Agent Smith

Gracias all

This is more likely a question in biophysics but there's no such category in the forum and I (probably mis)judged it best to post in the physics forum. I remember holding a very small metal ball bearing in my palm and feeling its weight, heavy I thought. Then on another occasion I recall holding a piece of wood in my hand, light. I know that its weight, dependent on mass, that we sense. To be held up we need to exert muscular force and we feel the strain in our muscles. I was just thinking about this a while ago and realized that the ball bearing being spherical has a smaller area of contact with my palm compared to the chip of wood (flat). Immediately pressure popped to mind. The ball bearing's weight was distributed over a smaller area compared to the wood chip and although my money is on the difference in the sensation in my hands being explicable by mass (wood is lighter than metal), I was wondering if pressure too was being sensed.

@CharonY, verum, there's that risk, with dangerous consequences, of oversimplifying an actually complex process. I was just checking if there's any link between infections and 1) all diseases in general, 2) cancer and 3) autoimmune disorders. You will agree that there's at least an association. it'd be fabulous if all diseases were infections. All we'd need to do is develop more antibiotics, they'd be the magic bullet - the Holy Grail of pharmacology.

Si, I'm painfully reminded of the multifactorial nature of etiology. Do you know how viral illnesses are handled by the immune system? One way is to trigger apoptosis so that virion load is reduced. Another way is to go "autoimmune", let the WBCs destroy (infected) cells, Both? Come to think of it a viral infection is uncannily similar to malignancies (in both cases, we have a genetic problem and in both cases, there's serial mutations, and in both cases we have to attack rogue cells) There's no harm in discussing the question on fora like this; we're not submitting a paper for publication where being right is crucial.

Glad that we see eye to eye on the issue, even if half-heartedly. This isn't an assumption (re: Covid-ACE II receptor link). How so? Anyway, mine is just a weak hypothesis, relatively speaking. A few cases where we see even a shadow of a link (between infection and so-called autoimmune disorders) should provide us a something to work on.

My interest in Paul W. Ewald's hypothesis piqued when Covid-19 researchers discovered the virus was binding to ACE II receptors (hypertension). Could hypertension be caused by an infection? was the question that crossed my mind. Very unlikely, but you never know. That's the most recent update to my Paul W. Ewald file. Too, I'm a bit suspicious about so-called autoimmune disorders - maybe the immune system's attacking infected tissue and there's always collateral in a war, which it is, oui? Je ne sais pas.

Why can't we just present the tumor antigens to the immune system, that's the way a normal vaccine works. No extra step involving genetic engineering is necessary. When we make a vaccine against microbes, we kill them and extract the immunogenic antigens and inoculate the patient, simply stimulating the immune system to mount a response. Of late I'm inclined to believe Paul W. Ewald's every disease is an infection hypothesis. So, at the root of cancer is also either a known/unknown infection. If so we can create vaccines much easier and safer than interfering with genes. The catch though is to identify the offending organism.

\(y = x^2 \)

Ok. What we have to focus on is the 2 electrons? 2e-? Yes, a (redox) gradient, but what exactly does that mean? A gradient of increasingly more "electron-philic" compounds? Are you saying the chain of redox reactions are thermodynamically favored? Can you explain this a bit more? NADH is the electron donor, oui? Hence it depletes as the TCA cycle is activated? We would need more NADH to sustain the reaction and so there's got to be a way to replenish the stock of NADH. This is achieved (ultimately) via oxygen??? I suppose it's not a question of either this/that, but more of which reaction dominates a particular set of circumstances. Gracias.

@studiot, well-above my paygrade. Interesting book though. I did a quick google search, the CoA unfolds into a complex ring structure (like the one in your illustration). Gracias. Good day.

I'm glad you see progress in our discussion. You're on the mark as to how science has to be conducted. Do you mean to say James Lovelock did science backwards? He was a chemist and these come in various flavors and I know next to nothing about which tier of chemists he belonged to. Coming up with a globally impactful hypothesis like Gaia suggests he was not just any chemist. Do you have anything on him that suggests his work was shoddy? Please review your diagram of energy production in a cell. I have a question in red. It's Acetyl CoA (from Google), right? Also, which book is that? Is it a downloadable PDF?

@studiot

I don't recall seeing C2H5OH in human biochemistry except as alochol-induced hepatitis, but I do know about how alcoholics are susceptible to malnutrition because of the calories they get from alcohol, which spoils their appetite, making them skip meals, the usual way nutrients enter the body. I also don't get why fermentation and its product alcohol was brought into the discussion. @CharonY So, looking for confirmation here ... 1. NADH comes from NAD+ 2. NADH drives the electron chain (that generates ATP/some other energy molecule) 3. In respiration, during the final stage the electron gets transferred to oxygen and we replenish our NAD+ 4. In anaerobic conditions, NADH is converted to NAD+ via fermentation, C2H5OH being a byproduct. Is that why we have to seal the container when we make alcohol?

Si, that seems to be the case and I don't know how exactly fermentation works (I was told it's partial respiration/oxidation. Do you know?), but it's an apropos example for reactions that come to an end because it's unsustainable ... as far as I can tell. Do you have other examples? Sorry the link to the song is broken, must be a good song. That's correct. No need to respond. That's correct, underwater vents, the human gut, volcanoes and even hot springs have their own microbiota; photosynthesis ain't the only game in town. However, do you have more ... put some meat on the outline you've provided of how TGH is untenable or at least per the chemical reactions you've cited and other non-oxygen dependent chemical interactions you mention ... wrong?

@studiot, Je ne sais pas. The sulphur-based reaction, my guess is, was not sustainable and collapsed. Not exactly an intermediary stage towards the photosynthesis-respiration system we have, but more like a dead end. What say you?

I have no idea, but my money is on NO! You know why the Atlanteans are so mad at us, the oceans are our garbage dump. Nevertheless, noteworthy. @sethoflagos, I regard events like the great oxygenation catastrophe as stages towards the final chemical reaction that defines earth at present (photosynthesis-respiration coupling). Those intermediary reactions were building up to what we see now, a stable system that (autocorrects) 😄 That's ok, I fully respect your skepticism.

Si, a rich vein of knowledge/expertise just waiting to be mined ... all for the price of an internet connection. 😃 Ok. That's a start. Ok. it's complicated. The mystical link has deistic undertones, would you agree? Respectable scientists like Einstein were deists. I surmise this resemblance is what deists picked up on. Gracias for the tracing the idea's origins. Will need to look it up. 🤔 What do you mean by "current thinking being accurate enough to work"? What's this "current thinking"? The to-die-for life support system for long-haul space missions is one that maintains levels of oxygen at the critical level and autocorrects under various stressors. That's TGH on a small scale.

It's been a while since I used my ancient biology files. I hope they aren't so outdated that what I'm about to post and what I'm about to ask isn't just plain nonsense. Well, here goes ... Genes come in pairs, for every trait there is, let's say for trait T, there's a recessive gene a and a dominant gene A. Offspring inherit combinations of these genes from their parents. Using a Punit square we can see that we have for trait T, 4 possible genotypes: AA, Aa, aA, aa. I recall being taught that dominant genes fully express themselves in the offspring with genotypes AA, Aa, aA. That's 3 out of 4 children that'll manifest the phenotype encoded by the dominant gene, here A. In only 1 out of 4 children will the recessive gene express itself. My query is is this safe/good for evolution? What's the evolutionary advantage of this type of inheritance pattern? My own guess is dominant genes have passed the test of natural selection (they have a history of being evolutionarily successful) and so it's better that they're expressed in the offspring, increasing the odds of survival. The recessive gene (here a) is our backup plan B, a just in case thing, a space for mutation to create novel traits, which might turn out to be a life-saver. This would require mutations to be more frequent in recessive genes than dominant ones. There are downsides though; not all mutations are beneficial. I suggest reading sickle-cell anemia.

2 sets of genes, recessive/dominant. Original parent gene sets PpQq (both male and female plants have the same genotype) Possibilities: 1. PP, Pp, pP, pp, 4 genotypes 2. QQ, Qq, qQ, qq, 4 genotypes Total combinations possible = 4 * 4 = 16 genotypes For Ppqq there are 2 combinations: Ppqq and pPqq For PpQq there are 4 combinations: PpQq, PpqQ, pPQq, pPqQ For ppQq there are 2 combinations: ppQq, ppqQ For PpQQ there are 2 combinations: PpQQ, pPQQ Frequency of Ppqq = 2/16 Frequency of PpQq = 4/16 Frequency of ppQQ = 2/16 Frequency of PpQQ = 2/16 The answer to your question, why do we multiply by 1000, is hinted to by the word "frequency". The frequency of Ppqq for example is 2 in 16. What's the frequency of Ppqq in 1000? If it rains 3 times in every 15 days, how many times will it rain in 60 days?

It's a 3-4 volume book I was told. Haven't gotten round to reading it. I have a short memory, unfortunately. There's a grain of truth in that, we can barely stand each other. I had no idea that TGH was part of the book's plot. So Asimov was skeptical of the kind of balance TGH preaches. I take solace in the fact that per some folks TGH hasn't actually been disproved; That New-Ageists are attracted to it indicates there's something Avatar-like mystical about it. The science part of it I guess. Lovelock was a biologist and so was Margulis and although the idea of balance (e.g. Aristotle's aurea mediocritas) precedes them, it was never given a scientific reading like in TGH. The reciprocal chemical reactions of photosynthesis and respiration I alluded to in my OP was meant to investigate the claim at a basic high school level. In a closed system (where there's no net change in mass i.e. conservation of mass), the only way for sustainable, sensu amplissimo, interactions to occur is (re)cylic in nature. That there exists active chemical processes is, cogito, evidence of some degree that we have on our hands a balancing act going on in the biosphere. If it were not the case all chemical processes would've, methinks, terminated long ago. NASA, now I get why the North American Space Agency is "so interested" in TGH to have made a video explicating The Daisy World Simulation. Any long-duration space mission depends on TGH being true. Has anyone read about Spaceship Earth?

Haven't read/viewed didn't get the op, even a fraction of the classics out there. I would've probably understood your allusions to these wonderful works if I had. Are you saying TGH is a metaphor? Of what? Arakis ... from Dune? Watched, good movie.

I see. Gracias. Any specific references in religion that supports the claim that "religions had a good idea about how to live within the means of our planet/God/Gaia"? Didn't religion hold sway over much of human history? Verum, that science simply compounded the problem by improving efficiency, but in the past half-century science has at least identified the problem, though it seems to be out of its depth when it comes to solutions. You see a link between religion and TGH? Someone did mention it's kinda sorta popular with NewAgeists. Yes, we can continue to live here ... that's a plus in my book, but I don't quite get why you emphasize language. Do you wish to discuss TGH from a linguistic POV? I wouldn't know where to start.

I non intelligo, so it hasn't been falsified. That means it's not up to the mark ... in some way. Which ways are these, any idea? An interesting remark there about "you can't falsify the god of code". Is this a hypothesis you're aware of? Where does it apply? How do you know it's unfalsifiable? God of code, hmmmmm, you mean the God of religion? Sorry, I'm terribly confused at the moment.

Why would NASA use it? I mean it works as a simulation, but many (eminent?) scientists have criticized late Lovelock for what they probably think is jumping to conclusions. Is there evidence that earth is also a Daisy World, albeit more complex? Has The Gaia Hypothesis been falsified?

I have read your posts. I probably missed/forgot the parts where you statements are answers/responses to my questions/comments. So there's counterevidence to The Gaia Hypothesis? I did mention the Wikipage on the topic has links to natural balance, which some say is false, even the very intuitive predator-prey population cycles have been debunked (allegedly). I can't imagine how the biosphere is maintained in a stable state then, without a feedback loop system things will just fall apart and it hasn't for so long. Drawing an analogy from the human body, which has what is called functional reserve, I'd say the stability we see is only because the biosphere has a huge functional reserve. Fun fact: Per some book, 90% of kidney parenchyma has to fail before symptoms of renal failure manifest.