolic are separate, and have
> evolved separately then it helps build a foundation for the rest of
> these ideas.
know of any two systems that "evolve together", so I don't understand
how two systems can "evolve separately." So I don't see how this
theory can be either right or wrong.
> How about others? What are your comments on these ideas so far?
or microbes, or viruses, or prions, or anything halfway concrete?
Quarter of the way concrete?