The inner makeup, functions, and structures of all cells are similar
as are the relationships among their elements. Teilhard finds this
fact amazing. He explains why.
According to Louis Savary, writing about Teilhard de Chardin's ideas described in The Phenomenon of Man[1]:
<quote>
Early cells and the innumerable elements composing them are not
constructed haphazardly. As operating systems, all cells are alike.
The inner makeup, functions, and structures of all cells are similar
as are the relationships among their elements. Teilhard finds this
fact amazing. He explains why.
All cells, from those in the simplest bacteria to those in a human
brain, contain the same set of elements, the same types of proteins
and acids. This is true, despite the fact that first cells emerging
around the world could have been made up of other chemical formulas
and structures. Because different cells were born in different
climates and conditions, they had the opportunity to develop in a
variety of ways. Yet, variation did not happen. The liquid bath in
which a cell's parts move around has the same chemical makeup in all
cells on Earth today.
Because such a universal similarity in makeup does not appear
logically necessary, it suggests nature made an early choice. The
similarity of liquid bath in all cells worldwide "has been taken as
proof that all existing organisms descended from a single ancestral
group [of cells]" (95, 55).
… All cells on our planet share an "inherent kinship" (100, 58)
manifested in the absolute and universal uniformity of the basic
cellular structure found in all living things on Earth.
… Current research in DNA confirms Teilhard's statements in this
section even though DNA hadn't been described or mapped when he was
writing Phenomenon.
</quote>
Is Savary correct that almost 100 years on from when Teilhard came to
those conclusions, they still stand?
[1] Savary, L.M. (2020) Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man Explained [online], Paulist Press
Martin Harran wrote:
The inner makeup, functions, and structures of all cells are similar
as are the relationships among their elements. Teilhard finds this
fact amazing. He explains why.
I'd find that amazing only if abiogenesis was a high probability event.
IMO if abiogenesis is an event with low probability, the first living creature
would tend to reproduce, branch out and eat the precursors of life.
There could be relatively little in the way of raw precursors for new abiogenesis events to occur from, and any new abiogenesis events
that did occur would generally result in unevolved organisms that would
be at a major disadvantage compared to life that had a chance to
improve itself a bit through evolution .... so established life would tend
to eat any new life that showed up. Only if abiogenesis was a high probability event (or the new life forms were inedible to the old ones)
would multiple types of creature occur from different abiogenesis events
and have some chance of both getting established.
Not saying it's impossible, but simultaneous abiogenesis events doesn't strike me as probable given what little we have learned about abiogenesis.
According to Louis Savary, writing about Teilhard de Chardin's ideas described in The Phenomenon of Man[1]:
<quote>
Early cells and the innumerable elements composing them are not
constructed haphazardly. As operating systems, all cells are alike.
The inner makeup, functions, and structures of all cells are similar
as are the relationships among their elements. Teilhard finds this
fact amazing. He explains why.
All cells, from those in the simplest bacteria to those in a human
brain, contain the same set of elements, the same types of proteins
and acids. This is true, despite the fact that first cells emerging
around the world could have been made up of other chemical formulas
and structures. Because different cells were born in different
climates and conditions, they had the opportunity to develop in a
variety of ways. Yet, variation did not happen. The liquid bath in
which a cell's parts move around has the same chemical makeup in all
cells on Earth today.
Because such a universal similarity in makeup does not appear
logically necessary, it suggests nature made an early choice. The
similarity of liquid bath in all cells worldwide "has been taken as
proof that all existing organisms descended from a single ancestral
group [of cells]" (95, 55).
Â… All cells on our planet share an "inherent kinship" (100, 58)
manifested in the absolute and universal uniformity of the basic
cellular structure found in all living things on Earth.
Â… Current research in DNA confirms Teilhard's statements in this
section even though DNA hadn't been described or mapped when he was
writing Phenomenon.
</quote>
Is Savary correct that almost 100 years on from when Teilhard came to
those conclusions, they still stand?
[1] Savary, L.M. (2020) Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man
Explained [online], Paulist Press
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 5:01:53 AM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote:
According to Louis Savary, writing about Teilhard de Chardin's ideas
described in The Phenomenon of Man[1]:
<quote>
Early cells and the innumerable elements composing them are not
constructed haphazardly. As operating systems, all cells are alike.
The inner makeup, functions, and structures of all cells are similar
as are the relationships among their elements. Teilhard finds this
fact amazing. He explains why.
All cells, from those in the simplest bacteria to those in a human
brain, contain the same set of elements, the same types of proteins
and acids. This is true, despite the fact that first cells emerging
around the world could have been made up of other chemical formulas
and structures. Because different cells were born in different
climates and conditions, they had the opportunity to develop in a
variety of ways. Yet, variation did not happen. The liquid bath in
which a cell's parts move around has the same chemical makeup in all
cells on Earth today.
Because such a universal similarity in makeup does not appear
logically necessary, it suggests nature made an early choice. The
similarity of liquid bath in all cells worldwide "has been taken as
proof that all existing organisms descended from a single ancestral
group [of cells]" (95, 55).
… All cells on our planet share an "inherent kinship" (100, 58)
manifested in the absolute and universal uniformity of the basic
cellular structure found in all living things on Earth.
… Current research in DNA confirms Teilhard's statements in this
section even though DNA hadn't been described or mapped when he was
writing Phenomenon.
</quote>
Is Savary correct that almost 100 years on from when Teilhard came to
those conclusions, they still stand?
[1] Savary, L.M. (2020) Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man
Explained [online], Paulist Press
Frankly, when you read those words you quoted, they are empty balderdash.
Try as one might, they don't fit to modern biochemistry. To be specific,
This part:
All cells, from those in the simplest bacteria to those in a human
brain, contain the same set of elements, the same types of proteins
and acids. This is true, despite the fact that first cells emerging
around the world could have been made up of other chemical formulas
and structures. Because different cells were born in different
climates and conditions, they had the opportunity to develop in a
variety of ways. Yet, variation did not happen. The liquid bath in
which a cell's parts move around has the same chemical makeup in all
cells on Earth today.
How do you parse all of that? The best I can do is to see that he's saying that life is built up of the same amino acids. the same building blocks.
That isn't significant in the way he would wish.
It's perhaps unfair to be too critical of him given the lack of understanding of proteins and the significance of specific amino acid sequences, or the nature of DNA and its role to encode specific protein sequence structure.
But ultimately it's gibberish in a modern context. It does not include useful specific information. It's vague generalities that ultimately say very little of
significance. This should be clear ro you.
So the question is, what is it about that quote that you find compelling?
To me, as a biochemist, it's flowerily words that say nothing of significance.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 5:01:53 AM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote:
According to Louis Savary, writing about Teilhard de Chardin's ideas described in The Phenomenon of Man[1]:
<quote>
Early cells and the innumerable elements composing them are not constructed haphazardly. As operating systems, all cells are alike.
The inner makeup, functions, and structures of all cells are similar
as are the relationships among their elements. Teilhard finds this
fact amazing. He explains why.
All cells, from those in the simplest bacteria to those in a human
brain, contain the same set of elements, the same types of proteins
and acids. This is true, despite the fact that first cells emerging
around the world could have been made up of other chemical formulas
and structures. Because different cells were born in different
climates and conditions, they had the opportunity to develop in a
variety of ways. Yet, variation did not happen. The liquid bath in
which a cell's parts move around has the same chemical makeup in all
cells on Earth today.
Because such a universal similarity in makeup does not appear
logically necessary, it suggests nature made an early choice. The similarity of liquid bath in all cells worldwide "has been taken as
proof that all existing organisms descended from a single ancestral
group [of cells]" (95, 55).
… All cells on our planet share an "inherent kinship" (100, 58) manifested in the absolute and universal uniformity of the basic
cellular structure found in all living things on Earth.
… Current research in DNA confirms Teilhard's statements in this
section even though DNA hadn't been described or mapped when he was writing Phenomenon.
</quote>
Is Savary correct that almost 100 years on from when Teilhard came to those conclusions, they still stand?
[1] Savary, L.M. (2020) Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man Explained [online], Paulist PressFrankly, when you read those words you quoted, they are empty balderdash. Try as one might, they don't fit to modern biochemistry. To be specific,
This part:
All cells, from those in the simplest bacteria to those in a humanHow do you parse all of that? The best I can do is to see that he's saying that life is built up of the same amino acids. the same building blocks. That isn't significant in the way he would wish.
brain, contain the same set of elements, the same types of proteins
and acids. This is true, despite the fact that first cells emerging
around the world could have been made up of other chemical formulas
and structures. Because different cells were born in different
climates and conditions, they had the opportunity to develop in a
variety of ways. Yet, variation did not happen. The liquid bath in
which a cell's parts move around has the same chemical makeup in all
cells on Earth today.
It's perhaps unfair to be too critical of him given the lack of understanding
of proteins and the significance of specific amino acid sequences, or the nature of DNA and its role to encode specific protein sequence structure.
But ultimately it's gibberish in a modern context. It does not include useful
specific information. It's vague generalities that ultimately say very little of
significance. This should be clear ro you.
So the question is, what is it about that quote that you find compelling?
To me, as a biochemist, it's flowerily words that say nothing of significance.
On 30/11/2023 11:34, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 5:01:53 AM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote: >>> According to Louis Savary, writing about Teilhard de Chardin's ideas
described in The Phenomenon of Man[1]:
<quote>
Early cells and the innumerable elements composing them are not
constructed haphazardly. As operating systems, all cells are alike.
The inner makeup, functions, and structures of all cells are similar
as are the relationships among their elements. Teilhard finds this
fact amazing. He explains why.
All cells, from those in the simplest bacteria to those in a human
brain, contain the same set of elements, the same types of proteins
and acids. This is true, despite the fact that first cells emerging
around the world could have been made up of other chemical formulas
and structures. Because different cells were born in different
climates and conditions, they had the opportunity to develop in a
variety of ways. Yet, variation did not happen. The liquid bath in
which a cell's parts move around has the same chemical makeup in all
cells on Earth today.
Because such a universal similarity in makeup does not appear
logically necessary, it suggests nature made an early choice. The
similarity of liquid bath in all cells worldwide "has been taken as
proof that all existing organisms descended from a single ancestral
group [of cells]" (95, 55).
… All cells on our planet share an "inherent kinship" (100, 58)
manifested in the absolute and universal uniformity of the basic
cellular structure found in all living things on Earth.
… Current research in DNA confirms Teilhard's statements in this
section even though DNA hadn't been described or mapped when he was
writing Phenomenon.
</quote>
Is Savary correct that almost 100 years on from when Teilhard came to
those conclusions, they still stand?
[1] Savary, L.M. (2020) Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man
Explained [online], Paulist Press
Frankly, when you read those words you quoted, they are empty balderdash.
Try as one might, they don't fit to modern biochemistry. To be specific,
This part:
All cells, from those in the simplest bacteria to those in a human
brain, contain the same set of elements, the same types of proteins
and acids. This is true, despite the fact that first cells emerging
around the world could have been made up of other chemical formulas
and structures. Because different cells were born in different
climates and conditions, they had the opportunity to develop in a
variety of ways. Yet, variation did not happen. The liquid bath in
which a cell's parts move around has the same chemical makeup in all
cells on Earth today.
How do you parse all of that? The best I can do is to see that he's saying >> that life is built up of the same amino acids. the same building blocks.
That isn't significant in the way he would wish.
It's perhaps unfair to be too critical of him given the lack of understanding
of proteins and the significance of specific amino acid sequences,
or the
nature of DNA and its role to encode specific protein sequence structure.
But ultimately it's gibberish in a modern context. It does not include useful
specific information. It's vague generalities that ultimately say very
little of
significance. This should be clear ro you.
So the question is, what is it about that quote that you find compelling?
To me, as a biochemist, it's flowerily words that say nothing of significance.
Taking it literally, life doesn't all have the same (homologous)
proteins. There may be some that are universal, but most are
phylogenetically restricted. (I suspect that the balance is somewhat different for protein domains.) Like you I presume that he was
referring to use of the same amino acid residues in all organisms,
which is approximately true (see pyrolysine, selenocysteine, hypusine, hydroxyproline, etc.), at least before humans started creating extended genetic codes.
Reading him charitably he is appealing to biochemical universalities as evidence for universal common descent. Biochemical commonalities are a
part of the evidence for universal common descent, with the proviso we
don't have a good handle on the range of possible biochemistries.
However I don't see what he is referring to when he refers to cell structure.
On 30/11/2023 16:57, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
The fact that he calls amino acids "acids" is a clear indication that
he doesn't understand basic chemistry. That was certainly understood in
1923. [Merriam-Webster
(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zwitterion) says that the
term zwitterion dates from 1906, but I think the idea was understood
before that.] Anyone who thinks glycine, for example, is an acid has
obviously never tasted it. It has an acidic group (-NH_3^+, not -COO^-,
as some textbook authors seem to think), but it lacks the normal
characteristics of an acid. Given that -COO^- is not acidic implies, of
course, that "amino acid" is a bad name, but it's too late to worry
about that.
My interpretation was that by acid he meant DNA and RNA. While their
function wasn't known when he was writing, it was known that they were
a major chemical constituent of the cell.
But, as I thought of commenting to Martin, to understand Teilhard's
intended meaning may require looking closer at the context.
On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 13:36:54 UTC+2, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 5:01:53 AM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote: >>> According to Louis Savary, writing about Teilhard de Chardin's ideasAs I see it there was indicated in gibberish maneer such facts:
described in The Phenomenon of Man[1]:Frankly, when you read those words you quoted, they are empty balderdash.
<quote>
Early cells and the innumerable elements composing them are not
constructed haphazardly. As operating systems, all cells are alike.
The inner makeup, functions, and structures of all cells are similar
as are the relationships among their elements. Teilhard finds this
fact amazing. He explains why.
All cells, from those in the simplest bacteria to those in a human
brain, contain the same set of elements, the same types of proteins
and acids. This is true, despite the fact that first cells emerging
around the world could have been made up of other chemical formulas
and structures. Because different cells were born in different
climates and conditions, they had the opportunity to develop in a
variety of ways. Yet, variation did not happen. The liquid bath in
which a cell's parts move around has the same chemical makeup in all
cells on Earth today.
Because such a universal similarity in makeup does not appear
logically necessary, it suggests nature made an early choice. The
similarity of liquid bath in all cells worldwide "has been taken as
proof that all existing organisms descended from a single ancestral
group [of cells]" (95, 55).
… All cells on our planet share an "inherent kinship" (100, 58)
manifested in the absolute and universal uniformity of the basic
cellular structure found in all living things on Earth.
… Current research in DNA confirms Teilhard's statements in this
section even though DNA hadn't been described or mapped when he was
writing Phenomenon.
</quote>
Is Savary correct that almost 100 years on from when Teilhard came to
those conclusions, they still stand?
[1] Savary, L.M. (2020) Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man
Explained [online], Paulist Press
Try as one might, they don't fit to modern biochemistry. To be specific,
This part:
All cells, from those in the simplest bacteria to those in a humanHow do you parse all of that? The best I can do is to see that he's saying >> that life is built up of the same amino acids. the same building blocks.
brain, contain the same set of elements, the same types of proteins
and acids. This is true, despite the fact that first cells emerging
around the world could have been made up of other chemical formulas
and structures. Because different cells were born in different
climates and conditions, they had the opportunity to develop in a
variety of ways. Yet, variation did not happen. The liquid bath in
which a cell's parts move around has the same chemical makeup in all
cells on Earth today.
That isn't significant in the way he would wish.
It's perhaps unfair to be too critical of him given the lack of understanding
of proteins and the significance of specific amino acid sequences, or the
nature of DNA and its role to encode specific protein sequence structure.
But ultimately it's gibberish in a modern context. It does not include useful
specific information. It's vague generalities that ultimately say very little of
significance. This should be clear ro you.
So the question is, what is it about that quote that you find compelling?
To me, as a biochemist, it's flowerily words that say nothing of significance.
* there can be hundreds of different amino acids.
* about 80 of those can be found formed abiotically in high enough concentrations (in meteorites and such)
* life here uses 20 "standard" amino acids in proteins.
* not all 20 are present among said 80
* some of 20 are present but in way lower concentrations than some
other "non-standard" amino acids.
So the significant (for layman) things from that:
1) Common decent was likely long after choice of amino acids?
2) There can be innumerable alternative biochemistries?
3) Biochemistry that we have might be is not the most obvious?
4) Choice of (winner) biochemistry was based on something else
but on availability of materials in abiotic nature?
The fact that he calls amino acids "acids" is a clear indication that he doesn't understand basic chemistry. That was certainly understood in
1923. [Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zwitterion) says that the
term zwitterion dates from 1906, but I think the idea was understood
before that.] Anyone who thinks glycine, for example, is an acid has obviously never tasted it. It has an acidic group (-NH_3^+, not -COO^-,
as some textbook authors seem to think), but it lacks the normal characteristics of an acid. Given that -COO^- is not acidic implies, of course, that "amino acid" is a bad name, but it's too late to worry
about that.
On 11/30/23 5:12 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
As I see it there was indicated in gibberish maneer such facts:
* there can be hundreds of different amino acids.
* about 80 of those can be found formed abiotically in high enough concentrations (in meteorites and such)
* life here uses 20 "standard" amino acids in proteins.
* not all 20 are present among said 80
* some of 20 are present but in way lower concentrations than some
other "non-standard" amino acids.
So the significant (for layman) things from that:
1) Common decent was likely long after choice of amino acids?
2) There can be innumerable alternative biochemistries?
3) Biochemistry that we have might be is not the most obvious?
4) Choice of (winner) biochemistry was based on something else
but on availability of materials in abiotic nature?
But de Chardin did not say any of that. His "same types of proteins" is vague enough that it could include all proteins made with 30 or 40 amino acids, or it could exclude most of the proteins we find in our bodies.
Lawyer Daggett called it "flowery words that say nothing of
significance." I think the significance is that the reader can read into those words almost anything they want to. In some contexts, that it a
useful skill for a writer to have.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 376 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 26:28:29 |
| Calls: | 8,036 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 13,034 |
| Messages: | 5,829,398 |