Compound Biological

Compound Biological

Theoretical Exploration on Biological Metabolism and Substance Cycle (2)

2. Various contradictions in the traditional biological metabolism and substance cycle  

The discussion on in vivo and in vitro is by no means a simple meaning of the words, but would involve the understanding and application of some basic concepts in life sciences and would cause a series of changes. At the same time, it can provide a breakthrough of some contradictions and doubts that we face and enable us to suddenly see the light. 

Upon a new understanding of the concepts of in vivo and in vitro, we can be aware not only there are some vague wording at present in life sciences, but also come to know the obvious loopholes in the traditional theory. 

2.1. Plant and animal bodies can not relate directly to physical and chemical substances 

For a long time, we used to comprehend all the food and microorganisms in the digestive tract as in vivo. And also, we used to comprehend all the substances in the inner-environment of the photosynthetic chloroplasts as in vivo. Thereby we can put these two issues together to have a discussion. 

It is just because the chyme (food) and microorganisms in the digestive tract used to be regarded as in vivo that lead the traditional theory to make the body (or animal body) to have a direct relationship with food, even evolved into relating the body directly to the inorganic substances, for instance, to eat zinc could be to reinforce brain and to eat calcium could be to complement calcium etc. In fact, all the minerals in food are in organic state, and their attributes are different from the ones in nature. According to the reflection of the following Table 2, only the chemicalized substances could be allowed to enter into the biological cycle, and the mineral elements here have not got a chemical change and are not qualified to join the biological metabolism. Just as Mr. Yang Zhen-Bo, a water quality expert in China Monitoring Station of Environmental Sanitation, pointed out: "In fact only living plants can absorb and utilize the inorganic minerals in soil, and only the organic minerals transformed by plants can be absorbed and utilized by human and animal bodies. Almost no one can absorb the nutrition from inorganic minerals and also no one can use inorganic minerals effectively in vivo (4)". 

Although sodium chloride might enter the animal body, as if it is the evidence that inorganic compounds might be absorbed by animal bodies, according to its functions, sodium chloride is not only the main component of human electrolyte, but also the main ions to sustain the osmotic pressure of extracellular water. So sodium chloride, like environment water, is a environment substance to ensure the biochemical reactions in vivo. 

While all sorts of textbooks and research articles are telling that minerals could only be absorbed by plants when they were in the ionic state, such an understanding and application like the above to let plants and animals to have a direct relation with physical and chemical substances has been continuing to this day in agriculture, nutriology and medical science, and the wording reflecting this relationship can also be found everywhere, such as:

(Please refer to http://www.bbfactor.com/group.php?keyno=26)

Thinking deeply about this situation, we would inevitably feel very regretful for ours scientists, because the reality already confirmed that the inorganic salts ≠ minerals ≠ chemical elements, but they are still mixed in their usage continuously. Since a long time ago discovered that the substances absorbed by plants and animals were deferent from the ones in nature, our scientists have been confusing them intentionally or unintentionally and adhering and applying the traditional theory unconformable to the facts, which can not but say that is a greatest regret. In terms of deep level, this situation is that the traditional two kingdom system theory acts like an evil spirit, because its theoretical basis is that plants and animals can directly absorb the physical inorganic substances or chemical inorganic substances. And due to the simplification of the system, it is difficult to accommodate or reflect the various forms presented in the material movement emerged, just like more goods and less shelves, resulting in a cluttered situation. In this case, very few people would consider facing this cluttered phenomenon whether to build shelves, but continued to pile goods on those shelves, causing that the basic theory of life sciences could not to break through the framework of the traditional theory, and always keep circling within the two kingdom system theory. 

2.2. "Forced marriage" in plant and animal metabolism 

To be worse, the decomposers and producers are linked together with each other in the basic theory of life sciences - biological chain, and look like joining tightly without any flaw. 

According to the meaning of the "decomposers", they apparently mean the heterotrophic microorganisms. In this regard, there should not be any doubt, because in practice we do understand and treat them like this. The decomposed organic substances, for example, could be directly absorbed by plant roots (the organic substances available to plant roots are a very small amount). Obviously, such an understanding and application has lost the procedure to remove electrons by autotrophic microorganisms, and created a vital theoretical loophole. 

In the substance cycle, it is only the heterotrophic microorganisms (decomposers) emphasized in the traditional theory, and these "decomposers" are only reflected in the process from organic substances to inorganic substances, which are merely a decoration at the other levels of the substance transformation. Even in the biological cycle of substances, according to the law of the unity of opposites, they should come into existence on the basis of the opposite side, but in fact, there is no trace of their opposite side. Hence that creates an error of principle in philosophy. 

On this analysis, we can clearly see, in plant anabolism, there is no direct relationship between plants and heterotrophic microorganisms. Interestingly, many theoretical articles have worked out that only the substances in ionic state can be absorbed by plant roots, but in the application of the theory, due to the puzzle of chloroplasts, we have been still directly supplying the physical and chemical substances, such as carbon dioxide, sunlight, water and minerals, to plants. If these relations were shady and not obvious enough, then, the most obvious one is the traditional biological chain, which has openly crossed over the autotrophic microorganisms and directly pressed the "decomposers" to sing a drama with plants, staging a typical scene "forced marriage". 

On the relationship between the human (or animal) body and ingested substances, the traditional theory has been applying nothing less than the "forced marriage", and causes the human (or animal) body to be related directly to the ingested substances. It would be reflected more clearly in the following Table 1. 

2.3. Where did the autotrophic microorganisms go? 

At present, whether textbooks, popular science books or research documents, people are in observance of the biological classification of the "producers, consumers and decomposers" in the ecological system, and believe they have formed a relationship of biological chain. For example, "the ecosystem is composed of producers, consumers, decomposers and abiotic environment". And "the producers are autotrophs, which are mainly green plants and some algae……. In addition, photosynthetic bacteria and chemosynthetic bacteria are also autotrophs, and they would take part in the primary production too (3, P250)." 

So the autotrophic microorganisms, disappeared in our above discussion, their "backs are in the rear" just like the plants in the traditional theory, which caused an even worse "forced marriage" at the most basic level of the life sciences. According to the above discussion that the plant and animal bodies can not have a direct relationship with physical and chemical substances, the autotrophic microorganisms and plants belong to the two different species of living things fundamentally, and there is a father-son relationship between them (see the following table 2). By the reflection of the philosophy principle and the reality, only the autotrophic and heterotrophic microorganisms are the real opposite sides of the contradiction, and their mutual isolation is obviously of the artificial factors. In other words, the classification of the "producers, consumers and decomposers" on the living things, also the foundation of the basic theory of life sciences – biological chain, itself is a greatest mistake. 

Such a worse "forced marriage", how can not it cause a more serious confusion in the whole system of life sciences?! How can not it cause the system full of contradictions?! 

2.4. Realistic reflection of traditional biological metabolism and substance cycle 

On the problem that the human body absorbs the ingested substances, although some frontier researches have already stated clearly that only the organic compounds decomposed from large molecular into small could be absorbed, many popular science readings are still making carbohydrate and protein etc. directly absorbed (6) by human body, causing most people think so. According to the traditional theory and its application in practice, we can make a table to compare the metabolism of plants and animals and substance cycle: 

Biological metabolism and substance cycle reflected by traditional theory

(Please refer to http://www.bbfactor.com/group.php?keyno=26)

Table 1 

Explanations: 

①Arrangement of table. Since the current theoretical circle has already admitted not only that plants could absorb a small quantity of small molecule organic compounds, but also that animals could absorb a part of vitamins coming from intestinal microorganisms, we have to take microorganisms as a special column. At the same time, this is also easy to have a comparison with the following table 2. 

Mixotrophs would be either autotrophic or heterotrophic in the substance transformation, so they would automatically classify themselves into autotrophic or heterotrophic microorganisms respectively. 

②Brackets in columns. Below the "Needed energy and substances" of microorganisms, plants and animals, there arranged 2 brackets respectively: the first refers to the sources or properties of the substances in the columns, and the second refers to the properties and states of the substances in the columns according to our above new concept (the same as in Table 2). It seemed very verbose for us to do, but if not do in this way, it would not be insufficient to reflect the confusion in the actual application of the traditional theory. In case you refer to the table 2, its reflections would be all in order, and the matter movement would be very smooth. 

③ Names of enzymes and vitamins. Here, for ease of differentiation and expression, the enzymes and vitamins synthesized by plants are called as enzymes1 and vitamins1, and the enzymes and vitamins synthesized by animals are called as enzymes2 and vitamins2. All of them are marked with red. 

From Table 1 reflecting the traditional metabolism and substance cycle, we can see: 

①Serious confusion and errors in words. According to our new concepts, the stages and states of material movement on the basis of the metabolic reality, the metabolic words in the traditional theory were all out of order, and had a serious confusion. Except a small quantity of small molecule organic compounds, almost no one could reflect what plants and animals would absorb was chemicalized substances when allocated all of them at random. 

Although the mineral elements that the plants absorbed from soil were called as "mineral ions", but almost all the textbooks, popular science books and research documents treated these mineral ions as physical and chemical substances in nature, which belonged to the natural substances, and did not treat them as a specific stage or state during the material movement. As a result, they were always confused with the physical and chemical substances (but it provided a very explicit evidence for us to further explore the stages and states of the material movement). 

② Almost no involvement of microorganisms, and unable to reflect the unity of opposites between life and matter in a realistic way. In the traditional metabolic theory, it was the physical inorganic substances and chemical inorganic substances to be directly absorbed by plants, and it was also the physical inorganic substances and chemical organic substances for animals to absorb directly. This meant there was no involvement of microorganisms during the course of substance transformation from inorganic substances to plant substances and then to animal substances. It was nearly in the absence of not only autotrophic microorganisms, but also heterotrophic microorganisms. 

All the research documents and textbooks stated that plants could absorb small molecule organic compounds, but where are these compounds from? We do not know whether the source of these compounds did not be thought of or might not be thought of, which was always kept being curtained over. These compounds obviously came from the decomposition of large molecule organic compounds by heterotrophic microorganisms, and once they were treated as the metabolites of the heterotrophic microorganisms, it would be equal to the affirmation of the theoretical framework that the decomposers linked with producers while denying the argument basis that plants could directly absorb the physical and chemical substances from nature. 

Also can be clearly seen, although the substances could be a far-fetched explanation for the basis of life, the substance movement was not because of the metabolism of lives, because the table 1 reflected the microorganisms unnecessary, which seemed no much connections with the substance transformation and cycle. Meanwhile, the state change of the substances was disordered, and no rules to follow. Especially the minerals or chemical elements, they, with the suit jackets, dropped in and out leisurely and carefree without any motivation of external forces, unable to reflect how they take the effects from lives and how they play a role on lives. That is to say, in the traditional theory, the metabolism of life and the substance transformation and cycle were fundamentally isolated from each other, which could not objectively reflect their relationship of the unity of opposites. 

③Hard to tell where the inorganic world was and where the organic world was. Table 1 showed us that the inorganic is included in the organic, and the organic was also included in the inorganic (for example the mineral elements and vitamins in "Phytosynthesis" and "Needed anergy and substances"). It had confused the inorganic with the organic, and both of the inorganic and organic worlds were included in the range of the substance cycle. 

④ Allowed plants and animals to directly contact with the physical inorganic substances, chemical inorganic substances, physical organic substances and chemical organic substances. In the "Needed energy and substances" of plants, its contents are clearly the physical and chemical substances in the inorganic world.  

Can be seen from the "needed energy and substances" of animals, its contents belong to chemical inorganic substances (some are physical inorganic substances), chemical organic substances and chemicalized organic substances. Although various research reports reflected clearly that only the organic compounds decomposed from large molecular into small could be absorbed, usually people still allowed the macromolecular organic compounds to directly contact with the animal body in the theory popularization and practice, as shown in Table 1. 

⑤ Physical inorganic substances, chemical inorganic substances, chemical organic substances were mixed with each other. In the substances absorbed by plants, sunlight was physical inorganic substances, and carbon dioxide and mineral elements were chemical inorganic substances. In the substances absorbed by animals, mineral elements were chemical inorganic substances, carbohydrates, lipids and proteins were chemical organic substances. 

The enzymes had not become their functional states before and during absorbed, but the fact treated these states as the ones that they could play a role of catalysis in vivo. It was obvious to treat them as chemical organic substances. Although vitamins might be absorbed directly, they were also treated as chemical organic substances obviously. 

In other words, in the traditional theory, physical inorganic substances, chemical inorganic substances and chemical organic substances absorbed by plants and animals were mixed with each other. 

⑥Did not show the substances in movement. In theory the essential attribute of life is "living", and the substances metabolized by them should also be in movement. It could be seen through the words, all the terms were in a motionless. Except the small molecule organic compounds absorbed by plants, there was no one reflecting the chemicalized substances in their state change. 

The material and energy metabolism reflected by plants and animals, although they could be intersected in the table, it seemed they were in the cycling, but they were all in a static, the substance could not be seen in being transformed or moving, thus, could not form a cycle. 

The substances would present a chemicalized state (such as inorganic ions and organic ions) at some stage in their movement, which has already been the established conclusion on numerous experiments. The chemicalized state is a key state in the material movement and change, but according to the words in our theoretical research and practice, they reflected that our attention has been concentrating on the static state of substances, and neglecting their dynamic state. 

Especially to bind the dynamic state of plant and animal metabolism and the static state of physical and chemical substances together, it was an obvious dislocation (the dislocation with the needed energy and substances by microorganisms). This dislocation could only be reflected obviously by a list and an in-depth analysis, but under normal circumstances, it would be concealed and would be very difficult to be noticed. This is another reason that we could not find out the contradictions in the traditional theory. 

⑦ Plants and animals competeed for jobs with microorganisms. We can see from Table 1 that the "needed energy and substances" of microorganisms and plants are the same on the whole, clearly indicating that plants grabbed the jobs of autotrophic microorganisms. Although the "needed energy and substances" of microorganisms and animals are different in formal way, all of them are plant substances, which means that animals grabbed the jobs of heterotrophic microorganisms. 

⑧ Microbial enzymes disappeared. Many textbooks and research data have already stated that microorganisms would inevitably produce enzymes in their metabolic activities, because it was only through their secreted enzymes that they could have a relationship with their metabolic substances. But in Table 1, the microbial enzymes disappeared (The most obvious example was the enzymes produced by the autotrophic microorganisms). Such a situation was obviously conflicted with the law of conservation of matter. 

⑨ Had no way out in the face of reality. On the vitamins required by animals, the traditional theory accepted a part of them coming from the intestinal microorganisms and the rest coming from food; shyly admitted the reality that the partial essential nutrients originating from microorganisms, but looked very unwilling, caused this actual situation reflected very reluctantly in the table, because these vitamins unrelated to the other substances needed by plants and animals, and were in an obvious different category. Since the traditional theory always thinks microorganisms "Generally speaking, there is no much sense (7)" in the human metabolism, it causes this sprout, that could inspire us to explore the biological metabolism theory reasonably, suffered misfortune again. 

By means of listing, we can see that the contradictions in the traditional metabolism theory are not in piles, but everywhere, the phenomenon of "goods are piled at random" can be seen everywhere, moreover, no one suitable word (such as the chemicalized substances really needed by plants and animals) was placed in the correct position, but the incorrect words (such as the minerals or mineral elements). were placed at random everywhere.

(to be continuing)

About the Author

1972.12—1992.12. Served in the army. During this period, I learnt English and mainly busy at the research of applied maths.

1992.11—2005.7. Tranfered to civilian work, and mainly occupied in import and export of foods. During this period, I ever had many other jobs.

2005.8, I was retired on account of unemployment.

2006.3—now. On the support of friends abroad, I established BB Factor Corperation (specializing in import and export trade), because my friends abroad were willing to trade with me. In fact, I am interested not in the trade, but in my started study of biological theory.

In my life, I often suffered from a twist of fate, rather the opponents always meet. For example, I eagered to go to university when I was young, but met with the “Great Cultural Revolution”; I prefer liberal arts, but mainly busy at the research of applied maths and biology; Influenced by traditional culture, I disdain merchants intent on nothing but profit, but I became a professional merchant after my transfer.

chains of amino acids make up what major biological compound?

also

how many amino acids are there?

proteins

Transmission Interferogram of Seminal Fluid