( Matter of study today, Wed, April 14, 2010)

http://complex.upf.es/~josep/research.html

Hypercycles were initially proposed by Manfred Eigen in the 1970’s, and opened a novel framework to study the matter self-organization in the context of the origins of life in prebiotic evolution. One of the most important evolutionary properties of the hypercycle is that this system allows to overcome the Eigen’s error catastrophe transition, which is present in earlier replicators, which have a quasispecies distribution. Eigen (1971) argued that primitive genomes must have been segmented (consisting of physically unlinked genes) and that these single genes would had the tendency to compete with one other so, consequently, some mechanism ensuring their coexistence was needed.

My Comments:

Eighen has almost touched the formula of Matrix/DNA when thinking about unlinked genes and filling the necessity of a system’s circuit for linking them, which he called (hypercycles). His problem was he forgot to look the entire state of the world that was envolved in the life’s origins, notably the astronomic world (maybe due the wrong vision of Nebular Theory). The mechanisms that leads de single genes (probably they were terrestrial atoms populated by photons coming from sun’s radiation and Earth’s nucleus radiation, beeing that those photons made the atoms combinating in the same way that the astronomic building block is combinated) to the tendency to compete with one other is clear seen in the Matrix/DNA model of the software of a closed system and in the model of LUCA as astronomic hardware, I think.

(opened field for research)

Setembro | 27 | 2009

Studying the excellent paper mentioned bellow, I think, one of most complete about this issue. The paper cvan be seen at: http://www.pnas.org/content/95/12/6854.full

The Universal Ancestor

1. Carl Woese*

+ Author Affiliations

1. 
   
   Department of Microbiology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, B103 Chemical and Life Sciences Laboratory, MC-110, 601 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801

1. Contributed by Carl R. Woese

Next Section

Abstract

A genetic annealing model for the universal ancestor of all extant life is presented; the name of the model derives from its resemblance to physical annealing. The scenario pictured starts when “genetic temperatures” were very high, cellular entities (progenotes) were very simple, and information processing systems were inaccurate. Initially, both mutation rate and lateral gene transfer levels were elevated. The latter was pandemic and pervasive to the extent that it, not vertical inheritance, defined the evolutionary dynamic. As increasingly complex and precise biological structures and processes evolved, both the mutation rate and the scope and level of lateral gene transfer, i.e., evolutionary temperature, dropped, and the evolutionary dynamic gradually became that characteristic of modern cells. The various subsystems of the cell “crystallized,” i.e., became refractory to lateral gene transfer, at different stages of “cooling,” with the translation apparatus probably crystallizing first. Organismal lineages, and so organisms as we know them, did not exist at these early stages. The universal phylogenetic tree, therefore, is not an organismal tree at its base but gradually becomes one as its peripheral branchings emerge. The universal ancestor is not a discrete entity. It is, rather, a diverse community of cells that survives and evolves as a biological unit. This communal ancestor has a physical history but not a genealogical one. Over time, this ancestor refined into a smaller number of increasingly complex cell types with the ancestors of the three primary groupings of organisms arising as a result.

• progenote
• lateral gene transfer
• genetic annealing
• evolutionary temperature
• communal ancestor

Previous SectionNext Section

BACKGROUND

Biologists have long subscribed to the powerful, unifying idea that all life on Earth arose from a common ancestor (1). Nothing concrete could be said about the nature of this ancestor initially, but it was intuitively assumed to be simple, often likened to a prokaryote, and generally held to have had little or no intermediary metabolism (2). Only when biology could be defined on the level of molecular sequences would it become possible to seriously question the nature of this ancestor.

The unrooted universal phylogenetic tree that emerged from ribosomal RNA (rRNA) sequence comparisons provided the first glimpse of our ultimate ancestor,

( I will come back with the world view of Matrix/DNA Theory)

Tags: , Universal ancestor
Postado em LUCA | Editar | Sem Comentários »

                                                    ( Please, click upon the image to see details) 

THE BUILDING BLOCK OF ASTRONOMICAL SYSTEMS INSIDE A NUCLEOTIDE, THE BUILDING BLOCK OF DNA

And here is the picture of LUCA – the Last Universal Common Ancestor 

l

LUCA – The Last Universal Common Ancestral

LUCA is the link between the past Cosmological Evolution and the nowaday Biological Evolution. LUCA is a PROTO-SYSTEM composed by its own different SHAPES from its own LIFE’S CYCLE.  LUCA is the building block of GALAXIES and reproduces as NUCLEOTIDE, the information’s building block of RNA and DNA. 

( Sorry, the text is under translation)

MATRIX: THE UNIVERSAL CODE, FROM COSMO TO HUMAN BEING

The Human Being  is “in essence”, DNA:  The Code of Life. But the DNA is just a pile of one species of Building Blocks called Nucleotides. In the figure above, we see both sides of the stem DNA (orange), formed by alternating between a molecule of sugar and a phosphate. Also see a pair of nucleotides, which are complementary to the four common nitrogenous bases (guanine, cytosine, adenine, thymine) and a fifth alternative, the uracil. So the biggest secret of the Code of Life is its fundamental unit, the Nucleotide: the fundamental unit of information. How and why the Nature (or whatever else) used this method to organize some atoms in this architecture? The answer leads us to one of the biggest and revolutionary discoveries of all time: our link with this immense starry sky around us, called the universe!
  The Cosmos also has DNA.  His DNA also has a fundamental unit, ie the whole ” Cosmic Building” was built with a single type of “Building Block,” which is composed of seven types of bodies: Black Holes, Quasar, Germ of Star or Moon, Planet, Pulsar, Star, Comet. In this sequence the seven bodies forming a Proto-System, along the lines of the figure. It happens that,… (and here is designed a fantastic bid for extraordinary natural engineering ), it happens that the shape, the anatomy, of the Astronomic Proto-System is “identical” to the shape and anatomy  of… Nucleotides! Not only the same form of fundamental unit of information is available both in heaven and the human body, but also the function of each body in their Proto-System is “identical” to the function of each molecule in the “System Nucleotides”! What does this mean?
You have heard of nanotechnology. We can summarize a written letter “A” in size, containing thousands of atoms between ink and paper, with only five atoms and thus put all 30,000 volumes of the Library within the head of a pin! Nature applied Nanotechnology  when your body was summarized  from yours parents, the size and weight that present in a chromosome MICROSCOPIC bag! Does not matter the size of a body, but the quantity of units of different information. However, a planet like the Earth has quaquilhoes units with the same information, because the astronomic body is very simple, may not have more than a thousand particles-differentiated information. So it would be possible to summarize the size while maintaining an identical copy and place often 30,000 planets in the head of a pin!
Now we can return to the theme “Building Blocks of the astronomic bodies in the Uuniverse identical to the Building Blocks of the Human body” and reply what this means. About  4  billion years ago, the evolution cosmology that began with the Big Bang had produced a kind of architecture that occupied the top of evolution, as well as the human species is the top of the evolution from biological systems on Earth. And the species that was on top was the Proto-System. Then, atoms of the Earth began to behave strangely, if combined in a way that never did before, were the combinations known as molecular and about 3′5 billion years ago a wonderful first living being left dragging on the surface of this planet. Magic? Produced by divine creation or  Absolute Chance? Or would have been just another evolutionary step from the last species evolved at that time? Where were and how were organized, the forces, substances and other elements that converged to the same point and at the same astronomic time and produced the Life?
The first RNA / DNA occurring in the first living already contained about three hundred packets of information, called “genes.” Moreover, the body of them had already been done by this information. But they were information about what? Who? With what meaning? Would be it only information on the history of 3.5 billion years of biogenesis, ie the gestation of the first living being? Or would there information about something else?
Now it seems that we are beginning to resolve the tracks, the puzzle, the greatest puzzle of all time, one that more closely applicable to humans. While a human body takes nine months to be managed, the first biological system took billions of years! We are therefore speaking of astronomical size. This necessarily requires us – in our ultimate research on our origins – to divert the eyes of the soil of the Earth and raise the head to observe the sky where lies the astronomical size. The first living being already was a “system” – the phone  (eh…eh…. the Google translation makes me smile… it is not phone, but cell, stupid) – the cell system,  and not just a piece or part of systems. Therefore, its creator, which should be included in packets transmitted genetic gestures and a new creature for so long, it must have been a “system”. But on the surface of the Earth bare and arid with poor configuration system was not close to what appeared here. Forces and substances certainly came from somewhere else besides Earth. But how, in what way?
As seen above, the state of the world at that time presented as the evolutionary top, the Astronomic Proto-System. This creature, formed by seven bodies floating in space, was or had the “DNA” more evolved in the Universe. And we saw that ‘ the image and likeness of its “DNA” are functionally identical to the first living being. We already saw that there is  Nanotechnology and Nature knows how to make use of it. Therefore, I believe it is not necessary to expose more reasons and arguments and evidence here: the Code of the Cosmos evolved to the Code of Life!
Already “makes no sense anymore to talk about  “the origins of life”.  First because the word “origin” means a sharp drop in the natural development of causes and effects by some non-natural, and I never saw this happen. The second because the way how the Proto-System Astronomy - though mostly be covered by the Newtonian laws of mechanics - using seven mechanical functions that are identical to the seven most vital properties (reproduction, metabolism, self-regulation of pressure, etc.), so no more division between life and inanimate, unless referring to pieces isolated or broken parts of their systems.
Now completed 200 years since Charles Darwin had the idea of “Evolution” and since then an army of positivist chemical and physical and biological agents in all areas kneels in the mud of swamps and mud of the oceanic floor in search of the most mysterious character all time: the primitive MICROSCOPIC common stock that would have triggered life on Earth. The theory of evolution Neo-Darwinian based on this formula VSH (Variation, Selection, Inheritance). But Darwin could not have achieved the true essence of the process of evolution with the knowledge of his time, he was limited to three postulates universal variables, the clues really pointed to the residence as microcosm of LUCA (the Last Universal Common Ancestral ), he dealt only with Micro-Evolution and established the foundations for a cosmic building of  proportions unimaginable which dances under the laws of Macro-Evolution, which implies that evolution has seven variable universal and not just the three  discovered by Darwin, and that instead of a  MICROSCOPIC LUCA is dragging the swamps of the Earth, the true creator of Life on Earth is  Macro-Cosmic and stands in the sky covering us everywhere, we are in it and he is within us, in the core of our DNA!
This change of point of reference to the basis of a vision of the world, the discovery of our link with the universe, could not be more slow and comes at an opportune moment. Our species has been humiliated, weakened, we lose our home as a cosmic center of the universe, our position as the center of creation, we were seen as mere extension of animals descended from monkeys improved, lost the harmony with our nature and we are about to lose our freedom of conscience. It comes as a  spectacular human reaction, capable of turning back to the center of existence, and now we go after something else:  the divine code of our ”Consciousness”!
Congratulations … humans! You are to be congratulated!

The Code of Life is the DNA. But the bodies and systems in the sky have a code also. Both codes are under evolution, getting more information, complexity. The Code under Cosmological Evolution, about 4 billions years ago, reached the shape of LUCA, pictured above. It is composed by seven different shapes of one astronomic body: black hole, star germ, planet, pulsar, supernova, dying star, and comet. When extracting the flow of information from the body of LUCA and picturing it aside, we notice that is the same picture of a nucleotide! Which appeared at Earth surface about 3 billions years ago, at Life’s origins! So, the conclusion is obvious: DNA is merely another shape of a Universal Code, which I called “Universal Matrix”. The Matrix is a kind of living software’s diagram, which can create it is own hardware (any physical natural system like atoms and the human body)  and every developed hardware gets new information giving it back to the software. Then, there is a process of retro-alimentation or cybernetic feedback between “body and soul”. LUCA is encrypted inside our DNA, it is surrounding us and we are inside him. The Biological Evolution at Earth was merely a macro-evolutionary process of LUCA’s auto-reproduction, but, the appearance of the liquid state of matter cause big mutations and so, we are here, human beings!

At the next corner, a big surprise was waiting an agnostic: LUCA could be described using religious metaphor also: he is hermaphrodite, having the two sexual counterparts that we could call Adam and Eve ; LUCA has a body that is the most thermodynamic system under equilibrium, really a perpetual motor, but, it has the shape of a Serpent ; LUCA has grateful food reaching its mouth and he/she is under sexual intercourse all time, he/she does not need working, and being a closed system, he/she is protected as the Emperor of the Sky… then, we could say, he/she lives in the Paradise  ; the circuit performed by the flow of information (the blood of LUCA) has the shape of an Apple   - which is the shape of a perfect closed system and closed system is the extreme manifestation of selfishness. We inherited this character from our ancestral LUCA, it is encrypted at our genetic code as “the Selfish Gene”, which could be called  “The Original Sin”. Finally, LUCA was attacked by entropy, was fragmented in its bits of information and this kind of genetic code fall out to the space. We can call it “ The Fall “  

I am not saying that the Bible description in Genesis is the real description of LUCA, a physical and natural and perfect thermodynamic, closed system, but, it is identical, a surprising metaphor translating a phenomena that employs the most complex scientific knowledge, like general relativity theory, quantum mechanics theory, theorem of Symmetry CPT, etc..  I am not religious and I don’t know how LUCA is in the Bible. Don’t ask it to me, but I have a theory about: LUCA is registered at human memory, he can be seen at special mental state as flashes, and if the person does not know what LUCA is about, could think that is seeing supernatural things.

A Teoria da Matriz/DNA tem sugerido que a mente humana é um  produto evolucionário da longa história do Universo no desenrolar das relações entre software e hardware. Por conseguinte, a mente é mais uma forma, a ultima aqui nestas paragens e nestes tempos, do sistema natural universal. Mais exatamente ela é a forma atual do software universal e devido as propriedades que nestamos detectando nela, temo-la denominado “auto-consciencia”. Como tal ela deve sair-se com alguma variação sofisticada da Matriz. E sendo uma nova e ultima forma, recém-surgida, temos o problema de discernir qual é o seu estágio exato, se esse recente surgimento faz parte daqueles eventos em que cada novo sistema é recem-fecundado, ou recem-transformado digasmos, de feto para embrião, ou se foi um evento em que ela desabrochou do casulo embrionario, se já veio à luz, ou não.

Mas aqui me surgiu esse pensamento hoje logo ao acordar, e me deixou intrigado. Trata-se do seguinte. Sabemos que um embrião humano sente seu corpo, mas deve estar muito intimamente ligado ao material em que ele existe, como o liquido amniótico, a placenta, etc, tudo dentro da bolsa uterina. Deve ser um evento ruim aquele em que ele nasce, quando é obrigado a abandonar seu mundo. Mas ele não é expelido apenas da bolsa uterina, e sim de um universo muito maior, que é o corpo da mãe. O mundo novo em que ele cai deve ser sentido como o peixe retirado da agua sente e se debate tentando voltar nela. Ele deixa, numa primeira fase, o unico mundo que ele conhece (a bolsa) e numa segunda fase, o segundo mundo que nele sentia ou pressentia algo a distancia, e cai num terceiro mundo, um planeta a céu aberto! 

Pois bem…

Se a auto-consciencia tem a cabeça humana como seu ovo ou bolsa embrionaria – sendo o cerebro a sua placenta, etc. – ela tem o corpo humano como um segundo mundo… tem o planeta Terra como uma extensão disto… um dia vai ter que ser expelida deste planeta e cair num terceiro mundo que ela não pode pressentir nem fazer a menor idéia do que seja…

E isto é intrigante. Pensando bem, é muito importante. É espetacular.

Pois seguindo a lógica natural, a norma observada no mundo real, é a esta conclusão que se chega. Acho que ela é inevitável.

Imagine o que sente um bebê quando nasce e começa a abrir os olhos. As primeiras inspirações e exalações da respiração. O primeiro alimento. Isto tudo vai acontecer com a nossa mente no momento que ela for expelida do seu ovo – o conjunto “cabeça humana mais o resto de um  corpo humano”, em seguida expelida do corpo que alojava este ovo, o qual é um planeta? 

Bem… raios! Olhe que para o feto, e mesmo para o embrião, de nada lhe adiantaria se perguntar como deve ser o mundo alem dos reduzidos limites que ele pode sentir com seu complexo sensorial, é impossível que possa imaginar coisas como a mãe, o planeta, o espaço celeste. Portanto, acho que de nada adianta à nós, como auto-conscientes, nos perguntar-mos como será o mundo das auto-consciencias. E oxalá ele exista, oxalá a Natureza continue aplicando sobre a mente humana os mesmos processos que ela tem aplicado a todos os sistemas naturais… oxalá, pois isto significa que seguiremos existindo…

Mas que hoje me nasceu mais um grilo na cuca, raios, para já se somar aos milhares que estão aqui dentro, não é muito alvissareiro: agora vou, volta e meia, tentar imaginar o que vou encontrar alem desta placenta… Mas o problema principal é a teimosia: eu não consigo ter certeza que isto vai acontecer, mesmo que todas as experiencias da Natureza indicam que assim vai acontecer. Isto é ilógico de minha parte. De alguma maneira, minha mente insiste em que acreditar que as leis naturais serão rompidas,m transformadas, mesmo que ela suponha que nserá prejudicada nestas mudanças. Talvez seja porque existimos numa cultura que tem ridicularizado a idéia de vida após a morte.  E a culpa não seria da nossa mente mas sim das religiões e ideologias, que pintaram estas possiveis existencias com coisas demasiado fantasiosas. Acho que os religiosos a longo tempo vem caminhando na minha frente: eles, como bebes mentais, já saberiam que a mente está no estado fetal dentro de um casulo, que vai ser expulsa do planeta, e foram mais longe, se perguntaram, analizaram, e concluiram as respostas: o céu, o inferno, Deus…

Mas… ora, sabemos que será inutil a qualquer feto ou embrião humano se perguntar o que existiria alem de sua placenta… O que importa aqui é que o nosso conhecimento nos leva a uma conclusão racionalista, lógica, que a morte do corpo humano pode ser, naturalmente possivel, o evento de nossa expulsão deste mundo e a entrada, o abrir de olhos em outro mundo, onde se entra engatinhando e não tendo que passar por São Pedro na porta e mostrando as credenciais…    

This article is a copy of my post in the “Richard Dawkins Forum, see: 

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum

In the board “Evolution and Natural Selection” 

by Louis Morelli » Sat May 16, 2009 5:37 pm

Eversbane wrote: “The universe does not need explaining. The scientists you see around you are here only to describe it. No need to explain anything. Thanks anyway.”

My answer: “ Huh? The Blind Sciencemaker ?!…  Ok, it is not me that want change your mind, since that I know I am not the owner of the thru, and so, I am a blind seeker. I am very grateful to scientists that are experimentalist because I need the data they collects and distributes, my investigation in the jungle is supported over their shoulders. But… are you really right?! Let’s see an example about an interview with Stanley Miller, at http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.php .

Question: Who came up with the idea of the reducing atmosphere?
Miller: “Oparin, a Russian scientist, began the modern idea of the origin of life when he published a pamphlet in 1924. His idea was called the heterotrophic hypothesis: that the first organisms were heterotrophic, meaning they got their organic material from the environment, rather than having to make it, like blue-green algae. This was an important idea. Oparin also suggested that the less biosynthesis there is, the easier it is to form a living organism. Then he proposed the idea of the reducing atmosphere where you might make organic compounds.
He also proposed that the first organisms were coacervates, a special type of colloid. Nobody takes that last part very seriously anymore, but in 1936, this was reasonable since DNA was not known to be the genetic material..
In 1951, unaware of Oparin’s work, Harold Urey came to the same conclusion about the reducing atmosphere. He knew enough chemistry and biology to figure that you might get the building blocks of life under these conditions.

Question: Tell us about the famous electrical discharge experiment.
Miller: The experiments were done in Urey’s lab when I was a graduate student. Urey gave a lecture in October of 1951 when I first arrived at Chicago and suggested that someone do these experiments. So I went to him and said, “I’d like to do those experiments”. The first thing he tried to do was talk me out of it. Then he realized I was determined. He said the problem was that it was really a very risky experiment and probably wouldn’t work, and he was responsible that I get a degree in three years or so. So we agreed to give it six months or a year. If it worked out fine, if not, on to something else. As it turned out I got some results in a matter of weeks.”

                                                          …………………………………………………………………………………………
So, dear EVERSBANE, either Oparin and Urey’s contributions were ideas emerged when seeking explanations for ultimate causes, which results in hypothesis and theories. Miller did not worked as a blind sciencemaker but he was guided by those ideas. See the words from Stanley Miller, below:
“In the 1820’s a German chemist named Woeller announced the synthesis of urea from ammonium cyanate, creating a compound that occurs in biology. That experiment is so famous because it is considered the first example where inorganic compounds reacted to make a biological compound. They used to make a distinction between organic, meaning of biological origin, and inorganic- CO2, CO and graphite. We now know that there is no such distinction…. However, it remained a mystery how you could make organic compounds under geological conditions and have them organized into a living organism. A number of people tried prebiotic experiments. But they used CO2F, nitrogen and water. When you use those chemicals, nothing happens. It’s only when you use a reducing atmosphere that things start to happen.”
So, I think it is clear that the method of unification of theories and experimentation was the guide for the brilliant Miller’s results and not the method of “blind experimentations”.
But, since the Miller-Urey’s experiments we never got the next step, making the aminoacids working alone for producing proteins or RNA. The Miller-Urey experiments remain a dead end, as said somebody here in the “abiogenesis forum”. I think that, again, Miller has the right explanation for “why?” we did not get it. See his words below:
“ The more important research are the experiments these days, rather than the trading of ideas. Good ideas are those that when reduced to an experiment end up working. Our approach is to do experiments and demonstrate things, not just talk about possibilities.”
If someone that make the job of naturalist philosopher and, in preference, in stranger lands, like the salvage Amazon jungle, does not try to organize the immense collection of data we have today, plus the inspiration get from the observation of crude nature, and try to organize it in models of a theory, we will not get the next step, I think.
By the way, the jungle is telling me that without the photons from sunlight and/or the materials from Earth nucleus, the amino acids of miller will not work alone. My models are suggesting some kind of laboratory experiments, I can’t do it from here.
There are something else I need suggest here: “ never think about, or never tell the words “origins” , “life” , “creation”, “spontaneous emergence”. There is no origin; there are no origins of life. The word “origins” means a broken event of natural flow of forces, means that cause-effect was broken by something non-natural, and we, here, in the jungle, never saw it happens. Instead using the word “ life” I use the word ‘biological systems’, facing ‘electro-magnetic systems’, ‘atomic systems”, ‘Newtonian mechanic system”, etc. The opposite of life is death and not non-living, there is no such distinction, I think. The word “origins” has been the cause of a lot of human mind deviation from the real nature, it is a cause for creating religions and erroneous ideas of “spontaneous generations”. The currently models in Astronomy are based upon the idea of “spontaneous generation of bodies in the sky”, and since I never have seen spontaneous generations here in the jungle, I don’t believe in it. Cheers…

Comets hold life chemistry clues

See at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5173992.stm

I have no time just now for studying this news and translating, so I will note the first suggestion from Matrix:

 - First of all, life can be produced at any place in the Universe when there is the convergence of good material conditions and spreading of LUCA’s genes: radiation from any body located at the left side of the LUCA’s body, where energy is up.

- The best candidate for those irradiation should be “pulsar” – which are proto-sun, and young stars (if its radiation reaches any body that has its nuclear material coming to its surface;

- Pulsar or proto-sun irradiates its “genes” by volcano eruption, which produces the nucleus of comets;

So, comets are the best and better candidate for spreading the bits-information for to initialize life’s elsewhere - demonstrating that the data related by this news is in accordance with Matrix Theory.

    The idea that comets delivered the chemical “seeds” for life to the early Earth has been given a big boost.  Scientists studying the tiny grains of material recovered from Comet Wild-2 by Nasa’s Stardust mission have found large, complex carbon-rich molecules.They are of the type that could have been important precursor components of the initial reactions that gave rise to the planet’s biochemistry.The first full analysis of the Wild-2 grains is reported in Science magazine.

April | 6 | 2009

(article under consatruction)

That’s fantastical! Discovered the solution for the biggest puzzle in Life’s Science? About a hundred years, people has watching an incredible working motor inside the living cell, and we had no idea how, or from where, Nature got it. It will be very good if you watch the motor working, in the movie/animation at

http://vcell.ndsu.nodak.edu/animations/atpgradient/index.htm  

Look to the complex called “ATP Synthase”. Isn’t stupendous, whimsical?! From where came this object, this phenomenon? How did it to being?! Do you believe – as many believers – that, the stupidous matter of this lost cosmic planet did it, alone? Or do you believe that the matter of other planet or constellation did it? If so, is it a magic planet? Or do you believe that God – or other non-natural being – came here to Earth and did it by magic?

We found a theoretical solution, well developed and logical, rational.  But, the solution we found suggests that all beliefs above can be right, if you mix them all together and see the final board! The matter of Earth did it (but, not alone), the matter of others constelations also colaborated for doing it, and a super-natural entity drove the elaboration ( but not a non-natural entity since it must be the ancestral and producer of this observable Universe; and not by magic, since the ATP Synthase appeared here by genetic reproduction and/or by a Good playing with living softwares). Everything should be possible, but, we now know how was the natural process that made it, and from where it came from: it came from the body of LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestral! 

Ok, let’s see the ” body of LUCA”:     

And now, let’s see this extraordinary engeenering natural job, the motor called ATP Synthase:

 Ok. Seeing the two pictures, side by side, and understanding how each works, is almost automatically: we see at the astronomical ancestral proto-system a kind of proto-motor, doing the same job that the cellular machinery is doing. The picture of LUCA has a nuclei, inside the nuclei has a quasar composed by dusty and debris from stellar decomposition, and below the quasar there is the black hole. 4 billions years of Evolution, changing from celestial space and matter composed only by solid and gaseous state of matter, to Earth surface, with matter earning a new state of matter,the liquid state, and then, the chemical rreactions… and finally we see the whole process of transformation at the picture below ( cilick on it for seeing better): 

Understanding the method of investigation: 

To those does not know what this website is about:

I am suggesting a theoretical model of LUCA – The Last Universal Common Ancestral.

LUCA does not leave at Earth, but it is surrounding Earth and contains Earth. The picture shows the seven known kind of astronomical bodies, but LUCA is every body. The picture shows the Life’s Cycle of LUCA, at least, his seven principal shapes in any lifetime. The seven pieces are connected as each shape of a human body in its lifetime are connected together. The LUCA’s Life’s Cycle – when reproducing and fixing its several shapes – becomes a closed perpetual motor, but not a system, yet. The sistemic closed circuit of mass and energy carries the flow of information (genetic information of LUCA), but it exists only in relation to time; it does not exists visible in the space (like the several shapes of a human body during its lifetime can not be visible arranged as system in the space).  LUCA – its complet Life’s Cycle – becomes the building block of astronomical architectures, like galaxies. The picture of LUCA above can be seeing as the same picture of a base-pair of nucleotides, the fundamental unit of information of RNA/DNA. Extrating the circuit of energy as flow of information, from LUCA’s picture, we got the same picture of a unit of the DNA. By the process of Macro-Evolution, which is performed by seven variables – having among them the three variables of Darwinian micro-evolution - Nature applies “nanotechnoly” transforming astronomical architecture into micro architecture. After several mechanisms and processes revealed inside this theory, LUCA is transformed into biological systems, and those becomes plants and animal systems, like human beings. Over the homo-erectus’ brain, the theory sees a new jump of macro-evolution, the elaboration of “counciousness” which we have a theoretical model suggesting its anatomy as natural system. That’s it…    

Well… I am afraid I will need stopping now ( it is time for begining work with my auto-cab in New York, so, we need stopping this historical discover…) But, after the work journey, I will came back, if God wants… Ah?! God? How I said that? Which God? Where? Hummm… maybe here at our side… or not?)

Sorry, this article explaining the picture was not translated yet. If you wish, see it in Portugues

Men and Women Really Do Think DifferentlyBy Bjorn Carey, LiveScience Staff Writer

posted: 20 January 2005 02:12 pm ET

  Coments from Matrix to the article below:    Matrix: “The roots or first causes man and woman think differently are beyond human specie, beyond life’s origins – because we can see them at LUCA’s anatomy (Last Universal Common Ancestral), and it is lost at the past before the Big Bang, when this space was fulfilled with quantum vortexes spin right and spin left. Above the men beliefs and women beliefs there is wisdom. Why the article is jumping from differently brains’ gender anatomy to different gender levels of intelligence?! Each gender is intelligent about half of Nature were its personality has its foundations. One thing has nothing to see with the other thing.   That’s valorous new data. The images give us light to understand the specific function of brains’ regions. As expected from LUCA’s anatomy, the grey matter of man is located at Function 4 and white matter at Function 1. It is just the localization of male and female sexual counterparts at that hermaphrodite ancestor.  Of course, the brains of men and women must be differently hard-wired, since they represents the universal dualism presents at every natural phenomena. We must to understand the universal Nature behind men and that behind women (they are phenotypic  symmetric and genotype asymmetric, which means, equal as natural systems but differently as personality, temperament, character, bias). Men tend to be opened systems. So they are made for having several sexual partners and not only one, they are made for going out of home to hurting and adventures, their brains focuses over distant horizons so they are good at math, philosophy, and engineering because they catch up better the mechanisms and processes going on at distant and invisible Nature, like the micro and macro cosmos. Women has the tendency to be closed systems, so they are more likely to feel themselves, to see and feel the things at the immediate surroundings, they are made for staying at home safe and accommodated, they are good at automatic computer skills because they need to dominate the parts of the system they belongs to and that belongs to them. A quickly look to the LUCA’s anatomy give us all understanding about the Nature and differences between men and women. What we need to understand, seeing the experiences through universal History, is that the confrontation between men and women thoughts generates the chaos around them, where the two are losers. Like in the beginning of the Universe when spin right and spin left were under chock and conflict they generated the chaos. There is no life when one is separated from its half complementary counterpart. The Evolution of Nature works after the two counterpart link together, creating a third and more complex specie. By the way, while the scientists don’t know the universal matrix and the roots of Nature this kind of study will be evolving very slowly.        

 Views of the brain of men and women. Credits: UCI

 Men and women do think differently, at least where the anatomy of the brain is concerned, according to a new study.The brain is made primarily of two different types of tissue, called gray matter and white matter. This new research reveals that men think more with their gray matter, and women think more with white. Researchers stressed that just because the two sexes think differently, this does not affect intellectual performance. Psychology professor Richard Haier of the University of California, Irvine led the research along with colleagues from the University of New Mexico. Their findings show that in general, men have nearly 6.5 times the amount of gray matter related to general intelligence compared with women, whereas women have nearly 10 times the amount of white matter related to intelligence compared to men.“These findings suggest that human evolution has created two different types of brains designed for equally intelligent behavior,” said Haier, adding that, “by pinpointing these gender-based intelligence areas, the study has the potential to aid research on dementia and other cognitive-impairment diseases in the brain.”The results are detailed in the online version of the journal NeuroImage.In human brains, gray matter represents information processing centers, whereas white matter works to network these processing centers.The results from this study may help explain why men and women excel at different types of tasks, said co-author and neuropsychologist Rex Jung of the University of New Mexico. For example, men tend to do better with tasks requiring more localized processing, such as mathematics, Jung said, while women are better at integrating and assimilating information from distributed gray-matter regions of the brain, which aids language skills.Scientists find it very interesting that while men and women use two very different activity centers and neurological pathways, men and women perform equally well on broad measures of cognitive ability, such as intelligence tests.This research also gives insight to why different types of head injuries are more disastrous to one sex or the other. For example, in women 84 percent of gray matter regions and 86 percent of white matter regions involved in intellectual performance were located in the frontal lobes, whereas the percentages of these regions in a man’s frontal lobes are 45 percent and zero, respectively. This matches up well with clinical data that shows frontal lobe damage in women to be much more destructive than the same type of damage in men. Both Haier and Jung hope that this research will someday help doctors diagnose brain disorders in men and women earlier, as well as provide help designing more effective and precise treatments for brain damage.Note from Matrix: And we must register the comment below, very intelligent:    chemistrylady wrote: In response to the ‘black is a color’ comments of ivmac and doll9:ivmac’s mother and doll9 are both right and both wrong.  Whether black is a color or not really depends on whether you are discussing light or pigments.  Visible light consists of a range of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation (the same as radio waves, X-rays, and microwaves).  When the frequencies of all visible colors are combined, we observe white light.  Different materials interact differently with the light–absorbing some frequencies and reflecting others.  When we see an object, we are really perceiving the frequencies of light that are reflected from that object.  An object will appear to be blue when it absorbs all other colors of light and reflects just blue.  Plants appear to be green because the clorophyll in their leaves absorbs all of the red and blue light, reflecting only the green.  A black object (containing black pigments, or a combination of pigments) *absorbs* all frequencies of visible light, reflecting none.  An object will appear white when it *reflects* all colors of light–the combination of which is white.  This will happen in the absense of color absorbing pigments.  To summarize:For light, black is the absense of light while white is the combination of all visible frequencies of light.  For pigments or what we think of as the coloration of objects, black is the result of a combination of pigments that absorb all frequencies of light while a white object lacks color absorbing pigments and reflects all colors of light.As a high school science teacher, I have to admit that I am a bit disappointed in you ivmac, for letting this become a point of argument between you and your mother.  It isn’t because I would expect you to necessarily remember the specifics from your schooling; it is because I would think you should at least be able to recognize that it is a scientific question with a factual and accessible answer.  Part of the reason females get a bad rap in the intelligence department is because they bring opinions and emotions into places they don’t belong.  If ivmac and her mother had sought an actual answer to the ‘black is/is not a color’ issue, they could have learned something together, rather than create a point of contention between them.

 There are here mysteries which prepare immense labors for the future,

 and from this time invite  the most serious meditations of science... Louis Pasteur

OVER A HUNDRED years have passed since Pasteur wrote those words in 1860.  He was referring to one of the strangest puzzles in biology, that proteins are made exclusively of “left-handed” molecules.2  Although immense labors have been done as he suggested, the mystery remains without adequate solution to this day. ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–                           COMENTARY FROM A STUDENT OF THE  MATRIX:                                                         ——————————-xxxxxxxxxx—————————                  Looking to the picture of our last non-biological ancestral, the solution seems evident. It pops up abruptly to our eyes, our sixty sense. The logic is irrefutable! It is an issue concerning to the difference between opened systems and closed systems. Between the growing flow of energy/information and the entropic flow. Observe the Matrix’s  software of the ancestral from who living beings received the genetic code: the left side is energy/information/evolution growing; the right side is the reverse of the flow, so, it can not be expressed by opened systems like biological systems.      But, when we try to explain it logically or to communicate it, several problems arises. So, we will need working this issue. What is the solution? Protein is – I think – the biological counterpart of the circuit’s channel carrying the flow of information in shape of energy, it is the biological tool that reproduces the dynamics produced by the dimension time. Look to the picture of the closed software. The rounded circuit can be broken in parts, infinitely. Then, each protein is a biological counterpart of a bit of the circuit. The software flow has only one direction: from left to right. It is clockwise. Left to right… We have the irresistible tentation for to see just here the solution to the big mistery! Each protein is a channel made by several aligned amino-acids. Amino-acids, as we can see in my book, are the biological fractals from the Matrix’s software in shape of the last ancestral. and they are different among themselves due each one being the tool for each universal sistemic function. Protein - anyway - must be a structure by which runs a flow of energy, and the flow must be from left to right…      Another detail we can not forget: biological systems have suffered a severe, drastic mutation, turning on an opened system.  Then, only left-handed molecules are selected for to become part of any biological system, organic matter and protein. But, a detailed observation shows that things are not so easy. For instance: if the universal software is for both – electro-magnetic, mechanical, biological systems – why Nature produces de right handed structures? Look to the following picture below: why and for what Nature produces the D-alanine, the mirror’s image? Ok we know that Nature produces everything in pairs, since the quantum balloons left and right spinned ( see my models of “The Yukawa Quantum Baloons”). We know that the opposite material particles makes anti-matter. But… we don’t know any opposite biological systems made with right handed molecules. So… this issue needs an extra and indispensable effort from Matrix’s students. I feel that this study will be driving us towards a new big discovery.)

 Ok, let’s go back to the book:

        

---

The Mystery of the Left-Handed Molecules in Proteins                 57 

          To preface the left-handed mystery, it may be of value to those in other fields if we first review what proteins are like. They are, of course, a major class of the complex molecules of which all living things are made.  Since all molecules consist of atoms bonded together, we can get an idea of the size of a molecule by the number of atoms it contains.  Water, for example, has three atoms.  Nitric acid has five.  Now, by comparison, the smallest of proteins contains around a thousand atoms, and the largest has close to a million!  Proteins, then, are enormous compared to most molecules.
    In primary structure, proteins are long, slender filaments or threads.  Even giant molecules, like proteins, are unbelievably small from our viewpoint.  In fact, Max Perutz of Cambridge University notes that a protein fiber is 500 times thinner than the thinnest object a good optical microscope could reveal.⁴  This miniature long filament is often precisely folded into a somewhat globular shape which differs for each type of protein.Proteins Are Chains of Amino Acid Molecules     It seems to be a universal rule in biology that complex things are built from simple components.  This is a source of amazement to scientists.  It also makes it much easier for us to understand things like proteins and DNA. —————-

(Comentary from the Matrix: “Why they don’t go ahead asking to Nature: Why? They considers atoms as simple components. Once time, the whole Universe was constituted only by atoms. The atoms did not have a material environment for to developing something more complex than they were. So, they had created the complexity from nothing? The answer maybe is: hierarchy of natural systems.  Every natural system, like atoms, are situated between to other systems, one below and other above. The superior system, which have more complexity than atoms systems, at the time of life’s origins was the astronomical system. It is not impossible that the informations coming from that system, in shape of photons from stellar radiation, or cosmic radiation, has driven the simple atoms at Earth’s surface, for to reproduce the astronomical complexity (see the Matrix’s chapter about “Yne non-living genes and DNA”). ——————————

    Proteins are simply long chains of smaller molecules called amino acids. There are twenty varieties of these that are commonly used in proteins.  These will be listed in chapter 6.  There are indications that all of the twenty kinds occur in proteins of all organisms. 
    The number of these building blocks in a single protein ranges roughly from 100 to 50,000, since there is great variety in the size of different proteins.  The hormone insulin is usually called a protein although it is smaller than this range, having only 51 amino acids.  It is not, however, a completely typical protein. The average number of amino acids in proteins of the smallest known living thing is 400, at the very least. 

---

58               Evolution: Possible or Impossible?

    There are many thousands of kinds of proteins, and they form numerous different jobs in living things.  Many are digestive enzymes, others are structural molecules, and some perform their specialized tasks as hormones or as hemoglobin in blood cells. All of this complexity comes from those twenty amino acids and the particular order in which they are arranged in the chain. A different sequence may make an entirely different type of protein.
    Commenting on this, one scientist noted: “Thus, from about twenty different amino acids, the colossal array of different proteins required by different forms of life is constructed.”⁷ Amino Acids Also Are Built on a Simple Plan     It is fortunate for our understanding that even the amino acids possess a degree of uniformity.  All are made of four kinds of atoms: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen.  Two of the amino acids also have a sulfur atom each.
    Besides this, all of the amino acids are exactly alike in the main section or “backbone” which consists of three atoms, two of which are carbon and the other nitrogen.  The center one of those three, which is a carbon atom, is called the alpha carbon.  (“Alpha,” being the first letter of the Greek alphabet, is usually written in Greek in scientific writings, thus: α.  To avoid complexity, we will spell out in English any such Greek letters.)
    Having noted some of the similarities, we now come to the difference between the amino acids.  To the central carbon atom, the alpha carbon, there is attached a side group, often called the R group.  The sole difference between the various types of amino acids is that each has a different side group. 
    In the various amino acids, the distinguishing side group contains from one to eighteen atoms.  The considerable diversity in these side groups makes possible many of the things proteins do.  They have different electrical and chemical properties which affect other molecules.  Other amino acids at various distances in the same protein chain may be attracted in this way, with the following result:
    When the units of the protein chain are in any particular

The Mystery of the Left-Handed Molecules in Proteins                 59

sequence, the resulting chain will coil or spiral and fold in a specific way.⁹  This final shape makes the protein able to do its unique job in the cell.
    When two amino acids are united, a “peptide bond” is formed between them, and a molecule of water is released.¹⁰  It takes energy to get the amino acids to bond together.  It is difficult to bring this about outside of living things.  In the laboratory it can be done by special techniques.¹¹ 
    In living organisms, on the other hand, protein chains are linked up or polymerized rapidly.  This system for making proteins is very complex and efficient, employing special enzymes and several other unique molecules.  It is an extremely interesting process that takes place under direction from the DNA code, the hereditary “language of life.”  It will be described in chapter 9.How Can a Molecule Be Left-Handed?     Amino acids can exist in both right-handed and left-handed forms.  A person’s two hands show how this can be.  They have the same components – fingers and thumbs – yet they are different. The thumb of one is on the left and the thumb of the other on

---

60               Evolution: Possible or Impossible?the right.  They are “mirror images” of each other.  Some molecules are like that.
    Let’s imagine that we are able to look at an amino acid molecule.  Remember that each is built on the same simple plan. The three atoms of the backbone are in the direct line of the protein chain when the amino acid is united with others.  In the center is the alpha carbon atom.  On one end of it there is a nitrogen atom, and on the other end another carbon.¹²  If we look at it from the carbon end, it will be possible to tell whether it is left- or right-handed (see Figure 2). FIGURE 2

Left-handed

Right-handed

             Left- and right-handed amino acid residues.  The molecules shown are L-alanine and D-alanine (L = levo, or left- handed; D = dextro, or right-handed).  Alanine is the simplest of the amino acids which are isomeric or handed.
    The bonds in the figure are not drawn to scale, but are lengthened so that the left- and right-handedness is more easily seen.  In real molecules, the bonds are shorter so that the “surfaces” overlap, making the molecules more compact.  The initials on the atoms indicate carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen.  Note that the only difference between the two is the position of the side group, on either the left or right side.

---

The Mystery of the Left-Handed Molecules in Proteins                 61         Notice the center carbon atom of the backbone.  It appears to be elevated a bit compared to the other two atoms of the main part.  That alpha carbon is asymmetric, that is, different on every side.  This difference is not in the atom itself, but it results from the fact that the four items bonded to it all are different.
    As we view it from our vantage point at the carbon “end” of the amino acid ¹³  (considering the lower carbon atom in Figure 2 as the carbon end), we note that the central or alpha carbon has two side projections that angle outward to the right and to the left.  On one side, this extension is simply a hydrogen atom.  Opposite it is the side group mentioned earlier, the group which differs for each of the twenty amino acid types.
    If that identifying side group is on the left, the molecule is “left-handed.”  If instead it protrudes to the right, the amino acid is said to be “right-handed.”
    These two forms of the same chemical contain the exact same components and are called isomers or stereoisomers of that chemical.  Their side groups are just positioned oppositely in space. Each form is the antipode of the other.  They are enantiomorphs or enantiomers of each other.
    We may note in passing that this difference was discovered in an accidental way.  A French physicist named D. F. Arago in 1811 shined a beam of plane-polarized light through a quartz crystal.  He discovered to his surprise that the plane of the light was twisted or rotated as it passed through the crystal.  Later it was found that some chemicals dissolved in water would also cause this twisting of the beam of light.  Whether the light was rotated to the right or to the left depended on the substance used.  Solutions which rotate polarized light in this manner are said to be optically active, since they deflect the path of light.
    Pasteur, while investigating this strange phenomenon in 1848, found that the optically active substance he was studying was made of one-handed molecules.¹⁴  To his surprise, he found that optically active materials from living things were different from

---

62               Evolution: Possible or Impossible?optically active crystals of inorganic substances like quartz. Crystals of the latter come in both left- and right-handed configuration, whereas the individual molecules are neither left- nor right-handed.Only Left-Handed Amino Acids in Proteins     Francis Crick, codiscoverer of the DNA structure, describes this strange characteristic of the molecules of living organisms: It has been well known for many years that for any particular molecule only one hand occurs in nature.  For example the amino acids one finds in proteins are always what are called the “L” or “levo” amino acids, and never the “D” or “dextro” amino acids.  Only one of the two mirror possibilities occurs in proteins.¹⁵      That is the mystery.  English biologist John Maddox called it “an intellectual thunderbolt that natural proteins should contain only the left-handed forms of the amino acids.”¹⁶ 
    This is a special difficulty for those who believe that life originated from nonliving matter by natural processes.  A. I. Oparin, Russian biochemist, has perhaps had more to do with current evolutionary thought than any man since Darwin because of his pioneering attempts to explain the origin of life through natural chemical processes.  He brought up this mystery in a recent book thus: “It is necessary to touch briefly on a problem which has been discussed in the literature for a long time.”¹⁷ 
    In an earlier book he went more into detail.  The atoms involved in the different positions (right and left) are subject to the same forces.  When amino acids are formed, that varying side group could just as easily be on the right as on the left.  Says Oparin:     The probability of the formation of one antipode or the other is therefore the same.  As the law of averages applies to chemical reactions the appearance of an excess of one antipode is very improbable, and, in fact, we never encounter it under the conditions of non-living nature and in laboratory syntheses . . . .
    In living organisms, on the contrary, the amino acids of

---

The Mystery of the Left-Handed Molecules in Proteins                 63which naturally occurring proteins are made always have the left-handed configuration. . . . This ability of protoplasm selectively to synthesize and accumulate one antipode alone is called the asymmetry of living material.  It is a characteristic feature of all organisms without exception but is absent from inanimate nature.
    Pasteur pointed out this fact as follows: “This great character is, perhaps, the only sharp dividing line which we can draw at present between the chemistry of dead and living nature.”¹⁸      In modern times, many others have expressed the same surprise as Pasteur.  For example, Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate in chemistry:     This is a very puzzling fact . . . . All the proteins that have been investigated, obtained from animals and from plants, from higher organisms and from very simple organisms–bacteria, molds, even viruses – are found to have been made of L-amino acids.¹⁹    He concludes, “Nobody knows why it is that we are built of L-amino acid molecules, rather than of D-amino acid molecules.”²⁰ 
    Dr. Larry Butler, who teaches biochemistry at Purdue University, has said, “In all respects chemically and physically (except for physical properties associated with asymmetry . . . ) D- and L-amino acids are not only equivalent but indistinguishable.” ²¹ 
    Professor Dennis Englin calls attention to an amusing experiment.  Scientists now can hook up proteinlike chains which contain both the L- and D-amino acids, and put such chains into a living organism, e.g., a bacterium.  The organism immediately takes them apart, and in some cases rebuilds the amino acids in the left-handed form! ²² 

---

64               Evolution: Possible or Impossible?          Professor William Stokes of the University of Utah sums up the situation on this baffling question of the two forms as far as normal proteins are concerned:     They are as identical in all other respects as a pair of gloves. When amino acids are prepared artificially, both L- and D- varieties occur in statistically equal amounts.  But living things can use and construct only the left-handed type, probably for hereditary reasons going back to the first ancestor of all life on earth.²³      Looking at it from the naturalistic standpoint for the moment, we may ask: How could living things have gotten started which use only left-handed amino acids in proteins?
    The first problem is to discover how any amino acids could originate by natural means.  For this, the current explanation is to postulate a primitive atmosphere that was totally different from ours today.  Then it is claimed that amino acids might have been formed from that prescribed atmosphere by the action of ultraviolet rays, lightning, and perhaps heat.²⁴ 

---

The Mystery of the Left-Handed Molecules in Proteins                 65    In experiments with this presumed primeval atmosphere, whenever any amino acids have been obtained in elaborate laboratory tests, they have consisted of both L- and D- varieties.
    So we still have the problem.  Even if the amino acids had occurred in that atmosphere naturally, these experiments indicate that the supply would have been “racemic” or mixed, instead of all L- or all D-. ²⁵  Efforts to Account for the Left-Handed Phenomenon     Scientists have let their imaginations range far and wide in quest of a solution.  Without exception, each avenue has proved considerably less than satisfying.  Materialists, for lack of anything better, have had to sound confident and to depend on one or another of the ideas put forward.  One gets the impression that many just have a vague hope that maybe some one of these explanations may be valid, without specifying which specific one.
    A summary of these attempts is given in Appendix 1, page 243, following the final chapter.  The reader is encouraged to turn to it if he desires the details on this subject.
    For a century, these efforts to find the answers have continued.  Long and imaginative labors using many laboratory approaches have managed only to get “unequal amounts of enantiomers to form,” by using reagents, catalysts, crystals, solvents, etc.²⁶  This is sometimes hailed as if it indicated success, and is credited to the “entirely expected effect of the atomic neighborhood, biasing, say, the ease of approach of the various reacting molecules to one of the possible sites of action.”  One such “success,” we may note, yielded “an excess of 6 percent,” the amount of one hand as compared to the other.²⁷ 
    All well and good, but getting “unequal amounts” is a far cry from explaining nature’s success in producing 100 percent (all L-) products.  Even if a way is found, the question will persist:

---

66               Evolution: Possible or Impossible?Why is it so difficult for our most intelligent scientists to solve in modern laboratories what nature has done without apparent effort?No Satisfactory Answer Has Been Found     After considering all the attempts, it is clear that unless chance could do it, there is at present no adequate answer from a naturalistic standpoint to explain how this left-handed condition began.  As a result, there is little evidence of any agreement or consensus among scientists regarding its source.  Oparin must presume that this stereoselectivity started without prior design. Any other belief would be inconsistent with his communist philosophy.  (Interestingly, that viewpoint – dialectical materialism – is not atheistic after all.  Professor Claude Tresmontant of the University of Paris has pointed out with unanswerable logic that communists are actually pantheists, worshiping matter-in-motion.)²⁸ 
    Dr. Oparin never does make clear which of all the various ideas he prefers, to account for the origin of the exclusive use of left-handed amino acids in proteins, but he assumes it happened naturally, nevertheless.  He is admirably straightforward in realizing the difficulty:     Even when we know how the asymmetry arose, though, we still cannot answer the question of why one antipode, rather than the other, should occupy such a monopolistic position in the life of all the organisms inhabiting the Earth.  This question is important for an understanding of the essential nature of life but it remains for future investigators to supply the answer.²⁹      On that subject, Pauling made this imaginative comment:     The earth might just as well be populated with living organisms made of D-amino acids as with those made of L-amino acids.  A man who was suddenly converted into an exact mirror image of himself would not at first know that anything had changed about him. . . . He could drink water, inhale air and use the oxygen in it for combustion, exhale carbon dioxide, and carry on other bodily functions just as well as ever – so long as he did not eat any ordinary food.  If he were to eat ordinary plant or animal food, he would find that he could not digest it.³⁰ 

---

The Mystery of the Left-Handed Molecules in Proteins                 67    He then noted a strange coincidence.  As long ago as 1872, Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass was published.  In it, Alice (in a land of mirror images) said, “Perhaps looking-glass milk isn’t good to drink.”³¹  It is possible that Lewis Carroll was aware of Pasteur’s work in this field.
    In attempting to account for the one-handed phenomenon, Oparin and others have depended upon natural selection.  As we will see in chapter 5, there is no way that natural selection could have operated at all until there was a way to duplicate all the essential parts accurately.  There is no method known whereby this could take place except the intricate DNA-RNA-enzymes-ribosome process which we will examine in later chapters.  Therefore, natural selection is of no help whatever in the effort to find the way that left-handed amino acids obtained their complete monopoly in naturally occurring proteins.No Natural Solution Unless Chance Could Produce This Effect     Since natural selection was unable to operate before accurate duplication, and since no way has been found to account for the exclusive use of left-handed components in proteins, chance is all that is left, from the materialistic standpoint.  Some evolutionists have recognized this explicitly.  For example, S. E. Bresler, a top biochemist in the U.S.S.R. Academy of Science, wrote,     How and why the complete separation of stereo isomers in living tissue was started remains an enigma. . . . We can only speculate that this remarkable phenomenon originally occurred as the result of very rare large-scale fluctuations associated with the origin of life.³²      By this he plainly means chance fluctuations.  Before applying the rules of probability, there are two questions we need to resolve: (1) Can each of the amino acids be linked with any other, regardless of hand? (2) Will they link with equal ease whether of the same or the opposite hand?³³ 

---

68               Evolution: Possible or Impossible?Left- and Right-Handed Amino Acids Can Be Linked     Are the two forms of the amino acids shaped so that any of them can unite, whether they are L- or D- in type?  The answer is yes.  Whether left- or right-handed, any amino acid can be linked with any other of either hand.  There seem to be no exceptions.³⁴ 
    Pauling wrote (1964) : “We have no strong reason to believe that molecules resembling proteins could not be built up of equal numbers of right-handed and left-handed amino acid molecules.”³⁵    Since that was written, this has actually been done on numerous occasions in many laboratories, resulting in a voluminous literature in the scientific journals.
    While it is true that opposites can be linked in the laboratory, what about that question if we consider the conditions that evolution assumes to have been existing before life began?  Dr. Sidney W. Fox, of the University of Miami has done experiments which involve this.  Some years back, Dr. Fox heated all the common amino acids at 200^o C temperature under certain conditions and obtained chains containing all the amino acids.³⁶  When asked if both left- and right-handed amino acids were included in the same chain, he replied that he was almost 100 percent certain that they were, but that there was no way to tell absolutely at the time.³⁷  Temperatures of 170^o C and above were typically used in such experiments. 

---

The Mystery of the Left-Handed Molecules in Proteins                 69Will Opposites Join With Equal Ease?     Although there is a degree of uncertainty on this subject at the present stage of scientific knowledge, it appears that the answer lies in one or the other of the following extremes, or somewhere between: (1) There may be equal ease of linking opposite hands, on the average.  This seems most likely, when considering all the factors.  The individual amino acids are different in ease of fit.  Some work better with the same hand, and some with the opposite.  The shape of the chain, when it begins to form a spiral, also may be involved.
    (2) The other possibility is indicated in a few reports of preference for the same hand in some particular instances.³⁸  In some other instances there is preference for the opposite hand.³⁹  The extreme limit seems to be a possible preference of 6/7 for the same hand.  It is quite unlikely that this is the case on any general basis, but we will use it as one limit to consider.
    Since this subject gets quite technical, we will include the details in Appendix 2, page 249, leading to the conclusions which have just been stated briefly.  The reader can experiment with models of the amino acids in order to satisfy himself on the comparative equal ease of fit, whether of the same or opposite hand.  Numerous opposite hand linkups are routinely made in various laboratories with no notice of any more hindrance than with the same hand,⁴⁰ except in the occasional instances mentioned.
    In the next chapter, probability reasoning will be applied to these two outside limits – equal ease of linkup, or 6/7 preference for the same hand.                                                           END