Giovanni Occhipinti
Chapter 10.
From the proto-organism to the cell
10.1 The new protein synthesis system
Therefore, in the prebiotic era, billions and billions and billions of proto-organisms were scattered over the entire surface of the planet, within clay masses in different environmental conditions, but subject to the same chemical physical constraints. The components of each proto-organism were shelled within an ordered “almost crystalline" macrostructure of water, and the interactive system assumed the appearance of a gel. All components were held together by an electromagnetic field internally and around the system that extended into the surrounding space. It can be represented by borrowing an image from "Around the Quartz with MatLab" 2009, by Nicola Occhipinti (Appendix 5).
In addition, we have defined
homeostasis as the response of the internal electromagnetic field and around
the proto-organism to changes in the internal and external environment.
The number of proto-organisms, at
that time, had to be enormous because their formation must have been a
spontaneous and rapid process that did not require large amounts of energy. A
large amount of energy is needed in the cells of living organisms to synthesize
the components of proteins and nucleic acids. But the substances
necessary for the origin of these polymers, their growth and their maintenance,
the proto-organisms had them available in the environment, it was only
necessary to assemble them. Now, in the presence of catalysts in a non-aqueous
microenvironment, the thermal energy of the environment is sufficient for the
synthesis of polymers. The proto-organism was therefore born as a
heterotrophic, that is, it assimilated the necessary compounds from the
surrounding environment.
It is certainly probable that the
proteins of many proto-organisms were not functional enough, by composition and
structure, for their self-maintenance. Consequently, a considerable number of
proto-organisms will have decomposed while many others proceeded on their
journey towards life.
However, what was missing for this last objective from the proto-organism?
1) A double helix nucleic acid,
DNA, with an archive function for chemical information.
2) An organelle, the Ribosome,
which guides protein synthesis.
3) Transfer RNA, tRNA, which
transport the amino acids to the RNA-Ribosome protein synthesis system.
4) A cell membrane.
Now, the formation of the first
three points leads to the construction of a new complex protein synthesis
system. But what pushed the proto-organism to build such a complexity. In fact,
homeostasis, the response of the electromagnetic field, internally and around
the proto-organism to changes in both the internal and external environment,
could control the number of α-helices necessary
for RNA synthesis and vice versa. Homeostasis could also control the number of
super-secondary or tertiary enzymes and finally allow the diffusion only of the
necessary missing substances, from the outside to the inside of the
proto-organism, and thus keeping the system in thermodynamic equilibrium.
That is, the proto-organism had the capability of self-maintenance.
According to Antonio Damasio in "Il
sé viene alla mente" 2012, homeostasis at all levels pursues the same
objective: the survival of organisms. Wanting to extend this concept
homeostasis had to devote itself only to the survival of the proto-organism.
We know though that if the
proto-organism stayed the same it would not have survived, sooner or later, it
would have decomposed, but this the proto-organism could not know. Why take the
path to life, and not remain a proto-organism while having the possibility of
self-maintenance?
Perhaps the situation was not as
calm as one might imagine. Within the proto-organism some enzymes were,
certainly, subject to decomposition or were not functional. These enzymes were
dissociated by other enzymes to recover the amino acids. Any missing amino
acids were recovered from the external environment. The amino acids, within the
proto-organism, spread in all directions and assembled using, as a mould, the
first RNA molecule that they found among the hundreds present in the
proto-organism. Since the meeting between RNA and amino acids was random, the
probability that the amino acids had found the right mould was low. Moreover,
the diffusion being random, the amino acids could arrive on different RNA moulds
giving origin to short molecules of enzymes of no utility. Again, as we
hypothesized, in prebiotic times there had to be a direct interaction between a
trinucleotide and a specific amino acid of the α-helix, a chemical-physical
system of recognition and complementarity. This means that if the α-helices
have synthesized RNA molecules, the latter have synthesized the α-helices. But
a direct system of recognition and complementarity, between trinucleotide and
amino acids, works exactly like a biphasic system. An electrical double layer
is generated between the RNA molecule and the solution, which depends on the
interfacial voltage. In such a system, very small traces of surfactants alter
the interfacial tension and therefore the electrokinetic potential. The rains
certainly contained a large number of harmful molecules and some certainly
managed to deceive the electric field around the proto-organism. A single foreign
molecule, which is interposed in the RNA interface, i.e. solution between
trinucleotide and amino acid, completely alters the electrical signal of this
system. The specific amino acid does not recognize its trinucleotide, the
protein synthesis stops and the system moves away from the thermodynamic
equilibrium. And the same applies to the synthesis of RNA on α-helix moulds. In short, for its
self-maintenance, the proto-organism risked falling victim to chance
To maintain balance, the assembly
of a more elaborate system for the synthesis of proteins was therefore urgent. A
robust system based on the interaction between codon and anticodon, which would
certainly have slowed down protein synthesis but which would have made it
safer. It was therefore the need to bring the balance back into the proto-organism
that homeostasis gives rise to DNA. This nucleic acid differs from RNA because
its nucleotides contain sugar D-Deoxyribose instead of D-Ribose and the
nucleobase Thymine instead of Uracil. As reported by C. Ponnamperuma (quoted
work), Oro and Cox found that Deoxyribose (Right and Left) are formed, with a
yield of about 5%, from glyceraldehyde and acetaldehyde in aqueous systems. The
reaction is catalyzed by bivalent metal oxides. The Thymine was obtained by
Ernesto Di Mauro and Raffaele Saladino (quoted work) by reacting the formamide
(HCONH2) in the presence of TiO2, a metal oxide widely
present in nature. Thus, Deoxyribose and Thymine, although in small quantities,
were present in the prebiotic era. Homeostasis responsible for maintaining or restoring
chemical balance allows, within the cytoplasm of the proto-organism, the
diffusion of only these two specific substances. The presence of Thymine and
D-Deoxyribose, the immediate formation of the tri-nucleotides containing these
compounds and the consequent synthesis of short DNA molecules must have
enormously stabilized the proto-organism.
In double-stranded DNA, Timina (T)
couples with Adenine (A) to form the T-A pair, but Uracil can also form U-A
pairs. All this meant that the electromagnetic field of a tri-nucleotide
containing the Thymine is similar to the electromagnetic field containing the
Uracil, and that the tri-nucleotides containing T encode the same amino acids
of the tri-nucleotides containing U. This leads us to conclude that the formation
of short DNA molecules occurred on α-Helices moulds.
The appearance of DNA must have immediately triggered the separation of
functions with the DNA depository of genetic information and the RNA delegated
to the translation of the message into proteins that was generated, only when
necessary. Some RNA released from the role of genetic information repositories
assumed the task of tRNA, while others aggregated giving rise to a primitive
RNA ribosome. Thus, a system for translating messages into proteins based on
RNA, tRNA and Ribosome, is born. A robust system based on the interaction
between codon and anticodon, which would certainly have slowed down protein
synthesis but which would have made it safer.
The appearance of the DNA brings
the system back to equilibrium, but the whole of the proto-organism becomes
more complex. This complexity is also due to the fact that
some processes within the proto-organism have become more complex. For example:
DNA replication, the DNA-protein system for the expression of a gene in RNA,
the synthesis of proteins through the RNA-Ribosome-tRNA system. Now, even
within the framework of the general design, each of these processes operates
autonomously. This suggests that each of these processes is a sub-set with its
own electromagnetic field and its own homeostasis.
Then, how could the proto-organism work?
Imagine that within a subset, a
protein decomposes and as a consequence of such decomposition, the
electromagnetic field of the sub-set changes and presents some instability. The
new field communicates to a sub-set of DNA-proteins to express in RNA the gene
specific for that protein. The presence of the new RNA, through its
electromagnetic field, activates the tRNA-Ribosome system that synthesizes the
protein. The new protein enters the original subset and stabilizes its electromagnetic
field. A network of interdependent sub-assemblies is therefore created, all of
them necessarily in synergistic coordination with the electromagnetic field of
the proto-organism that regulates the balance of the whole.
In reference to the cell Paul
Davis, (quoted work) writes: «The countless specialized molecules available,
many of which are only found within living organisms, are already enormously
complex themselves. They perform a dance of exquisite perfection, orchestrated
with surprising synchrony. Far more elaborate than the most complicated ballet,
the dance of life that involves countless molecular actors in synergistic
coordination. Yet it is a dance without a trace of a choreographer; no
intelligence, no mystical force, no conscious entity makes the molecules enter
the scene at the right time, chooses the most suitable interpreters, closes the
circles, separates the couples and makes everything move. The dance of life is
spontaneous, it is created and sustained by itself». And Duranti Marcello
(quoted work) adds: «The symphony of life is played by an orchestra of tens of
thousands elements without a director. Each protein follows its part correctly
and at the right time».
But perhaps the dance of life is
not spontaneous, there are choreographers and directors: it is the
electromagnetic field around and inside the proto-organism that surrounds every
molecule, the sub-sets and the whole system. It is the electromagnetic field of
the whole proto-organism that directs the orchestra and maintains the
equilibrium under thermodynamic control. In order to maintain this balance, it
triggers reactions, aggregates molecules, commands synthesis and coordinates
all processes. Therefore, the dance of life is not spontaneous
in the sense that there is no choreographer. It is spontaneous in the sense
that the process is spontaneous, that is under the thermodynamic control.
Soon, another problem arises: the large number of proto-organisms,
contained in the clay masses begins to deplete the environment and the
available compounds decrease more and more. Homeostasis responsible for
maintaining the survival of the proto-organism must go to procure the necessary
compounds. However, the proto-organism is in fact a gel, which even if held
together by an internal and external electromagnetic field around it, always
enjoys the protection of the walls of the niche. For the proto-organism, to
abandon the niche without a new protection means to disperse all its semi-fluid
content in the environment, which means the end. A protection that replaces the
walls of the cavity, which envelops the proto-organism and allows it to move
freely is necessary, in a word: a membrane.
The appearance of the membrane
marks an epochal leap: The proto-organism becomes a proto-cell and becomes
autonomous; we are one-step away from life.
Although perhaps we will never
know how things really went, it is essential to analyze this epochal passage
well and find all the necessary clues to a possible path.
Let us start from Christian De
Duve (quoted work, 2008): "In today's cells, membranes never originate from scratch; they develop by accretion,
which means through the inclusion of new molecules in a pre-existing entity.
The membranes, therefore, come from pre-existing membranes, linked by an
uninterrupted filiation with an ancestral membrane that could go back to the
earliest times of life on Earth ».
This does not mean that current
membranes are ancestral membranes. It means that current membranes have slowly
replaced ancestral membranes as the cell's metabolic capacity increases, but
their nature must have been similar. The components of the current membranes
are the phospholipids glycerol-formed compounds to which, a phosphoric residue
(head) and two long fatty acid chains containing 15-17 carbon atoms bonded with
hydrogen atoms (tail), are linked.
Now, while the head due to the presence of electric charges is soluble in water, the tail is not, but it can bind with the tails of other molecules forming double lipid layers and for this double possibility the phospholipids are called amphiphilic. Therefore, if we have phospholipids in water, the long phospholipid tails, not being water soluble (hydrophobic), increase the energy of the system and make the solution unstable. Without going into too much detail, the link between the tails and the formation of the double lipid layers is a spontaneous process that increases the universal chaos and is therefore under thermodynamic control.
The Double lipid layers can form vesicles by separating the inside from the outside and the phospholipid heads bind to the water inside and outside the vesicles.
In "Origin: l’universo, la vita , l’intelligenza" by Bertola,
Calvani and Curi 1994, in the Origins of Life chapter, André Brack writes: «Fatty
acids are known to form vesicles when hydrocarbon chains contain more than ten
carbon atoms. However, the membranes obtained with these simple amphiphiles do
not remain stable in a wide variety of conditions. Stable neutral lipids can be
obtained by condensing fatty acids with glycerol. Fatty acids can also be
associated with glycerol-3-phosphate with good yields. Thus, most of the
current phospholipids can be obtained under simple conditions (Deamer and Orò
1980). It should however be noted that fatty acids are made of carbon monoxide
and hydrogen at temperatures (450° C) which are unlikely to have existed on the
primitive Earth».
But as reported by Christian De
Duve (quoted work) just Deamer found, in the Murchison meteorite, amphiphilic
substances capable of forming vesicles. One of these
substances appears to be a fatty acid containing nine carbon atoms that artificially
created and under certain conditions appears to form vesicles. This possibility
still is reinforced, as De Duve notes, by the fact that Hanczyc and al. 2003, observed the formation of vesicles of fatty acids
catalyzed by the clay.
So also, the formation of vesicles brings us back to clay, reinforcing
Bernal's theory.
Ultimately, there is the
possibility that in the prebiotic era compounds capable of giving origins to
vesicles existed.
But how things really went?
It is probable that at the beginning the
proteins, on the surface, constituted a membrane that guarded the entrance of
the cavity. These proteins had to contain rudimentary receptors, they
communicated the state of the surrounding environment to homeostasis and, upon
input from homeostasis, it was these proteins that decided what was to enter
and what was to exit. Now many proteins contain amphiphilic traits in their
molecule and these must have been linked with amphiphilic substances existing
in the environment. As we will see later, it is very likely that these
substances were already short molecules of phospholipids given the possibility,
as claimed by Brack (quoted work), to obtain them even under simple conditions.
Due to the need to leave the cavity in search of the substances necessary for survival,
homeostasis associate with proteins that guard the cavities with more and more
phospholipids from the surrounding environment, to form a rudimentary membrane
catalyzed by clay which surrounds the whole proto-organism. The proteins that
guarded the cavity must have been distributed over the entire surface of the
membrane. The formation of the membrane formed by phospholipids and proteins is
a spontaneous process, such as the formation of vesicles, because it increases
the universal chaos and is therefore under thermodynamic control. It is very
flexible and can move easily among the clay granules in search of nutrients.
The proto-organism becomes a proto-cell, that able to move independently,
abandons the cavity.
But why exactly phospholipids?
The main polymers, proteins,
nucleic acids, polysaccharides, lipids, are composed of compounds whose
molecules have a Right and a Left form. Although in the biological world only
one of these forms is used: either the Right or the Left. For example, amino
acids of the Left form are used in proteins, whereas in the nucleic acids the
sugars are of the Right form.
We have already recalled the fact
that amino acids are chiral, in other words, they are not made up of a single
molecule but two molecules (50% Right and 50% Left) of which one is the mirror
image of the other. Each atom or atomic group that makes up the molecules has
polar covalent bonds and is therefore a dipole. Now if the D form is the mirror
image of the L form, the dipoles of the D form will also be the mirror image of
the dipoles of the L form. Since the molecule has a spatial structure, at the
molecular level the dipole of the two different structures can be imagined as
helical, one oriented to the Right and the other to the Left. Each of these
molecules is associated with an electromagnetic field whose force lines have a
helical pattern. The electromagnetic fields associated with the two forms must
necessarily be one mirror of the other.
To simplify, we have sometimes
associated with the right-hand form an electromagnetic field with a right-hand
helical shape and with the left-form form an electromagnetic field with a left
trend. In reality, no one has ever studied the progress
of these fields. It may be that the right course of the electromagnetic field
actually corresponds to the form Right, but can just as well it may be that
correspond to the Left form. What we can say is that if two helical
electromagnetic fields associate to each other, it means that their trends
complement each other.
Why this clarification?
Because the membrane-forming
phospholipids are chiral, that is, they have a Right and a Left shape. Now days
the Left form is used in bacteria and higher organisms, which is, a fatty acid
linked to L-Glycerol-3-phosphate. In another family (more precisely domain) of
bacteria, the archaebacteria, the tails of the membrane components are chains
of alcohols linked to D-Glycerol-3-phosphate, which is the right-hand form.
As we have repeatedly pointed out,
the electromagnetic field around the proto-organism, the proto-field must
necessarily be helical and asymmetric. So, in the prebiotic era, in addition to
the fatty acid linked to L-Glycerol-3-phosphate (Left form), its mirror image,
the D-Glycerol-3-phosphate (right-hand form), should also be present. If in the
bacteria and in the higher organisms the form L was chosen, and in the archaebacteria
the form D, it means that their electromagnetic fields are complemented by the
helicoidal pattern of the proto-field around the proto-organism. The membrane,
therefore, is firmly anchored to the proto-field of the proto-organism and
ensures that the components of the latter do not disperse in the environment.
The figure shows the proto-organism wrapped in a membrane whose asymmetrical heads are represented by round ones, while surface proteins, with rudimentary receptors that overlook the surrounding environment, are represented by enlarged half-lines.
At the same time, since the
asymmetric heads of the membrane components are both internal and external,
they transfer the asymmetry of the proto-field to the outside: the proto-cell
is asymmetric. If the proto-field of the proto-organism did not exist, the
membrane would have no anchorage and once abandoned the cavity, at the
slightest perturbation, the membrane and proto-organism would separate and
disperse. But if this is the case, it means that the hypothesis of the
electromagnetic field internal and around the proto-organism is a likely a
tangible hypothesis.
The proto-cell, however, is not yet the cell. There are two fundamental
steps towards life:
The origin of cell duplication and the origin of the mind.
Chapter 11.
Cell duplication
11.1 Origin of offspring
1) More individuals are born than can possibly
survive
There
is no doubt that living organisms give rise to offspring, and more offspring
than they can survive.
Ernst Mayr (quoted work) 2005, after
highlighting that biology is divided into two sectors, mechanistic biology (or
functional) and the historical or evolutionary biology, says: «However, the
question that the functional biology often asked is "how", as in
evolutionary biology the most common question is "why».
Now, through the study of current living organisms, it is not possible
to understand "how" the descent entered their inheritance. However, scholars and
evolutionists have tried to understand the "why" of offspring.
In
examining the structure of the Darwinian theory Mario Ageno (quoted work) 1986,
he states: «We can now conclude our brief critical analysis of some fundamental
concepts of Darwinian theory. A few stretch marks of the ordinary setting of
the theory emerged from it, which can be summarized as follows: [...]. The theory takes note,
without trying in any way to justify, of the existence, for each living
population, of a large excess of reproductive capacity, which constitutes the
"driving force" of every evolutionary process […]». Therefore, Darwin does
not justify the "driving force" of his theory.
The question is also raised by S.J. Gould
and Elisabeth S. Vrba in "Exaptation" 2008, when they said: «In the
Darwinian theory, evolutionary change is the product of the differential
success, the different rates of birth and mortality between organisms within a
population. As such, it is a simple representation of differentials in
population: itself does not contain any statement on the causes of the
phenomenon».
Thus, more individuals are born than they can
survive.
Why?
Niels Eldredge in the essay "Ripensare
Darwin" 2008, after
highlighting that in every generation more organisms are born than can survive
and reproduce, remembers what George Williams wrote in "Adaptation and
natural selection", 1966: «The selection, in Williams’s judgment, does not tell future
developments - has no way to recognize what might be the best for the survival
of the species».
Maynard Smith (quoted work), does not seem
to share this opinion, but does not directly address the question. However, he
brought back one of Lack’s works on the number of eggs laid by herrings
(thousands) and other fish and concludes: «One might conclude that, in view of
high larval mortality, it is necessary that the herring lay a large number of
eggs in order for the species to survive. This is quite true [...]».
Mario Ageno is of the same thought when he
says (quoted work) 1986: «The first fact to highlight is the excess of
reproductive potential that every type of organism has. It is clear that
(taking also account of the inevitable possibility of occasional accidents,
which result in the elimination of populations), in order not to become
extinct, each population must be able to generate significantly more children
per parent on average than one».
SJ Gould and Elisabeth Vrba have indeed
raised the issue but did not express any opinion.
Even Niels Eldredge does not explain well
his opinion on the issue. But he, (quoted work) 2008, still states notations of
George Williams (in his opinion one of the most rigid defenders of Darwinian
tradition): «Williams, kept repeating that the selection cannot “predict” the
future, it concluded - not unreasonably - that it is not possible for organisms
to reproduce for the purpose of perpetuating the population or species to which
they belong. Natural selection cannot know in any way what is in hold for the
species as time passes». Eldredge shares the thought of Williams but disagrees
with the conclusions when Williams writes: «The purpose of the reproduction of
an individual is [...] to maximize the performance of the genetic material of
its germ cells, compared to that of other members of the same population».
So,
summarizing, why are more individuals
born than can possibly survive?
Darwin gives no justification, Williams says
that evolution cannot know the future, Maynard Smith and Mario Ageno think it
is for the survival of the species, Niels Eldredge denies them by sharing
Williams' claim that selection cannot predict the future, but does not explain
his opinion, SJ Gould and Elisabeth Vrba are silent.
From these attempts to solve the problem, what we can subscribe to is
Williams' statement: the selection does not intend any of the future; it does
not know what could be beneficial for the survival of the species.
On the other hand, in support of this
statement, the other two fundamental points of Darwin's theory can be cited:
2) Individuals
are not all equal but present random variations (in the sense of not
finalized).
Indeed, chance does
not know the future.
3) Natural
selection: the individual who presents the most suitable variation in a given
environment survives.
This leads us to conclude that
natural selection, evolution, acts on offspring, but offspring must already
exist; appearance the offspring begins the evolution.
There is no doubt, then, that
for living organisms giving rise to offspring and more offspring than they can
survive is an instinct contained, from the beginning, in their biochemical
structure. The instinct to give birth to descendants must necessarily go back
to the first cells and therefore to the origin of life. If the proto-cells had
not given rise to a descent, in a hostile world such as the primordial Earth,
subjected to infinite random adversities, they would sooner or later have
decomposed. Therefore: the offspring appears life appears.
The offspring appears with the origin of life.
But how did the offspring enter the biochemical structure of the first
protocells? i.e. how and why did the proto-cellular division begin?
Abandoned the cavity, the
environment that the proto-cells found as very well described by J. William
Schopf, “La culla della vita”2003: «Since the Earth-Moon distance was less, the
Earth rotated more rapidly, the days they were shorter, the tides more
impressive and the storms stronger. The skies were of a stale grey steel,
obscured by sandstorms, volcanic clouds, and subtle rocky debris lifted by the
meteoric bombardment. [...] Due to the almost total absence of free oxygen,
atmospheric ozone (O3), capable of absorbing ultraviolet rays, was
still scarce, and the terrestrial surface was immersed in a ultraviolet lethal light
for the first forms of life. The organisms still had to learn to face this
hostile environment [...]». Surely, due to these conditions, the salinity, the
pH, the content of organic substances contained in the clay changed
continuously and made the equilibrium reached by the proto-cell unstable.
Moreover, within the microenvironments of the clayey masses, strong
micro-currents of water could sweep it away; the survival of the proto-cell was
at risk.
Chaos dominated the environment, it was necessary to solve the problem here
and now.
As we have described elsewhere,
homeostasis remains a matter internal to the proto-cell, it has no direct
interaction with the external environment.
But then, how did homeostasis be informed
of the conditions of the surrounding environment?
As we will illustrate shortly, the
plasma membrane, in current organisms, is the dynamic centre of cellular life,
where membrane proteins play a decisive role also in cell division. The
membrane proteins, even if still rudimentary, already had to consist of a head
in contact with the external environment, a body immersed in the membrane and a
tail in contact with the internal environment. Surely, even then as today, it
was these proteins that informed homeostasis
of the chaotic and lethal conditions of the external environment and to push towards a change.
Now, the only possible change for the survival of the proto-cell was to increase its mass, and homeostasis does it in the only way it knows to do it: to build structures and produce entropy. The homeostasis co-opt in the proto-cell amino acids, sugars, nucleobases from the surrounding environment and generates DNA, RNA and proteins. But these polymers are copies of the already present polymers that, in order not to give rise to unnecessary overlapping of roles, homeostasis borders the copies in a part of the proto-cell. The increase in mass seems to give greater resistance to the proto-cell, but causes an increase in the volume and therefore of the membrane surface. For the survival of the proto-cell, homeostasis must therefore also synthesize membrane proteins. The latter, for its growth, must take other phospholipid molecules from the environment and associate through the hydrophobic part. The increase in the volume of the proto-cell puts the membrane under tension. Now, it has been shown experimentally that the addition of lipid derivatives or surfactants to pre-existing vesicles first causes a growth of the vesicles and then their spontaneous division. We can then imagine that the increase in mass and volume of the proto-cell has begun to detach the part containing the copies.
The proto-cell has become a cell.
Hence, the genes for the synthesis of the enzymes necessary for
proto-cellular division are already present in the DNA, and because they are
critical for survival, homeostasis will use these enzymes primarily for cell
division.
In this "way", the
offspring enters the biochemical structure of the first cells.
The appearance, through
homeostasis, of proteins for cell division must have been, within the two
cells, the signal for DNA replication, which led the daughter cells to have the
same genome.
As for the vesicles to which lipid
derivatives are added, the proto-cellular division has been thermodynamically favoured.
To maintain their internal balance, for their survival, the two cells give rise
to four, eight cells and so on until they create a colony. The colony of cells
occupies the microenvironment and gives rise to a homeostasis of the entire
colony that controls the parameters of the microenvironment and maintains the
thermodynamic equilibrium within it.
The membrane proteins of the cells
inside the colony, communicate to their homeostasis the improvement of
environmental parameters to their surroundings, and therefore a greater
probability of survival. But the
membrane proteins of the outer cells of the colony communicate the risk of
their position and some are even wiped out or destroyed by the hostile
surrounding environment. The homeostasis of the colony, responsible for the
survival of cells, takes from the environment the material necessary for cell
division. This division must, however, give rise to more cells than necessary,
that is, more individuals that can survive because many will not survive the
adversities of the environment.
The single cell through homeostasis maintains equilibrium within it, the
homeostasis of the colony and subsequently of the group or specie keeps the
surrounding environment in equilibrium.
However, if the cell division is already contained in the DNA, who decides
to activate the genes to produce offspring and more offspring than actually
survive?
It is the homeostasis that, designed for survival, activate the genes and
define the number of descendants of the living organisms, depending on the
nutrients available, the homeostasis of the colony, of the group or species and
environmental conditions or more generally in function of the homeostasis of
the ecosystem. If these conditions do not change, the number of descendants, so
defined, can remain roughly unchanged for thousands or millions of years.
All living organisms derive from
these primordial cells and therefore all living organisms contain in their
biochemical structure, in their genome, the ancestral instructions of descents
but must measure themselves with the surrounding environment (or if you prefer:
the offspring is genetic, how much offspring is epigenetic).
Then, "why" is the instinct to give offspring and more offspring
than can survive contained in the genome of living organisms?
To keep the surrounding environment, necessary for survival, in
equilibrium.
Explicitly, under the control of a colony,
group or species homeostasis and environmental conditions, living organisms
have children to survive and children for their survival continue to have
children. The instinct to reproduce is an instinct for one's
survival.
In the human species, cultural
evolution has brought some variation to the theme, but not that much. Let us imagine
a city that we will call A and a perfect copy of it that we will call B. Now,
while in the first city people continue to have children and many inhabitants
can reach a venerable age, in the second city the inhabitants, to save savings,
decide not to have more children.
What will happen in the city B?
It breaks the environmental
balance. To give some examples, looking only at the economic aspects, the
hospitals close the departments of new births, the trade of products for
children will disappear and the nurseries will close. The inhabitants will soon
struggle to seize the available resources, a civil war will be unleashed and no
one will reach venerable age because the city will not survive more than a few
years. First of all survive and to survive reproduce. Reproduce
for their own survival.
11.2 The unity of life
But then why life is unitary?
The DNA (deoxyribose) is the
molecule that contains genetic information. It is written in the DNA if an
organism will be a human being, a tree, or a microorganism. In the DNA of all
organisms, have been found tens of thousands of segments called genes. It is
genes, or groups of genes, which establish the colour of the skin, the number
of fingers in a hand, and so on. Every
living organism always transmits its own genetic patrimony to its descendants. This
transmission is called vertical and was believed to be the only way of genetic
transmission between living organisms.
In the 80s of the last century
were discovered in the world of bacteria and among mono cellular eukaryotes the
lateral transmission also called horizontal transmission: genes do not transmit only from one organism to its descendants, but
also from cells which do not present any link of hereditary type.
Starting from the hypothesis that
life had many origins, all almost equal because our planet's chemical physical
conditions were almost equal, it is likely that colonies of similar cells in a
given environment gave rise to a population. In the various environments, the
various populations initially developed their own metabolic pathways. The cells
that were on the periphery of each population took their nourishment from the
surrounding environment.
However, when nourishment began to
be scarce, the nourishment contained in the dead cells of other populations
could not be overlooked. The latter, however, certainly contained unknown
substances and metabolic processes. Therefore, the peripheral cells in order to fully
utilize the nourishment of cells of other populations also took possession of
the genes of their metabolic systems. These genes from the periphery were then passed on to
the whole population. All the populations must have given rise to a
community of primitive cells which, through the continuous exchange of genes,
has led to the unity of life. When prebiotic nourishment completely disappeared
in the environment, some populations became predators feeding on neighbouring
cell populations and thus the unity of life was completed.
From this community of primitive
cells finally emerged the Bacteria, the Eukaryotes and the Archaea.
Chapter 12.
The origin of the mind
12.1 The mind
in higher organisms and eukaryotes
In common
language, by the word Mind one intends memory, direction of the intellectual
and practical processes, conscience. Such a definition, even if in daily practice
it is referred to the mind as a product of the human brain, it remains,
however, a definition scientifically open.
With the coming of the neurosciences, the
definition of Mind changes and becomes an activity of special cells: the
neurons. And in fact De Duve (quoted work) 1995, writes: «Mind does not exist
without brain […]». Now, since the
different functions of the brain as of all organs are due to the different
genes contained in them (activated), the question becomes genetic. So Gay
Marcus in “La nascita della mente” 2008, informs us that «It is without doubt
possible that 5000 different genes contribute to form human intelligence and
that only some hundreds of these vary in such a way as to contribute to the
differences between one person and another.[…] the hereditary values tell us
only how the differences in these few genes are correlated to the differences
in values like those of the IQ». Therefore, when the gene or genes which
determine the IQ (Intelligence Quotient) will be identified, we shall be able,
finally, to establish who, between human beings, really possesses a Mind and
who not.
And as for me, let us hope that I make it!
Armed like this, the definition of Mind has
become a Dogma, which blocks research and creates, as we shall see, an
incredible paradox.
But do we
actually have certainties on the mind?
Christian De
Duve, after having quoted some scientists and philosophers who work on the
problem of mind, continues: «These few quotations should clear the fact that
research on the mind is still in the embryonal state. This situation does not
depend on the lack of study. In recent years, tens of books have appeared on
the argument, written by neuroscientists, linguists, specialists in computer
and philosophers, not to mention theologises. Unfortunately the theses
sustained are almost as many as the authors, also because the ideology has a
role more important in human psychology than in other scientific fields».
In other words, nobody knows how the brain
gives rise to the mind. Nobody knows if there is only the conscious mind of
humans and if there are also conscious minds in relation to the degree of
evolution of an organism in a given environment. Nobody has ever shown that a
brain is needed to create a mind.
Now, De Duve’s essay is written in 1995 and
it does not seem that in the last two decades these problems have been
resolved.
In 2005 Giorgio Vallortigara publishes the
result of his researches, included also in the essay “La mente che scodinzola”
2011. He makes it evident that: «If that which is important for living
organisms is to survive and reproduce, natural selection must have invented (as
in fact it did) a variety of expedients and shortcuts for more appropriate
behaviour in a given environment». We have made evident how the instinct of
reproduction seems contained inside the same biological structure that gave
origin to life.
But for
survival, what expedients and what shortcuts did natural selection invent for
behaviour more adequate in a certain ambience?
Vallortigara synthesises the result of his
research and writes: «In these years we have learned much on the Mind of
animals not human. Animals seem to be gifted with a basic cognitive equipment
for survival, which is then the same possessed by our species, a set of
specialized modules which consent to interact with objects, both physical
(inanimate) and social (animals), to place them in space and time, to number
them, and to make suppositions on their properties and on their behaviour and
in some circumstances to use them as instruments». Moreover: «The results hence
suggest that, over and above human beings, some other animals could have a
mental representation of the future».
But only
animals present this set of modules specialized for survival? And if they are
presented by other living organisms, can we or not call it “basic cognitive
equipment”?
In “L’origine delle teorie” (treated in:
Quattro saggi sulla scienza 2012, Le Scienze), Enrico Bellone, after having
made evident that: «There is no doubt that we more or less well adapt to our
domestic places exactly because we know how to number the things which surround
us, esteem the surfaces and volumes, reason in such a way that if a certain thing happens, then a given event can happen». A bit further,
he affirms: «It is difficult to contradict, for decades now, that living
organisms are capable of communicating between themselves, and that the
communicative ability needs forms of intelligence. Thus it happens for example
with hens. When a dog is approaching, a cockerel gives out a specific sequence
of sound. The sequence is different if, on the other hand, a hawk comes in
view. Finally, other sounds are propagated when our cockerel finds appetizing
food, and still others when the food is less interesting. And the hens which
are around assume different behaviour when they listen to those variable
acoustic stimuli: they assume it also if the stimuli are propagated not by a
watchful cockerel but by a loudspeaker. […] When we explore these situations,
we can demonstrate that the cockerel does not act as a machine (or like a
passive recipient to the inside of which a stimulus causes a reaction) but as
an organism gifted with a program: “when you find good food if a hen is around then you make calls”». He also recalls the incredible ability of
the nutcracker: «Other living organisms must, so as to survive, satisfy needs
of orienting environing and create maps. It is of a certain interest, on this
question, the relationship between a bird, which is called nutcracker, and the
zones in which the nutcracker live. This little bird, as Giorgio Vallortigara
explains, nourishes itself mainly of the seeds of conifers. Predicting winter, it
accumulates an average of 30000 seeds; not at one time but in groups of five or
six. The single groups are deposited in various biding places, about 5500
biding places. With bad weather the nutcracker goes to the biding place and
feeds itself».
Until here
following Christian De Duve, “there is nothing without a brain”.
But Bellone goes further. After having
argued on the theory of the human knowledge by Popper, he gives his attention
also to the plants: «We see them, for example, lose their leaves. Usually we
undervalue the fact that the mutations observable in these living organisms precede the real winter. In such a way,
an important aspect escapes us: plants preview a lowering of temperature and a
notable lowering in the intensity of light, which they need to live in the best
way. The prevision is notable efficient, and functions also because the
ambiance variation are periodic: the winters are similar from one year to
another, and this induces waiting. To elaborate a prevision it is necessary to
dispose of sensorial aspects, which measure, for example, the tendency of lowering
temperature of the niche. Our plants though they do not have neurons, they feel the becoming of a rigid climate and
they behave as though they were
evaluating the change perceived in the scheme “if…then”: very refined processes
inside the bodies receive external stimuli. They translate them in incorporate
languages and predispose the right reactions. In other occasions, I have already
insisted on such arguments. Particularly efficient from a didactic point of
view is the exemplary case of a wild potato, Solanum berthaulthii, which often attacked by certain aphides.
These are at their turn the prey of other organisms and when the attack
progresses, they emit and propagate in the ambiance around them very particular
molecules that are perceived by other aphides and interpreted as a signal of
alarm which creates an escape reaction. Well, the potatoes attacked by the
aphides, produce and give out the same molecular message, in such a way as to
dissuade the attackers by means of a lie communicated with the subterfuge
consisting in the ability to imitate the language of others.
It would be unforgivable, even in the seat
of the theory of knowledge, to lay in undertone this state of things.
Vegetables do not have neuron webs, or such a thing of brain. Moreover, it
would be extravagant to concede to plants a repertoire of mental states or a
conscience. In fact vegetables have languages whose basic signs are ions and
molecules, thanks to which they transfer information both at their own interior
and externally, in such a way as to establish relationships with other
vegetables».
Recently communication in plants has been
enriched again with the discovery of Simon Gilroy of the University of
Wisconsin "plant communications" The Sciences November 2018. The
researcher discovered that a lesion to a leaf is communicated to the other
leaves through a wave of calcium ions that spreads from cell to cell as in
neurons. The activated cell transmits excitement to the other cells by
secreting glutamate one of the evolutionarily older animal neurotransmitters.
Decidedly
In a much larger dimension Stefano Mancuso e Alessandra Viola introduce us in
“Verde Brillante”2013. The authors, illustrated also the results of research and
after having made it evident how the plants not only are in possession of our
own senses (view, hearing, olfaction, taste and touch) certainly developed
according to vegetable nature and not human, but they possess at least another
15, arguing: «As we well know, in fact, every plant uninterruptedly registers a
great number of ambient parameters (light, humidity, chemical quantities
gradient, the presence of other plants or animals, electromagnetic field,
gravity etc.) and on the basis of these data it is called to take decisions
which concern the search for food, competition, defence, relationship with
other plants and with animals: an activity difficult to imagine without
introducing the concept of intelligence»
And further on, after having made it evident
that plants do not have a brain at least as we intend it, and after having
asked himself the question if the brain is really the only seat of “production”
of intelligence, the authors affirm: «In plants the cerebral functions are not
separate from bodily functions, but included in every single cell: a real and
proper living example of that which students of Artificial Intelligence call embodied agent, that is an intelligent
agent which interacts with the world through its own physical body».
S. Mancuso and A. Viola, after having made
it evident that Darwin was also an extraordinary botanic report how he wrote on
the subject: «It is not an exaggeration to say that the point of the root, thus
gifted with [sensitivity] and which has the power to direct the movement of the
frontier regions, acts like the brain of an inferior animal, the brain being
situated in the anterior part of the body, receives impressions from the
sensitive organs and directs the different movements».
Hence, plants do not have a brain, at least
as we intend it. Yet, just as animals seem to be gifted with a basic cognitive equipment
for survival certainly oriented towards animal nature, one cannot deny that
also plants have a basic cognitive equipment for survival, this time oriented
towards vegetable nature.
All this enter into collision with the
dogmatic vision of the neurosciences. In
fact, Antonio Damasio in his essay (quoted work), 2012 when he defines the
conceptual picture of his hypotheses affirms: «Organisms generate the mind
thanks to the activity of special cell –neurons- […] ». And, with reference to
the success of our remote ancestor he continues: «What opened the path to complex
creatures like us? For the purpose of our appearance, an important ingredient
seems to have been movement:
something of which plants do not dispose, but with which we and some other
animals are gifted. Plants can have tropism: some are able to orientate
themselves searching for the sun or avoid shade; and some, like the carnivorous Dionaea, succeed in
capturing distracted insects. No plant however can uproot itself, go, and seek
a better environment somewhere else: the Gardner must do it for her. The tragedy
of the plants, which however they ignore, is that their cells, surrounded by a
rigid pane, like a corset, will never be able to modify their form in a
sufficient way to become neurons. Plants do not have nervous cells. Hence, they
will never have a mind».
However, Antonio Damasio, through
homeostasis, attributes to the single eukaryotic cell, concepts of desire,
will, intentions and ends which we associate to the human mind and argues: «It
has in fact been found that living creatures completely without brain, even
single cells, present forms of behaviour apparently intelligent and directed to
an end: this also is a scarcely appreciated fact».
In truth, these opinions on the behaviour of
the single cell Konrad Lorenz “L’etologia” 1978 (ed. 2011), around the middle
of the last century, he had already expressed them. In the chapter “Mechanisms
which elaborate an information momentary” with reference to the amoeboid behaviour,
(the amoeba is a unicellular organism), writes: «In its natural ambiance, that
is in a liquid of culture in which it can live permanently, the amoebae appears
to be extraordinarily adaptable in its behaviour, indeed even intelligent. It
avoids the harmful effect by means of an escape of "fear", approaches
favourable stimuli, incorporates and eats "with greed" a right
object. If it were as big as a dog, says Jennings, one of the best experts of
protozoa, one would not hesitate to attribute to it a subjective experience».
Hence, the amoebas are capable of reasoning,
of logical inferences. If they
perceive the presence of food, then
they direct themselves in the direction of the nutrition; if the ambiance is hostile, then
they go away. Unfortunately, for it, however amoeba is not big like a dog and
hence its apparent intelligence is only a mechanical question. This, as Lorenz
explains us, is due to the different capacity of the ectoplasm to react
selectively to two different categories of stimuli.
In the same chapter, Lorenz writes: «It
seems that we do not know of a unicellular capable of locomotion but without
orientation in space», and that the paramecium inside a “suspended drop” gives
phobic reactions. It is not clear how all this can be explained as a reaction
caused by a stimulus.
However, Jennigs has also carried out an
experiment which concerns the Stentor, which Lorenz has not retained to take
into consideration but Rupert Sheldrake reports in “Le illusioni della
scienza”2013: « Each Stentor is a trumpet-shaped cell, covered with thin
vibrating hairs, called eyelashes. […] These cells are fixed at their base
thanks to a “foot” and a tube similar to mucus surrounds the inferior part of
the cell. If the surface to which it is fixed is lightly shaken, Stentor
shrinks rapidly to the inside of the tube. If nothing also happens, after a
half a minute, it again extends and the cilia take up their activity again. If
the stimulus is repeated, the animal does not shrinks any more, but continues
its normal activities: this behaviour is not the result of a fatigue, because
the cell reacts shrinking if a new stimulus presents, like being touched (H. S.
Jennings). The cellular membranes of Stentor are crossed by an electric charge,
like the nervous cells. When they are stimulated, a potential of action dilates
itself on the surface of the cell, very much like a nervous impulse and this
causes the cell to shrink (C. D. Wood). When Stentor gets used to it, the
receptors on the cellular membrane become less sensitive to the mechanical
stimulation and the action potential does not go off (C. D. Wood). As the
Stentor is formed of a unique cell, its memory cannot be explained in function
of changes in the nervous terminations, or synapsis, because it does not have
any».
This sort of behaviour is called habituation, that is familiarization to
the stimuli and it is present in animals and also in humans and is associated
with the mind. If a person goes to live near a railway or near a street with
much traffic, at the beginning he is disturbed but later he gets used to it
and doesn't notice it anymore. It is a
fundamental form of memory because it permits us to adapt to the ambiance.
In other words,
Stentor remembers, Stentor has a memory.
Hence we find ourselves face to face with
unicellular organisms which are able to orient themselves in space, have
reasoning, scopes, intentions, will power, desires, memories, behaviour
“apparently” intelligent, that is a basic equipment of cognition, concept typical
of our mind; unicellular organisms which know how to look after themselves. A
cognitive baggage much more simplified than that of plants or animals, but it
is what they need for their survival.
In “La felicità della ricerca”2013, Shimon
Edelmann, after having argued on the idea that cognition is calculus, writes:
«Among the most synthetic descriptions of the nature of the human mind, the one
I prefer is that of Marvin Minsk, mathematician and informatics: “Mind is that
which does the brain”. Having given a look at the principals of that which is
mind (a bunch of calculations at the service of the prevision) and that which
makes the brain (execute those calculations), we can appreciate the word of
Minsk, but we can also make present that it gives an interpretation very
fascinating: if that which the brain does can be done with other means, then
can exist a mind also without the need of brain. To reconcile ourselves with
this tremendous affirmation, but true, […]». Further ahead: «Because the same
calculations can be done with different means, the existence of minds not
biological is a concrete possibility».
Hence, we are in front of an incredible
paradox: we are disposed to give to our manufactures the capacity of having a
mind but we refuse to give a mind not only to unicellular organisms but also to
plants. No computer can ever equal the capacities of a Stentor, but this last
is considered an insignificant microorganism whereas the computer has the
status of “electronic brain”. Yet, these organisms have reasoning, scopes,
intentions, will power, desires, memories, behaviour “apparently” intelligent,
that is a basic equipment of cognition, concept typical of our mind that no
computer owns.
And then, paraphrasing Shimon Edelmann: if what the brain does can be done by
other means, then eukaryotic
single-celled organisms and all multicellular organisms, which are not equipped
with a brain, have a mind.
In the scene
of life, mind appears even without the necessity of a brain.
The brain is
just one of the ways the mind can appear.
Hence, going from the unicellular organisms
eukaryotic, and then to the pluricellulaires up to the superior organisms (in
the sense of more complex), like plants and animals it seems that there is no
life without basic cognitive equipment, there is no survival without a mind.
To everyone
its mind.
12.2 The mind
in bacteria
So the mind is
already present in multicellular and single-celled eukaryotic organisms, and in
simpler organisms?
The eukaryotic cell has a very complex structure.
Inside it, it contains a nucleus, where can be found the genetic material
associated with proteins. The eukaryotic cell also contains some thousand
organelles mainly of two different types like
peroxisomes and mitochondria and, in the vegetal cell also the chloroplasts.
The structure of the cell is maintained by a complex structure of microtubules.
There exist cells much more simple than the
eukaryote: the prokaryotes. The
prokaryotes do not contain a nucleus and the genetic material is in direct
contact with the rest of cell. They do not contain organelles and microtubules
and their cell is much smaller and simple than the eukaryotic cell. The
diameter of the prokaryote is about 20 times smaller than the eukaryote, and
its volume is 10 000 times smaller. To have a more eloquent image, the
eukaryotic cell could contain inside it about 10 000 prokaryotes. The
prokaryotes appeared on the earth about 3,5 milliards of years ago, and for
about 2 milliards they were dominators undisputed of the planet.
The direct descendent of the primitive
prokaryotes are today bacteria and cyanobacteria, and it is thought that their
organic mass is at least the double of all other living organisms on our
planet. Bacteria and cyanobacteria are the smallest living organisms that we
know.
Hence, there
exist living organisms smaller than Stentor: bacteria. But how bacteria live,
and what is their behaviour?
Bacteria can be found at the planktonic state
that is as independent cells in a watery ambiance, or in the sessile state,
where the cells are attached, the one beside the other, on a solid surface
where they give origin to colonies.
We are in August of the long ago 1976,
Julius Adler publishes in Le Scienze “La chemiosensibiltà dei batteri”. Adler
informs us that already at the beginning of the twentieth century, it was known
that bacteria are attracted by nutritive substances and repelled by damaging
substances. And with respect to the
swimming behaviour of the bacteria, he presented the studies conducted by Berg
and Koshland, and by Koshland and others on Escherichia coli and he writes:
«[…]The final result is that the bacteria thickens close to the source of the
recall substance, and far from that of the repellent substance.[…] these
effects on the movements of the bacteria are determined not only by a spatial
gradient (for example a higher concentration of the recall substance on the
right part with respect to the left), but also by temporal gradients (for example
a higher concentration administered a second afterwards)».
Adler who in 1969 had already discovered the
chemosensory of bacteria, studying bacteria in the plankton state (that is as
independent cells in a watering ambiance), in conclusion writes: «In the end,
if we enter into the field of the bacterial “psychology”, we put in the
presence of bacteria a capillary tube containing not only a recall substance,
but also a substance which repels. In this way the bacteria could choose if
they would enter or not into the capillary. Their “decision” is dependent on
the concentrations with respect to the substance of attracting and that of
repelling. The mechanism which permits “taking a decision” in a situation of
“conflict” like this one it is still
unknown, but one can say that bacteria are able, in a way, to integrate multiple sensorial stimuli. […]. In the same
way, bacteria are attracted by heat, but not if the warm solution contains a
fairly strong repellent. In these cases, the bacteria must integrate, or
elaborate, two sensorial information: the temperature and the chemical
substance. The basic elements, which render possible the behaviour in a
superior organism, are hence present also in a single cell of bacteria […].
Obviously there must be important differences; for example, as the bacteria are
independent cells, the synaptic action between a cell and another, which is so
important in determining the behaviour in the more complex organisms, cannot
probably realize itself in them, at least
not on a cellular level».
We learn in this way that bacteria move
between schemes “if…then”, in their
own way they have knowledge of space and time, they resolve conflictual
situations integrating multiple sensorial stimuli and they elaborate divers
sensorial information.
But
all this is already configured as a basic cognitive equipment.
Adler writes that bacteria are independent
cells and synaptic action can cannot be realized between one cell and another.
However, as we have said, over the plankton state, these microorganisms can
live at the sessile state, where the cells are attached, the ones beside the
others, on a solid surface giving origin to colonies.
What is, in
the animal world the social group?
The term, referred to the higher organisms,
was invented by Ernst Mayr (quoted work): «[…] the group which has success
behaves like an all-one and is, in its unity, the favourite entity of
selection». The earth squirrels, for example, dispose of a system of sentinels,
which in the presence of predators, they emit signals and warn all the other
members of the group of a nearby danger. Therefore, one is in the presence of a
social group when one has interaction between its components, subdivision of
work, cooperation and hence communicative capacity.
What is the
behaviour of the bacteria at sessile state?
Between 1970 and 2000, communication in
bacteria was discovered and studied. As Richard Losick and Dale Kaiser report
in “La comunicazione nei batteri”1997: «[…]it was mainly believed that the
single members of a colony were essentially rigid individualists, dedicated to
themselves and not very communicative to they similar. Today instead it seems
that the greater part of the bacteria, if not all, communicate with their
neighbours». But not only this, as the authors inform us, bacteria “converse”
also with plants and animals, emitting chemical signals and reacting to them. It
should be remembered that according to Enrico Bellone (quoted work): «It is
hardly refutable, now for decades, that living organisms are capable of
communicating one with another, and that communicative ability require forms of
intelligence».
On the sessile state, from the middle of the
‘90’s, new knowledge was added, which has changed the opinion of many
biologists on bacteria.
As J. W. Casterton and Philp S. Stewart
expose in “Combattere i Biofilm” Le Scienze 2001, the study of bacteria begins
at the end of the 19th century when the theory of the germ of Robert
Koch was declared valid. According to the authors the researches worked out for
a century in all the laboratories in the world, they were based on presumptions
not completely exact, because bacteria were imagined like separate cells. That
is, it was thought that bacteria led a free and independent life, even if
inside colonies. In addition, the authors write: « But this image was related
to the way researchers usually examine microorganisms: by looking at cells under
a microscope in culture suspended in a small drop of liquid. It is an easy
process from an operative point of view, but not on the whole appropriate, because
these experimental conditions do not correspond at all to those of the
environment in which microorganisms effectively find themselves living». In
other world around the middle of ’90’s, it turned out that if the bacteria are
found in laboratory cultures, with the nutrients available, these could live
independently or else they organize themselves in colonies attached to solid
surface. In natural ambiance, where their survival is threatened, bacteria
organize themselves in micro colonies, held together and protected by very
complex and resistant film called “Biofilm”. The bacteria that found in
laboratory crops rich in nutrition do not give origin to a “Biofilm”.
As can be deduced from the article cited,
this research has shown that the biofilm forms the 2/3 of all the material of
the micro-colony and it is traversed by micro canals through which the
nutrition passes. Inside the biofilm, in the natural ambiances, the cells communicate,
organize all the strategies for their survival and reproduction producing
hundreds of proteins that are not found in the cells cultivated in laboratory.
It has also been discovered that some bacteria escape from the colonies,
staying free for a brief time (planktonic form). These however, through the
emission of signal molecules, reunite in another place. When enough cells are
united and the molecular signals attain a certain concentration, changes in the
activity of some genes have origin and the production of the biofilm starts.
This mechanism is called “individuation of quorum” or “quorum sensing”.
After another five years of research, the
mechanism of communication of the bacteria were so complex that a new article
on Le Scienze 2005, by Cristina Valsecchi has an emblematic title, “La vita
sociale dei batteri”. In this article it is shown how according to the species
and the ambiance conditions, the “quorum sensing” regulates the much different
functions of the bacteria: the exchange of genetic material, the mobility of the
cells, the synthesis of the Biofilm, the production of toxic substances, the
communication and the cooperation not only between cells of the same specie but
also between bacteria of different species. Cristina Valsecchi reports what one
of the greatest experts of biofilm in the world affirms, Roberto Kolter: «[…]
in laboratory, cultivated in a test-tube in a favourable ambiance, rich in
nourishing substances, the bacteria behave like isolated and independent cells,
they do not have any reason to interact. It is in difficult conditions that
microorganisms aggregate and make a common front to ensure their own survival
and their reproduction. […]Most human pathogens form biofilm in the organism of
the hosts infected […]». Moreover, adds the author: «In the biofilm,
unicellular microorganisms undergo transformations which bring them to
specialize themselves. The colony assumes the characteristics of a
multi-cellular organism». And Kolter adds: «Specialization also plays an
important role in the development of medicine resistance: the bacteria that
form the top layer in a biofilm are the first to be reached by medicines. With
appropriate chemical messengers they warn the under strata of microorganisms
which have time to activate molecular defences on the membranes of the cells to
overcome the attack». Around 2006 various technologies were created to
cultivate Biofilm in laboratory. As we are informed by Joe J. Harrison and
Raymond J, Turner in “Biofilm” Le Scienze 2006: «One of this uses a rotating
disc placed in the culture broth in which has been injected a bacteria colony.
The force given by the pressure of the fluid provoked by the rotation
stimulates the formation of a Biofilm on disc».
So, also in laboratory cultivation, as soon
as the ambiance becomes hostile, the bacteria give origin to a protective
screen, the Biofilm.
Harrison and Turner admit however that: «To
say the truth, not everyone agrees on the fact that the biofilm are the main
organisation that bacteria assume in nature. The greatest part of the methods
in laboratory now used analyse microorganisms cultivated in a plankton form».
And important
results have been obtained also by studying bacteria, in laboratory, in the
sessile state.
Hanna Kuchment in “Il batterio piu’
intelligente”, Le Scienze 2011, reports what Eshel Ben-Jacob affirms on a study
of colonies of Paenibacillus vortex
made to grow in a capsule of Petri: «When they act together, these microscopic
organisms can perceive the ambiance, elaborate information, resolve problems
and decide how to thrive in a difficult environment” And Hanna Engelberg-Kulka and colleagues in
“PLoS Biology” (from Le Scienze on line) have discovered that bacteria have two
systems of programmed death (Apoptosis). One of these systems depends on the
cellular density and it primes in case of alimentary crisis. Such a mechanism
determines the death of a sufficient number of bacteria to guarantee to the
survivors the necessary primary material.
Well, the research carried out in the last
ten years on bacteria now widely use terms like: communication, cooperation,
languages, social behaviour, intelligence, information, altruism; it seems that
one is reading articles on “Psicologia contemporanea”. To all this it is
necessary to add that the bacteria move according to schemes if…then and they have in their way
knowledge of space and time, they resolve conflictual situations and elaborate
different sensorial information.
To be precise, in the planktonic state the
bacteria have a basic cognitive equipment. In the sessile state more than
presenting a basic cognitive equipment, the bacteria have a behaviour similar
to the behaviour of social groups found among animals.
But bacteria
do not have a brain!
Let us start from the facts, with the
ascertainment that Bacteria possess concepts typical of our mind also.
So the question is, what generates in the
prokaryotes: reasoning, communication, languages, intelligence, information,
altruism, and social behaviour, concept typical of our mind?
Still paraphrasing Shimon Edelmann: if that which the brain does can be done
with other means, then the bacteria,
even if they do not have a brain, are gifted with a mind.
In the scene
of life, the mind appears without the necessity of brain.
The brain is
just one of the ways the mind can appear.
And then, starting with the bacteria and
going on with the unicellular eukaryotes organisms up to the complex organisms
like plants and animals, we all use the same logic patterns. It seems that
there is not life without a basic cognitive equipment, there is no survival
without a mind. To everyone its mind.
12.3 The
appearance of the Mind in the history of life
With reference
to the capacity of forming Biofilm Costerton and Steward in (cited article),
after having made it clear that only around half of the nineties the strategy
of survival of the bacteria in natural ambiance was understood, they write (the
underlining is mine): «Looking backward, it is very surprising the fact that it
took so much time to decide and consider the way in which the bacteria
effectively live. After all, bacterial biofilms are found everywhere: the
dental plate, the muddy film on a rock moistened by a creek and the mucilage which appear in a vase of flowers
after two or three days, these are some examples particularly familiar». And
they affirm: «In fact, the genetic diversity of microorganisms capable of
forming similar structures and the enormous variety of ambience which can be
invaded by these microorganisms make us think that this capacity must be a very
ancient strategy for the proliferation of microorganisms»
But how
ancient?
Strong
indications, in this direction, we can have them from the study of antique
fossils.
As we have already seen the ambiance was
rich in organic substances, one can think that the first forms of life were
heterotroph that is microorganisms that nourished themselves on substances that
could be found in the ambiance around them. One can also think that these
organisms very rapidly gave origin to autotroph organisms that is organisms
like the cyanobacteria, which synthesize themselves the substances of
nutrition. If this were not so, when the alimentary stores were exhausted, they
would be extinct and with them life itself. How quick this apparition has been,
that is not known, perhaps a thousand years or a million, but certainly the
cyanobacteria, if not really the first, they are very antique organisms and it
is thanks to them that life has been able to prosper.
In a place in Australia called North Pole,
which is part of the Pilbara Block, were found, in 1976, stratified structure
formed of small granules of limestone and silicates. Such structures called
Stromatolites, have been dated and date back to around 3, 5 billion years ago.
In the zone of North Pole, in a rocky unity
known as the Apex flint and dated 3,47
milliards of years ago, in 1986 J. William Schopf has discovered the most
antique fossils known until today and called “Apex fossils”. Schopf has
published the result of his research in 1993.
He has taken and commented his discovery, with a broader view, in an essay, (quoted work). In this essay he writes: «The fossil cells, analysed on the microscope at a high resolution in thin petrographic sections or in residues resistant to acids, often show characteristics of dimension, form, cell structures and aspect of the colony practically the same as those of microorganisms actually alive». And «Unlike the filaments of the Proterozoic, these “float” scattered like raisins in a slice of fruit-cake, in thick masses filiform of that which originally was a mucilage gelatinous. Many prokaryotes and almost all the cyanobacteria secrete mucilage from their cells, but the Apex community is the only one known in which microorganisms lived included in such voluminous masses. Since it is the only microbic community known in rocks so antique, it is impossible to say if the secretion of abundant mucilage was typical». With reference to the ambient scene, he writes: «Because the distance Earth-Moon was less, the Earth rotated more rapidly, the days were shorter, the tides more strong and the storm also. The heavens were of a foggy steel grey, obscured by sand storms, volcanic clouds and subtle rests of rocks lifted by the bombardment of meteors. […] Because of the almost total absence of free oxygen, the atmospheric ozone (O3), capable of absorbing the ultraviolet rays, was still scarce, and the surface of the Earth was immersed in an ultraviolet light, mortal to the first form of life. The organisms yet had to learn to face this hostile ambiance […] » This mucilage according to Schopf: «[…] has had a part in helping the first microorganisms in evolution to face an ambiance hard and inhospitable».
Hence, 3,5 milliards of years ago the first
organisms produced mucilage, that is
Biofilm. But the production of Biofilm is active by the “Quorum sensing” which,
as we have seen, regulates the most different functions of the bacteria: the
exchange of genetic material, the mobility of the cells, the synthesis of
biofilm, the production of toxic substances, communication and cooperation not
only between the same species but also between bacteria of different species.
Hence the microorganism, already 3,5
milliards of years ago, lived like bacteria live today, and in fact Schopf,
with respect to the evolution of bacteria, adds: «In simple words we believe
that the cyanobacteria have maintained the status quo, with very little
modifications from when they irrupted on the scene milliards of years ago». And
he called this type of evolution ipobraditelia.
Hence, he takes up again the opinion
already expressed by the famous palaeontologist Elso S. Barghoorn (cited
article): «All the organisms whose genetic material is dispersed inside the
cell and whose reproduction is not conditioned by the recombination of the
genes of the progenitors are genetic conservative. In organisms of this type
the rare mutations, instead of being transmitted, when they are useful, are
eliminated in a few generations».
William Schopf moreover with regard to the
fossil documentation of the Precambrian, after having shown that these fossils
are mainly of a spherical form or with filaments ribbon-like, adds: «The
spherical fossils can be found alone, in couples or in colonies made up of some
unity, of hundreds or also thousands of cells, and they are often surrounded by
one or more strata of a subtle membrane, a residues of capsules of mucilage of revetment».
So the precursors of bacteria already 3,5
milliards of years ago lived like today bacteria live: in the planktonic state,
that is like free cells in a water surrounding; in the sessile state, that is
one beside the other forming colonies. And for what regards the ribbon-like
filament, after having made it clear that the bacteria are wrapped in a
sheathing mucilaginous tubular of wrapping and that often is conserved only the
sheathing with a spaghetti form he writes: «[…] One observes that all fossils
or almost can re-enter in modern types, and even 40% is not distinguishable
from precise living cyanobacteria. All the form of the colonies known in the
modern groups are present in the fossils and the tubular fossil sheathing are
identical as to form, dimension and structure up to the respective living
species».
Schopf's work
has been questioned by some researchers, but Schopf has brought more evidence
to support his conclusions. On the other hand, the same researchers who raised
doubts about Schopf's work have communicated that they too have found
microorganisms dating back to 3.4 billion years ago in the town of Apex. To
date, there remains only the doubt as to whether all these ancient fossils are
truly autotrophic or heterotrophic, (Hazen 2017).
As we have
said, modern stromatolites can be found at the Shark Bay in Australia. It is
believed that also the antique stromatolites were formed from sediments and
from the activity of bacteria colonies like the modern ones.
Schopf
illustrates the formation of the stromatolites: «If however the conditions
change, for example, if spring rain floods the growth surface and covers it
with mud, the cyanobacteria react. The most important imperative for all living
beings is to stay in life and to succeed, the cyanobacteria need solar light.
For this reason, if a layer of mud blocks the solar rays, the filament types
get rid of their revetment mucilaginous and slide towards the upper part
through the sediments to find once again a surface exposed to the sun, which
afterwards they rapidly colonize.
The
photosynthetic bacteria of the under felt which are also in need of solar
light, follow the example freeing of their turn a space, immediately occupied
by the anaerobic which come up from below to feed on whatever organic material
is abandoned».
Hence, the
imperative for all living beings is to stay in life and to succeed in this they
move between schemes: if…then.
To conclude the fossil documentation gives
us strong indications that for 3,5 milliards of years ago the life of the
bacteria remained almost unchanged. Already at the dawn of life, these,
according to the ambient conditions, lived either in the planktonic state or in
the sessile state. The mucilage
today called Biofilm, was already present 3,5 milliards of years ago. And if
the Biofilm was already present in such organisms, then was already active the
“Quorum Sensing”.
One can hence
presume that the prokaryotes were, already at their origin, in possession of:
reasoning, communication, languages, social behaviour, intelligence,
information, altruism, which is ultimately a mind.
As we have
shown, it is to be held that the organic mass of bacteria and cyanobacteria is,
today, double the mass of all the other living organisms in our planet.
And then it is
hence to presume that only the possession of the characteristics mentioned
above, only the possession of a mind, has enabled the primitive cells, which
appeared 3,5 milliards of years ago, to dominate the world for the first 2
milliards of years and to be still today protagonists of life in our planet.
And if life,
as we believe, had its beginning with the prokaryotes, then:
Once life
appears, the mind appears.
12.4 But where does
the mind emerge from?
In the ´70s,
as affirmed by the psychologist Richard Gregory “La mente nella scienza” 1985.
R. Mark proposed a chemical theory that hypothesized the existence of
"memory molecules". But as writes Nicolas Humphrey, a scientific
psychologist, as he himself defines, in “Polvere d’anima” 2013: «The
psychologist Walter Mischel has ironically observed: “Psychologists treat other
people`s theories as tooth brushes. No-one with a minimum of dignity would use
that of another”. And the philosophers tend to be even more parsimonious».
We have already written that the word Mind
means: memory, direction of intellectual and practical processes, conscience.
These concepts, which define Mind, we have seen them, certainly in a simple
way, not only in the pluricellular organisms but also in unicellular organisms.
The examples, which have been reported, are only some of the hundreds of
publications, which show how typical concepts of our mind are in possession of
all living organisms.
But in the
unicellular organisms, from where does the mind emerge and when, that is, in
what circumstances?
All composed substances can be divided in
organic and inorganic compounds. The organic compounds are about 1,5 Million;
they all contain at least one atom of carbon and are derived from living
organisms or from artificial synthesis.
The inorganic compounds are about 150000.
Even if they include the carbonate rocks, these compounds are constituted essentially
of all the other natural elements, with the exclusion of carbon. Of all the
inorganic compounds known, only about thousand, the minerals can be found in
nature as constituents of the Earth’s surface.
The minerals are to be found essentially in the crystalline state, where
the particles (atoms, molecules or atomic groups) have a spatial disposition
perfectly regular and rigorously geometrical. The crystals can give origin to
splendid and complex geometric structures or aggregates where the most various
colours shine, but as we have already illustrated, inorganic matter is
inanimate.
As living organisms are made up essentially
of organic substances, life and mind are properties, which emerge only from
organic matter.
We have seen how an equipment of basic
knowledge, that is mind, is in possession of all living organisms, included the
bacteria, which are the smallest living organisms. However, there exist
organisms smaller than bacteria: virus.
The virus are made up of a proteic involucre
called capsid. Inside this involucre
is contained a molecule of nucleic acid, their genetic patrimony. As they do
not have a cellular apparatus, they cannot reproduce and hence they are not
considered living organisms.
But do virus
present concepts typical of mind? Can we affirm that virus present a basic
knowledge equipment?
Dorothy Crawford microbiologist, one of the
most important experts of virus, in an essay, (quoted work), 2002, writes:
«Intelligent, clever, ingenious; these are only a few of the adjectives usually
used for viruses, and apparently they describe them well. […] Moreover, they
seem capable of planning a strategy of attack and survival, but this would mean
giving for certain that they are able to think. Yet viruses have no brain, and
so they are unable to control their destiny. How can an organism so small and
simple be so “intelligent”?» But Dorothy
Crawford, after having briefly examined the bacteria, further on adds:
«Contrary to bacteria the virus can do nothing by themselves. They are not cell
but particles, and they do not have a source of energy nor any of the cellular
apparatus necessary to produce proteins. Each of them is made up simply of
genetic material surrounded by a protective proteic shell, called capsid. […] But to succeed in using it,
they must penetrate in a living cell and assume its control. […] In this way
the virus invade living beings, they take possession of cells, and transform
them in fabrics for the production of viruses». Moreover, as Crawford inform us
again, outside the host cell, the viruses cannot survive long because they not
dispose of the metabolic processes of cell.
Hence, it is not enough for virus to be in
possession of nucleic acid. These present concepts typical of our mind only
when they take possession of a cell. This means that the basic knowledge
equipment has its seat in the cell. However, it also means that the mind does
not emerge directly from the genetic patrimony.
Homeostasis or
regulatory circuit
Konrad Lorenz in (quoted work), first of all
makes a distinction between information acquisition by the genome and learning.
He dwells on a third category of processes, which serve to acquire information
but do not absorb it: «The simplest form of acquiring information momentarily
is the regularizing circuit or homeostasis. Such a mechanism permits for the
living beings to find once more and to maintain their equilibrium after a
disturbance. If an animal who lacks oxygen breaths more rapidly or in the
presence of excessive food, temporarily stop eating, this means that the organism
is not only informed about the need for certain substances, but also about the
"market situation" that exists in its environment with reference to
this substance.. The structure of the programmed regularization circuit in the
genome makes it possible to maintain a certain "normal value" in the
organism. The regularizing circuit or homeostasis in the field of the living is
practically omnipresent and it is unimaginable a life without this function.
One could think that it appeared at the same time as life, unless the first
vital processes did not appear in an ambiance of such a high constancy (not
imaginable) rendering superfluous to keep count the momentary information».
But the ambiance as it is described by
Shopf, 3, 5 milliard of years ago, when life had its origin, was not all
constant, it was an infernal ambience. Hence, the homeostasis appeared at the
same time as life.
On homeostasis works also Freeman J. Dyson
in (quoted work) 2002, where he writes: «The essential characteristic of living
beings is homeostasis. That is the capacity of maintaining a uniform chemical
equilibrium and more or less constant in a changing ambiance. The homeostasis
is this complex of chemical controls and of cycles of retroaction, which
enables every molecular species, inside the cell, to be produced in the right
proportion: not too much and not too little. Without homeostasis there could
not be neither an ordered metabolism nor an equilibrium almost stationary,
nothing which could deserve the name of life».
The neuro scientist Antonio Damasio in
(quote work), defines the homeostasis, present in all living organisms, like
all the operations of management to procure the sources of energy, incorporate
them, transform them and eliminate the residues: «It aims at maintaining the
chemical parameters of the organism (the internal milieu) between that magic
interval compatible with the life of cell itself».
And Christian de Duve, with reference to the
cellular body of the neuron (quoted work) 1995, writes: «The body of the cell
occupies itself with all the functions necessary to the life of the cell
itself: it is the unity chosen at the same time to furnish energy and to occupy
itself of the maintenance and of the reparations».
As exposed above, the homeostasis remain on
the other hand a question internal to the cell, in the sense that the
metabolism controls and maintains the right parameters, and the genome repairs
the damage of the metabolism. It does not have any direct interaction with the
external ambiance, it does not elaborate information. The homeostasis or
regularizing circuit cannot be the place where the mind emerges.
Hence, the mind, as we have seen analysing
the behaviour of the viruses, does not emerge from nucleic acid, that is from
genetic patrimony, but neither from the homeostasis.
But then, in
the cell, where does the mind emerge?
Before giving an answer to this question, we
must clear up another question. The mind in our species emerges from the brain,
which is made up of nervous cells or neurons. But concepts typical of our mind
we have found them also in bacteria.
And then, how
different are the neurons from the other cells and in particular from the
unicellular?
The neurons are made up of a cellular body
from which goes out a prolongation called axon, through which they transmit
signals to the other cells. From the cellular body take leave also the
prolongation called dendrites, through which the neurons receive signals from
the other nervous cells. The brain of monkeys, of hens, is also made up of
neurons and neurons can be found in worms.
Neurons seem,
at first sight different from all the other cells. But how much different?
With reference to the data of comparative
anatomy, Aurelio Bairati, in “Compendio di anatomia umana”, 1975, faces the
problem of the delimitation and recognition of the most simple nervous elements
in the lowest phyla. In particular, he asks himself if one should consider as
nervous elements the cells muscle epithelium of the low metazoan, capable of
gathering stimuli at the body’s surface and manifesting phenomena of
contraction; or consider as primitive nervous elements, the modified epithelial
elements, of coating, linked to contractile elements capable of collecting
environmental variations, that is peripheral receptive cells. And he adds:
«Unfortunately studies at this level are spoiled by the fact of often not
wanting to take account that all the cellular elements, even on a small base,
are capable of manifesting phenomenon classifiable as nervous. We must in fact
remember that one of the properties of living matter and of the cellular state
is irritability, that is the capacity
to respond immediately to stimuli, […]».
Alessandro
Minelli in “Forme del divenire. Evo Devo: “la biologia evoluzionistica dello
sviluppo”, 2007, writes: «The cases in which our classifications go in crisis
are not rare. And to come out without being too subtle we content ourselves with
creating new hybrid classes, as in the case of the myoepithelial cells (a bit
muscular fibres, a bit revetment cells) or of those neuro epithelial (a bit
revetment cell, a bit neuron) which we find in the body of the hydra and the
other cnidarians». And after clarifying that evolution does not only involve
organs and systems, he adds: «Moreover many significant turns in the story of
evolution really depended on changes in the properties and in the functions of
the single cell: for example in their capacity of remaining sticking the ones
against the others – a fundamental property in passing from the condition
unicellular to the pluricellular – or its getting longer in answer to definite
stimuli, as can be observed both in the hyphae of mushrooms as in neurons of
animals and in the vegetative apices of green plants».
Christian de Duve in (quoted work), 1995 in
the chapter dedicated to the brain with reference to the neurons writes:
«Subtle extroflessions filamentous form the parts receiving and transmitting.
[…] The neurite or axon […]
and the dendrites. […] The emission of extroflessions is a general property of
the eukaryote cell. Such processes, or pseudopods (in Greek), which carry out
functions in the perception, in the capture of nourishment or in the
locomotion, usually have an ephemeral existence and are retired immediately
after having been emitted. In these reversible phenomena, they play an
important role mounting and dismounting of microtubules. We can affirm that a
neuron had its origin for the first time when such extroflessions became stable
– when the evanescent micro tubules transformed themselves in microtubules
stable – and they polarized themselves in receptionist and transmitters
unidirectional».
Gary Marcus also dealt with the difference
between normal cells and neurons. In reference to neurons, he writes (cited
work): «Even if the external aspect and its special aptitude in calculation and
in communication at a long distance make them seem different from the greater
part of the other cells, underneath it all, what they do is the same as what
the other cells do. Their cellular body (called soma) contains the variety of particles (called organelles) as a cell of the skin or the
liver: mitochondria to produce energy, establishments for the synthesis of
proteins called “endoplasmic reticulum”, membranes to keep invaders out and
nuclei to contain the DNA. A neuron whatever, in fact, begins its life as an
epithelial cell and, if it were not for a few chemical indications, could just
as well finish on the outside just like a cell of the skin. Many of the most
spectacular specializations of the neuron are only variations on normal
cellular themes. For example, the neuron has more mitochondria than usual in
such a way as to satisfy the high request of energy. Also the long subtle axons
are not something completely new: the proteins of the cytoskeleton fibrous on
which the structure of the axons and the microtubules bases itself, like conducts,
which they use to transport material, they can both be found practically in
every cell. The neurons, cells characteristic of the brain, are special, but
not more so than the other almost 210 types of cell of the human body». Marcus,
after having made it clear that in the animal world the genes over and above
the development of the brain influence the development of the mind, he writes.
«Many genes and proteins which take part in the construction of the brain have
stories which go back to a time very much before that in which the branch of
the primates bifurcated from that of the other mammals; of some of them one can
even follow the traces backwards to the bacteria».
Definitely, from the point of view
biochemical and physiological, all the cells, including the unicellular,
manifest nervous phenomena and the capacity of communicating and elaborating
information. About 600 millions of years ago, during the cellular division, we
do not know why, the cells, instead of separating, stayed together giving
origin to the pluricellular organisms. At this point, it became necessary to
coordinate the nerve manifestations, communication and information processing
of the individual cells.
The brain,
seat of the mind, is an interface where is elaborated information which comes
from the inside of the body and from the external environment.
But what
structure in the cell is, like the brain, the interface between the inside and
the external environment?
The cellular
membrane.
The cellular membrane or plasmatic membrane
is made up of a skeleton of phospholipid. It defines the boundaries of the cell
and separates the inside of the cell, the cytoplasm, from the external
environment. Anchored to the cellular
membrane, one finds enzymatic protein and hence it also carries out a catalytic
function. Moreover, engrained in the membrane one can find protein biosensors
and protein channels through which the cell controls that which must enter and
that which must go out. Proteins constitute 50-75% of the substances present in
the membrane. As exposed by Romano Viviani in “Elementi di biochimica” 1984,
(Significato biochimico dei fosfolipidi, pag. 239); the phospholipid accomplish
important functions which concern the activity of the enzymatic proteins and of
transport present in the membranes. In particular: «[…] it has been
demonstrated a specific role of the phospholipid with allosteric effects,
transporters of reagent and activators of the substrata».
Therefore, all
the components of the cellular membrane are in continuous and active
cooperation and coordinate their activities.
Moreover, as Pietro Amodeo informs us in
“Anatomia comparata ed evoluzione della cellula” Le Scienze Quaderni n.7, 1983
with reference to the bacteria cell: «The plasmatic membrane carries out
different and essential functions: it regulates the flux of nutrition and hence
the growth and cellular reproduction; it regulates the flux of ions and hence
the excitability; it supports many enzymes and enzymatic apparatus and it is
hence the principal seat of metabolism; it is the seat of flux of protons for
the refurnishing of the energy, and in the end it furnishes the places of
anchorage for the chromosome, for a part of ribosomes and for the flagella, if
these little organelles are present. This list is enough to convince that the
plasmatic membrane is the dynamic centre of the cellular life»
Even if in the unicellular eukaryotes (cells
that have a nucleus) some of these functions are transferred in the interior of
the cell, the plasmatic membrane remains however, the dynamic centre of the
cellular life, where the proteins have a determinate role.
The study of the functioning of the proteins
begins with the theory of the key and lock elaborated by Emil Fisher for
enzymes. At that time, it was thought that the enzymes had a rigid structure.
Later studies have made it evident that enzymes present a certain modulation,
they are flexible in the sense that their structure remoulades adapting to the
substratum to be catalysed. Moreover, allosteric molecules can modify the
structure of the enzyme, that is molecules that bind to specific sites and the
enzyme takes on a new conformation.
The modulation is not a characteristic only
of enzymatic protein but it concerns all the globular proteins and hence also
the protein biosensors and protein channels contained in the cellular membrane.
Russell F. Doolittle in “Le proteine” Le
Scienze 1985, informs us: «A typical globular protein contains about 350 amino
acids which could fold in innumerable ways, […]. In a certain sense it is
extraordinary that a random protein constantly assumes a single conformation
well defined; the folded condition has in fact a free energy inferior to whatever alternative
configuration, but the difference is small».
Rupert Sheldrake (quoted work), quotes
Christian Anfinsen, Nobel Prize for the refolding of the proteins: « […] if the
single residues of a polypeptide chain could have only two states, an
estimation roughly by defect, conformations generated in a casual way would be
1045 for a chain of 150 residue amino acids (even if, obviously, the
greater part would be impossible from a steric point of view)».
Even if the
greater part of the conformations were impossible, in a single enzymatic protein,
however an enormous number of conformations at low energy would remain, perhaps
billions, where the difference of energy, between the various conformations, is
small. A slight change in the surrounding ambience is enough to make a protein
pass from one conformation to another.
Around the
´80s, it was made clear how some enzymes are, in reality, a grouping of several
enzymes. A modification induced in the structure of one of the enzymes leads to
changes also in the enzymes associated in a sort of enzymatic “cooperation”.
Nigel Unwin and Richard Henderson in “La
struttura delle proteine delle membrane biologiche” Le Scienze 1984, after
having made it clear that the biological membrane are not simple container, but
they behave as mediators highly specific between the cell and the surrounding
ambience, they write: «The groups of helices and foils probably fuse in
compact globular molecules, which vary as dimensions, form and number of polypeptide
chains. Many of these molecules can associate on the level of the membrane,
creating composite structures. Such a composite structures could be compared to
certain hydro soluble enzymes, which consist in many sub unities; these last go
through small restructuration “cooperative” in answer to stimuli of a specific
nature».
Hence, the
memory of specific stimuli is conserved in the conformation of the protein of
membrane.
Daniel E. Koshland Jr, in “Conformazione
delle proteine e controllo biologico” Le Scienze Quaderni n.44, 1988, with
reference to the flexibility of proteins, writes: «The sensorial receptors
which make us able to see, to hear, to taste, to smell, are proteins. The
antibodies, which immunize us, are proteins. Recent experiments have
demonstrated that it is the capacity of these proteins of changing form by the
effect of external influence to furnish the mechanism of control so essential
for the living systems». That is, an odour changes the conformation of a protein,
when the same odour presents itself the protein recognizes it again.
But then the proteins conserved in their
conformations, the memory of the sensorial stimuli. And Koshland with reference
to the entity of the modifications of conformation and of the propagation,
writes: «It hence seems that the modification of the conformations induced in
the proteins they are not propagated like
concentric rings provoked by the fall of a stone in a pool. Rather, it is
something similar to a spider's web whose threads are arranged in such a way as
to transmit a hit from one end to the opposite end of the net. The hit can be
transmitted at a great distance and can change the position of many threads,
but an accurate design can guarantee that some threads remain unmoved, whereas
others move in an appreciable measure. The protein like the spider web is
predisposed to transmit information in a selective way to some regions while
leaving others unchanged». And again: «These modifications of form […] are
rather like the delicate reactions of a cobweb fabricated with an equilibrium
exquisite. The subtle web, which we call protein, can be changed in its form by
minute hits, and it is through the repercussions of these hits that the
functions can be put into motion or blocked».
Essentially, the information is transmitted
in a selective way and are conserved by changing only some regions. The
difference of energy between the new conformation and the preceding one is
little. But how we have seen before, the number of conformations, at low energy,
it is enormous. This means that the proteins can archive, in their
conformations, a great number of information.
And Koshland continues: «Moreover, it has
been suggested recently that a slow change of conformations is at the basis of
a certain sort of memory typical of bacterial chemotaxis, that is that
phenomenon for which a bacteria, put into a solution of certain chemical substances,
moves in answer to a gradient of concentration. A change of this type can have
at its counterpart in the nervous system of animals».
Hence, already
in 1988 Koshland suggested that memory of bacteria can be contained in the
conformation of proteins.
The proteins,
in unicellular organisms, could be the “molecules of memory” hypothesized by R.
Mark.
Because these proteins are disseminated in
the cellular membrane, it is hence possible that one of the properties
fundamental in mind has a seat in the cellular membrane and in particular in
the membrane proteins.
Let us sum the
above exposed facts.
All the components of the cellular membrane
are in continuous and active cooperation and coordinate their activities. The
cellular membrane receives information from the inside of the cell and, through
biosensors receives information from the external world; it is therefore a
means of communication and data processing. The proteins disseminated in the
plasmatic membrane can assume numerous conformations at a low energy with small
difference of energy. A stimulus or a change of ambiance can modify the
conformation of a protein and conserve its memory. The information are stored
in a protein under the form of different conformation, it can hence conserve an
enormous quantity of information.
We could compare the final structure of a
protein with the water that comes down from a mountain and collects in a
reservoir at the end of the valley after having lost all its potential energy. So
let us imagine that from the mountain a stone rotates down and falls in the
basin, splashing water on the surface outside of the basin. Slowly the water,
energetically instable, goes back to the original basin cancelling every memory
of event. But, if the water that splashes is abundant and gives origin to a
small puddle, it does not come back. In the new basin, the water has a little
energy more but it is energetically stable because it cannot come out of the
puddle. It remains there to conserve the memory of event.
Now, let us imagine a protein of membrane
that receives a stimulus and changes its structure. The protein presents, in
the new structure, the memory of event. If the new structure is energetically
unstable slowly, it returns to its original structure, losing the memory of the
stimulus. All of this could also be envisaged as a sort of short-term memory. If
however the new structure, which the protein assumes as an effect of the
stimulus, is one of the structures stable energetically, it will maintain the
new structure and will conserve the memory of the event.
The plasmatic membrane is really the dynamic
centre of the cell and following the suggestion of Kosland, one can advance the
hypothesis that the membrane proteins are the seat of the memory.
However, most
scientists believe that proteins cannot be the seat of memory because they
decompose and, even if after some time they are renewed, their information
content has been lost in decomposition. This opinion dates back to an idea by
Francis Crick from the mid-60s of the last century. However, after more than
half a century this idea should already be overcome.
Meanwhile, the sensory proteins in the cell
membrane are millions. Each protein can take billions of conformations and
store billions of information. It is then possible that the information is not
stored in a single protein but in hundreds if not in thousands of proteins. If
a protein breaks down there are many others to retain information. In addition,
recent research has shown that there is a class of proteins called chaperone or
chaperonins in cells. To understand how works Mike Williamson (quoted work) use
the following metaphor: «In the nineteenth century, a single woman in public
was often accompanied by a chaperone, an older or married woman who prevented
her friend from engaging in inappropriate contacts with the opposite sex. By
analogy, a chaperone protein works by preventing unstructured proteins from
engaging in unwanted interactions […]».The chaperonins instead lead the primary
structure to the right conformation. They have a barrel shape with a cavity
inside where the protein, after assuming the right conformation, is then
released. In addition, we have also advanced the hypothesis of the existence,
in the proto-organism, of subsets with its own electromagnetic field in
synergistic coordination with the internal electromagnetic field and around the
proto-organism. If we extend this hypothesis to the cell, we can hypothesize
that a metabolic cycle or a group of enzymes constitutes a subset with its own
electromagnetic field. If an enzyme from the subset decomposes, the
electromagnetic field becomes unstable. When the new enzyme molecule is
synthesized, it will then be the electromagnetic field of the subset which, in
order to return stable, will impose the right conformation on the new enzyme,
restoring all the information that was contained in the previous enzyme.
Memory is one of the properties that we
associate with the mind, but memory alone does not represent the mind. It, as
we have described, can be part of a mechanistic process, that is, a complex of
chemical interactions and feedback cycles. In living organisms memory, which we
associate with the definition of mind, can exist even without the presence of a
mind and can act autonomously.
But then, the
mind, when does it emerge and from where?
As we have shown if a bacteria receives at
the same time, a stimulus which communicates to it the presence of a repellent
and a stimulus which communicates the presence of a nutrition, how can it
choose? Because, as Adler writes, the “decision” depends on the concentrations,
we indicate with N the nutrient that is the substance of attraction and with R
the repellent. The bacteria seems to act in this way: If the concentration of the nutrient is higher than the repellent then go towards the nutrient, that is: if N >R then …. The bacteria resolves a situation of conflict through a
logical scheme. If the situation of conflict contains two sensorial
information, as a cold solution and an attractive substance, the bacteria must
integrate correlated logical schemes. In fact, the bacteria must above all
evaluate how cold the solution is, it must afterwards evaluate how it is
concentrated, and it must integrate the results and take a “decision”. Ultimately,
the bacterium follows the same logical patterns that our mind follows.
It is known that the proteins in the cell,
above executing their function, interact also between themselves. As Carol
Ezzel informs as in “Adesso comandano le proteine” Le Scienze 2002, one of the
aims of proteinomic is that of defining how the proteins organize themselves in
webs like electric circuits. It would hence make the hypothesis that all the
proteins of the plasmatic membrane organize themselves in specific webs that
interact between themselves and with all the components of the cellular
membrane. We have made the hypothesis that the sensorial proteins contain the
memory of the event. When the web of sensorial proteins receives stimuli in
contrast, the mind emerges which recuperates the information contained in the
memory and it chooses according to logical schemes if…then. The choice creates a counter reaction to the complex of
the protein webs of the membrane and of the final reaction of the organism.
These logical schemes typical of our mind emerge
when the bacteria finds itself in a situation of conflict. But if a bacterium
uses the same logical patterns as all living organisms then in all living
organisms the mind emerges only when a conflict situation arises, when the
living organism is faced with a problem. But the logical choices are not always
the right ones and then: if the choice is the right one, it saves the
organism's life; if the choice is wrong, the organism loses its life but saves
the life from extinction.
If there is no conflict, in all living
organisms the mind does not emerge, but the memory is always present and this
is enough for the survival of the organisms.
In conclusion, in the unicellular organisms,
the plasmatic membrane is an interface between the inside and the outside of
the cell and it carries out, at a very elementary level, the same function, as
does the brain in the pluricellular complex organisms.
Ultimately, all living organisms, even if
they do not have a brain, possess a basic cognitive equipment for
survival, that is, they possess a mind that emerges from the protein networks
of the plasma membrane when a conflict situation arises.
This idea begins to make its way also among
the neuro-scientists. Antonio Damasio (quoted work) attributes to the single
cell concepts of desires, wills, intentions and purposes that we associate with
the human mind. Shimon Edelman (quoted work) goes further by saying that yeast
cells, for procreation, to identify the partner, develop a projection and are
driven by a simple mind.
But,
as we have already seen, life originated with prokaryotes, 3.5 billion years
ago. These microorganisms at that time were already in possession of: reasoning,
communication, languages, social behaviour, intelligence, information, altruism,
and they used logical schemes that is ultimately the possession of a mind.
Ultimately once
life appears, the mind appears.
So let us try
to guess what happened at the dawn of life.
Let's
imagine two proto-cells just emerging from their respective cavities with their
membrane containing a rudimentary surface protein network. The latter collect
the data of the terrible conditions of the primordial earth, where chaos was
the absolute master of the environment. Moreover, in a chaotic environment
salinity, pH, temperature, the presence of harmful substances and other
parameters change continuously and homeostasis receives contradictory
information.
In these chaotic
conditions, the two proto-cells find themselves in a situation of conflict:
change or resist chaos. For the survival of the proto-cell, this conflict can
be solved with logical schemes, that is, with the emergence of the mind. The
first proto-cell decides to resist chaos, but no trace remains of it. The
second proto-cell decides to change, even without knowing the final outcome,
and the proto-cell begins the cell division.
Therefore, the
mind appears with the first cells and is responsible for cell division.
A naive
hypothesis.
We have written
above, that it was the membrane proteins, even if rudimentary, that informed homeostasis of the chaotic and
lethal conditions of the external environment and pushed for change. The proto-cell through homeostasis increases its
mass, and does so in the only way it knows how to: to build structures and
produce entropy.
What should we
intend by the term informing homeostasis and "pushing for change"
that has resulted in cellular duplication?
Let us start from the definition of
homeostasis. Homeostasis is a chemical physical process of self-regulation,
defined as the response of the internal electromagnetic field and around the
entity with respect to changes in the external environment and the internal
medium. Homeostasis, through chemical
reactions and feedback cycles, tends to preserve the balance of the
proto-organism.
We have assumed that within the
proto-organism, which with membrane becomes proto-cell, sub-sets operate, each
with its own electromagnetic field and a sub-homeostasis. So, let us imagine
that within a sub-set a protein decomposes. As a consequence of this
decomposition, the sub-set is no longer in equilibrium and has a different
electromagnetic field. The latter pushes the electromagnetic field of the
DNA-protein sub-set to express the specific gene, i.e. the RNA for the
decomposed protein. The electromagnetic field of the synthesized RNA drives the
electromagnetic field of the sub-set tRNA-Ribosome that synthesizes the
protein. The synthesized protein falls into the previous state and its
electromagnetic field returns it to equilibrium. We are in the presence,
therefore, of a domino effect, of a network of interdependent sub-set whose
electromagnetic fields self-regulate, necessarily in synergistic coordination
with the electromagnetic field of the proto-cell that regulates the balance of
the whole.
Therefore, to activate chemical reactions
and feedback cycles, i.e. homeostasis,
are variations of electromagnetic fields. Then, if at a certain moment the
homeostasis activates a specific gene for the synthesis of proteins for cell
division, it means that it has received an electromagnetic signal. But, if we
said that it was the emergence of the mind that caused cell division, then the mind is an
electromagnetic field.
How does this
electromagnetic field originate?
As we saw, all the components of the
proto-cell were kept inside a membrane linked to the electromagnetic field
around the proto-organism, proto-field, whose asymmetric
heads are represented by rounds.
Surface proteins, with rudimentary receptors that sink inside the proto-cell and outside the membrane in the surrounding environment, are represented by enlarged half-lines. If we imagine that the system is in equilibrium, the field around the proto-organism must, logically, present its homogeneity.
Therefore, membrane proteins are immersed in the membrane. Each of these proteins, as a consequence of the bonds of its atoms, has its own electromagnetic field specific to its conformation. The part of the membrane protein immersed in the external environment, that is, the heads of the proteins, collect data on environmental conditions. Due to the fact the environmental conditions were chaotic, the data collected by a single protein were certainly different and conflicting from those collected from other proteins. Transferring the data of each individual protein directly to homeostasis would have had no influence because it cannot react to contradictory data. Thus, the data collected by a single protein, before being transmitted inside the cell, to homeostasis, must be integrated with the data collected by all the numerous membrane proteins and processed. This leads to the conclusion that membrane proteins must necessarily be contained in a protein network. Since each protein has its own electromagnetic field, the proteins heads and tails of the whole protein network probably give rise to an external and an internal electromagnetic fields, located at a molecular distance from the membrane. These fields are initially uneven. The external electromagnetic field integrates and processes the environmental data collected by the membrane protein network, assumes its homogeneity and through the body of proteins immersed in the membrane it synchronizes the protein tails. As the protein tails are synchronized, the internal electromagnetic field also becomes homogeneous. Only two possibilities are opened here:
the internal homogeneous electromagnetic
field is congruent with the proto-field.
But what does it mean to integrate and process
data?
It means to count (in the sense
that each collision changes the conformation of a protein and then adds
something to the existing electromagnetic field), evaluate the relative
intensities of the parameters (temperature, pH, etc.), evaluate how much a
substance can be useful or harmful and finally add them to give an answer.
Who processes this data in humans? The mind
Then, the external electromagnetic field
generated by the membrane protein network and located at a molecular distance
from the membrane, is probably the
seat of the mind in cells; it emerges from the body and acts on the body.
And if in all higher brainless
living organisms, the mind was a global electromagnetic field generated by the
electromagnetic fields of individual cells?
And if in organisms equipped whit
brain the mind was the global electromagnetic field generated by the
electromagnetic fields of individual neurons? But if in all living organisms
the mind is of the same nature, i.e. an electromagnetic field, then it is
possible to communicate between different organisms. By the way, maybe
even plants suffer from loneliness and depression, have you tried talking to
plants?
The mind appears with the first
cells and affects reproduction for the survival of the organisms in a world
dominated by chaos; it appears to protect organisms from the second priciple of
thermodynamics.
All living organisms must collect data from
the external environment, data that the mind continually processes. That is,
all living organisms must always be aware of the world around them.
In summary, distract yourself,
be superficial, postpone problems for too long, lose awareness of the world
around you and the second principle of thermodynamics will come into action; chaos
will overwhelm you.
But, if for a whole series of
circumstances you find yourself trapped in chaos, do not give up and always
remember that, in spite himself, chaos alternates with moments of quiet or if
you want it generates niches of order. Get inside it, you will have time to
think about how to get out of it.
Yeah, a naive hypothesis, but how much is it naive?
How does an idea move the matter? What
exactly is awareness and how does it interact with the matter of the brain to
make our legs arms or tongue move?
These are the questions that asked
by Jim Al-Khalili and Johnjoe McFadden in "La fisica della vita" 2015
in the chapter: The mind. They analyzed the mechanics of thinking, from sensory
stimuli to nerves to muscles, and pointed out how the logical gates of a computer
are quite similar to neurons. So they wondered why computers on complex
networks, such as the web, do not give signs of awareness. Perhaps the web has
not reached the complexity of the "interconnections" of the brain
cells, or is consciousness based on a different type of computer science?
In 1989, the mathematician Roger
Penrose proposed the idea that consciousness was a phenomenon of quantum
correlation. The authors, after pointing out that this idea is not sustainable,
in reference to the ionic channels of the neurons write: «So if correlation
cannot link information at a quantum level in ion channels, is there anything
else that could do it? Maybe yes. The ion channels regulated by the voltage are
sensitive (obviously) to the voltage: it is the one that opens and closes the
channels. Voltage is only a measurement of the gradient of an electric field,
but the entire volume of the brain is immersed in its electromagnetic field,
generated by the electrical activity of all its nerves. This is the field that
is detected in every electroencephalogram and a glance at the graphs resulting
from these exams will give you an idea of how complex and information-rich it
is.
Most neuroscientists have ignored the role that the electromagnetic field
could have in brain calculations, because it has always been postulated that it
is a bit like the whistle of a train: a product of brain activity, but of no
impact on its activity. However, several scientists, including Johnioe, have
recently begun to consider the idea that shifting consciousness from discrete
particles of matter to the electromagnetic field can solve the problem of
connection, and reveal the location of consciousness. [...] In the nineteenth century,
James Clark Maxwell discovered that electricity and magnetism are two aspects
of the same phenomenon, electromagnetism, so we refer to both as
"electromagnetic field". Einstein’s equation E = mc2 with
energy at the first member and mass at the second shows, as is well known, that
energy and matter are interchangeable. Thus, the electromagnetic field of the
brain (the first member of Einstein's equation) is as real as the matter of its
neurons; and as it is generated by the activation of neurons, it encodes
exactly the same information as the patterns of neuronal activation in the
brain. However, while the neuronal information remains trapped in the neurons,
the electrical activity generated by their activation encodes all the
information in the electromagnetic field of the brain. And this could solve the
connection problem. [...]. When theories of consciousness based on the
electromagnetic field were first presented at the beginning of this century,
there was no direct evidence that the field generated by the brain could
influence the patterns of nerve activation to give rise to our thoughts and our
actions. However, experiments carried out in different laboratories have
recently shown that an external electromagnetic field, of structure and
intensity similar to that of the brain, actually manages to influence the
activation of the nerves. The field seems to be able to coordinate the activity
of the nerves: it synchronizes different neurons, which then activate together.
The results of the experiments suggest that the electromagnetic field of the
brain, generated by activation of the nerves, influences the activation itself,
generating a sort of self-referential circle that many theoreticians consider an
essential component of consciousness. The synchronization of the activation of
the nerves by the electromagnetic field is very significant, because it is one
of the few characteristics of the nervous activity known to be in relation with
the consciousness. We all looked for an object that was in plain sight, such as
our glasses, and then find it in the midst of a confusion of other things. As we watched that
confusion, the visual information that encoded the object travelled to our
brain, through our eyes, but somehow we did not see what we were looking for:
we were not aware of it. Then, all of a sudden, we see it. What changes in the
brain between the moment in which we are not yet aware of the object and the
moment in which we are? Strangely, the neural activation itself does not seem
different: the same neurons are activated in both cases. But when we do not see
the glasses, the neurons are activated asynchronously, and when we become
conscious they do it synchronously. The electromagnetic field, which
concentrates all those ionic channels coherent in different parts of the brain
to activate neurons in a synchronized way, could play a role in this transition
between unconscious and conscious thought ».
Ultimately, within the cavity, to
survive, a rudimentary homeostasis was sufficient for the protoorganism.
Unfortunately, all this was no longer sufficient when the proto-organism that
became proto-cell he found himself in the open field.In the chaos of the
primordial earth, to solve survival problems and conflicts generated by chaos,
here and now, logical but simple patterns were needed, ultimately the mind; The mind is an
electromagnetic phenomenon. Cell duplication and mind are therefore
interconnected and have emerged for the survival of organisms in a world dominated
by chaos.
Life can begin and with it natural selection.
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
Explorations: Different like two drops.
If an antidote exists
to the cultural laziness, which, at school like at University destroys at its
birth every hope of intellectual development in many fifteen year olds or
twenty year olds, who are directed without knowing it to a future of
indifference or, worse, to the refusal of the world around them, this antidote
is curiosity. That which inspires the search of the solution to a problem which
is not compulsory for the lesson, that which induces to stay in the laboratory
ten minutes after the end of the lesson, or even only open a book which is not
the textbook with the given lesson.
An institution which gives a prize to young
people who see culture and research as the reward of curiosity, rather than
scholastic obligation, is the Philips Competition for young European
researchers, born in 1968 to encourage young people between 12 and 21 years old
– these are the official age limits – to take interest in the exact sciences,
without underestimating, as the regulation stipulates, the arts subjects. The
prizes distributed every year consist in not much money (two million Lit. to
the winner) and perhaps a trip to a foreign country for the international
final; but the greatest prize for the participants is surely to know that
famous scientists have evaluated and appreciated their work.
This year the job fell on the engineers
Dadda, Carassa and Gatti of Milan Polytechnic, on the physicist Fiorini, on the
mathematician Udeschini, on the biologists Betto, Leone and Guerritore, all
from Milan University. Furthermore, an important encouragement comes from the
newspapers; every participant in the finals is in fact united to a journalist
who will write in the newspapers explaining his work, and who will help him to
speak and to become known.
In the sixteen years of life of the prize
about 1500 participants have tried their luck in Italy where the competition
has the high patronage of the Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione and of the
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. In this year’s edition, fifteen subjects
got to the finals, which went from a project of synchronized change of speed
for racing bikes, to the digital synthesization of wave forms, to the role of
time in private law.
“FUTURA” has chosen to follow Roberto
Vanoni, student of a Como Technical Institute, who, with the collaboration of
students Marco Pirovano and Bruno Fusi, and followed by the chemistry teacher
Giovanni Occhipinti, has presented a research called «Superficial phenomena
between chemical compounds». A research which shows moreover that it is not
always necessary to have complicated apparatus to do original research; Vanoni’s
instruments in fact, consist in a glass slide and some drops of water or other
solvents and of sulphuric, nitric or acetic acid.
These drops, disposed in a strategic way on
the glass slide, behave in a strange manner causing a numerous variety of interactions.
For example: using water and sulphuric acid concentrated (substances which are
easily mixed), one can see that the drops repel each other instead of uniting.
And if the sulphuric acid is surrounded by four drops of water, it tries to
escape as best it can insinuating itself in the interstices between one drop
and another, still without mixing with the water.
|
|
In both cases the phenomenon can be
explained if one takes account of the fact that the molecules of the solvent
and the ions of the acid dispose themselves at the surface in contact with the
glass slide and with air in a different way from what happens inside the
liquid, creating particular structures which confer stability to the spherical
form and, at the same time, render the surface electrically charged, in such a
way that nearby drops are repelled.
Using water and acetic acid, one can even
see the drop of water which, pushed by the acid coming nearer, moves in a real
movement of escape even for some centimetre.
On the whole, many results with little
expense; congratulations to Vanoni and his collaborators who have won the
second prize (a Million Lit.) and the right to participate in the international
finals of Eindhoven, in Holland and congratulations to their chemistry teacher,
who has won the special prize destined to the most worthy teacher.
«Futura», 2 (1984), 9,
p.87.
ANGELO GAVEZZOTTI
Superficial phenomena
near slow collisions between chemical compounds or "chemotaxis of the
non-living"
INTRODUCTION
The behaviour of
living beings in the presence of chemical substances, or chemo taxis, has been
defined as a universal property of living organisms.
One characteristic of
chemo taxis, and the same applies to all stimuli, is the existence of a
quantitative disproportion between energy, that is, the forces required to
stimulate and obtain response, and the work that is the actual response of the
organism to the stimulus in question.
The study of periodical chemical reactions
has made it possible to establish, that their behaviour is rather similar to
certain metabolic reactions that take place in biological systems.
The boundary between the living and the
non-living is becoming ever more blurred.
This present work hopes to make a modest
demonstrative contribution to this line of reasoning.
EXPERIMENTAL PART
APPARATUS
The apparatus needed for the experiments is extremely simple. It
comprises:
slides measuring 10cm
x 10cm made of ordinary glass;
graph paper of the
same size to place under the slides;
a 30cm x 30cm sheet of
chipboard on which the graph paper and the slides are kept in position by slats
along their sides;
a pipette;
a x 2,5 magnifying
glass.
REAGENTS
- H2O distilled (water)
- H2SO4 conc. 97% (sulphuric acid)
- HNO3 conc. 65% (nitric acid)
- CH3COOH pure (acetic acid)
- CH3CH2OH pure (ethyl alcohol)
- CH3COCH3 pure (acetone)
OPERATIONAL TECHNIQUE
The experiments must
be carried out on surface that is as horizontal as possible.
Special attention must be paid to cleaning
the glass slides. They must be washed with soap and water; if the water does
not run properly, then with a chromic mixture. Once the have been well rinsed
in distilled water, they are to be dried first with a cotton cloth and then
with filter paper, very lightly, so as to eliminate the formation of vapour,
which can easily be seen against the light. Furthermore, any energetic rubbing
should be avoided, especially with the filter paper, because this can charge
the slides and affect the experiments.
One or two drops of a
compound are placed on the middle of the slide and one waits until they spread
and stabilize. One or two drops of a second compound are allowed to fall on to
the slide at a certain distance from the first drops. This distance given is
the distance at which the phenomena being observed can be seen most clearly.
As the drops of the second compound slowly
expand on the glass, they tend to collide with the drops of the first compound.
Observations were made of the phenomena that occur in the
proximity of these slow impacts between the different compounds.
THE PROCEDURE
A drop of H2O is allowed to fall
on to the slide. At a distance of about 0.5cm from it, a drop of H2SO4
is allowed to fall. The H2SO4 will expand in the
shape of a circle and at a gradually diminishing speed. The distance and the
speed depend on the size of the drops and, therefore, will have to be fixed
case by case. As the H2SO4 expands, it should collide
with the drop of the H2O and then react with it, causing an
exothermic reaction. In actual fact this only happens if the H2SO4
approaches the H2O at a speed of over about 0.2 cm/s.
If the speed of expansion of the H2SO4
in the proximity of the H2O is lower than this, it will not collide
with the H2O but will stop at a certain distance that can be seen with the naked eye against the light, changing
direction. An invisible force stops the H2SO4 expanding
in proximity to the H2O, there occurs a reciprocal repulsion. The
addition of micro drops of H2SO4 to that already on the
slide does not change this situation, as long as they are added extremely
cautiously. The H2O will be diverted by the H2SO4,
as shown in figure1.
Figure 1 |
The phenomenon becomes
even more evident with a second experiment. One takes a reference square with a
2cm sides on the graph paper, as shown in figure 2a, and a drop of H2O
is allowed to fall on to the middle of each of the four sides. A drop of H2SO4
is allowed to fall into the middle of the square.
Figure 2a |
The H2SO4
is stopped in the proximity of the H2O. With the further addiction
of micro drops of H2SO4 to that already on the slide, the
H2SO4 will assume the shape of an irregular square and
will then proceed into the only spaces left free, as shown in figure 2b and as
the photograph taken during our experiments clearly demonstrates.
Figure 1.2b |
As the H2SO4
spreads, it does not collide with the H2O, but is diverted.
Now what kind of force can be at work among
these drops and cause a repulsion effect that can be seen with the naked eye?
The explanation can probably be found in electro kinetic potential or Z
potential.
It has been known for some time, that many
substances generate contact potential when they come into contact with clay or
glass. In particular, when H2O comes into contact with glass a
potential is generated that negatively charges the glass. In the H2O
the positive charge is diffused right through the mass. The same phenomenon is
probably generated when H2SO4 comes into contact with
glass. We can, therefore, consider the drops as the bearers of negative charges
and when they approach one another, they repel one another and do not
eventually touch.
In a second group of
experiments, instead of H2SO4 a drop of CH3COOH
is allowed to fall at a distance of about 1,5cm from the drop of H2O,
and the following phenomenon is observed. The drop of acetic acid spreads
rapidly. At a distance of about 0,5cm, the H2O feels the presence of
the acetic acid and moves away from the initial position. The subsequent
expansion of the acetic acid causes the H2O to move even farther
away. This fleeing of the H2O, which can reach a distance of 2-3cm from its original position, continues until all the acetic acid has
evaporated. It should be noted that there is no contact at all between the two
compounds, as shown in figures 3a and 3b.
After the acetic acid, the same experiment
was carried out with CH3CH2OH and CH3COCH3.
The results were identical: the H2O retreats as ethyl alcohol and
the acetone advance.
A third group of experiments was carried
out, placing concentrated HNO3 on the slide and allowing first CH3COOH,
and then CH3CH2OH and CH3COCH3 to
fall at distance of 1,5cm from it. The phenomena observed were identical to
those seen when H2O was used, the only difference being that the
speed of flight of HNO3 was greater than with water, and this is
probably due to its lower viscosity.
A fourth group of experiments was carried
out, this time placing H2SO4 on the slide. Its behaviour
in the presence of CH3COOH, CH3CH2OH and CH3COCH3
was observed. The dropping distance was again 1,5cm. In this case too, the H2SO4
tended to run away from its original position and its flight speed was slightly
lower than that of H2O, probably owing to its viscosity. The only
difference between this and the experiments in the second and third groups was
with ethyl alcohol. Whereas, in the other cases, the acetic acid, the ethyl
alcohol and the acetone spread in the form of a circle, with H2SO4
and CH3CH2OH, one saw the CH3CH2OH
being compressed in the direction of the H2SO4,
indicating a very powerful reciprocal repulsion at a certain distance, shown in
figures 4a and 4b.
Figure 1.4a |
Figure1.4b |
A fifth group of
experiments repeated the experiments of the second, third and fourth groups but
this time, laminated plastic was used as a base instead of glass. None of what
happens on glass was observed.
In the experiments of the second, third and
fourth groups, there is probably some form of electro kinetic effect, but the
part played by surface tension was decisive, as subsequent experiments were to
prove.
A sixth group of experiments was carried out
as follows. Some drops of ethyl alcohol were allowed to run down the walls of a
200cm3 beaker. The beaker was turned upside down and left until
nearly all the alcohol had evaporated and created an ethyl alcohol atmosphere
inside the beaker. The beaker was then placed over a drop of H2O
placed on a slide. The experiment was later repeated using H2SO4
and HNO3.
As the ethyl alcohol vapours solubilise in
the drops, partially reacting in the case of H2SO4, they
should really diminish the surface tension of the drops and then continue to
spread over the glass slide.
What was observed was exactly the opposite.
The drops contract incredibly, reducing their surface of contact with ethyl
alcohol atmosphere as much as possible. When the beaker is removed, the drops
expand rapidly, bathing the glass and if the beaker containing its atmosphere
of ethyl alcohol is placed once more over the drops, they once more contract.
The drops behave as if they did not want
contaminated, and so they make their surface of contact with ethyl alcohol
vapours as small as possible. It is a well known fact that when a liquid L is
on the surface of a solid S and is in contact with gas G, the angle of contact
depends on the three interfacial tensions γGS, γLS, γGL. If the solid-gas tension (γGS) is greater then the tension on the limiting solid-liquid surface (γLS), the angle of contact is less than 90° and it is
said that the liquid bathes the solid; in the opposite case, the relative angle
will be between 90° and 180°.
The phenomenon observed in the experiments of the sixth group are,
therefore, determined by the fact that changing the gas, from air to ethyl
alcohol, the term γGS > γLS becomes γGS < γLS. The drop contracts to go
from a contact angle of less than 90° to one more than 90°.
In the previous experiments, the effect of evaporation of the ethyl
alcohol, acetic acid or acetone, is that the drop of liquid is now in contact
with air, contact angle 90°, and now in contact with the ethyl alcohol vapours,
angle of contact 180°<90°. The thickness of the drop is greater where the
angle of contact is 180°<90°, it is not in equilibrium, as figure 5 shows.
Figure 1.5 |
And in order to achieve equilibrium, some of the liquid moves towards
the left while the ethyl alcohol vapours cause a contact angle of >90°. The
movement of the liquid inside the drop along with the existence at the same
time of a >90° contact angle causes the whole drop to move, as we see in
figure 6.
Figure
1.6 |
The last experiment concerned HNO3 and H2O. A drop
of H2O is allowed to fall on to a slide and then is followed by a
drop of HNO3 in such a way that the edges of the two drops are 2cm
away from each other. After a few minutes one observe, around the drop H2O
and in particular in the space between the two drops, the formation of
condense. Analysis with litmus paper reveals that the condense is acid.
Subsequently, the condense becomes ever more intense, to the point where real
and proper drops are formed which join and bring the drop of HNO3 in
contact whit the drop of H2O.
At this point, the drops merge, as can be seen in figures 7a, 7b, 7c, 7d.
Fig. 7a Fig. 7b
 |
| Fig. 7d |
Alone on the glass, the HNO3 evaporates slowly but the vapour
does not condense on the glass. One observes this happening only in the
presence of H2O.
CONCLUSIONS
The behaviour of the
drops on the slides is extremely peculiar. We have seen them move now slowly,
now rapidly, now in uniform mode, now in skips and jumps. We have seen their
evanescent halos, and those ramifications we called « tentacles » on account of
their meandering motion. We have observed a whole myriad of curious evolutions
that made us all the more enthusiastic as we proceeded with our research,
because the phenomena we observed are not familiar to chemists. There is no
doubt at all that what we observed must have some highly complicated chemical-physical explanation, and perhaps certain other factors come into play.
But at this point, we were very much tempted
to entitle our research with a question: could this be « the chemo taxis of the
non-living?».
Appendix 2
Device for measuring
flow potentials
The appliance, very
briefly, consists of a glass container, with upper and lower openings and
placed at a certain height, where the solution is introduced. An electrode
connected to a multimeter is placed inside the container. The solution is run
through a diaphragm composed of Left quartz granules or Right quartz granules,
where micro condensers are generated and finally collected in a second
container. The latter is placed lower than the first and contains inside an
electrode connected to the multimeter. The sliding drags with it some charges
from the micro capacitors, generating a potential difference (flow potential)
between the two containers which is measured by the multimeter: electrokinetic
effects are expressed as flow potential. The potential difference of the
reference solution is first measured. Subsequently, the potential difference of
the reference solution is measured to which an amino acid L or an amino acid D
has been added.
The research was
presented at the event "Physics around us" from 15 December 2005 to
15 January 2006, organized in the Church of San Francesco by the Department of
Physics and Mathematics of the University of Insubria and by the Alessandro
Volta Center for Scientific Culture. The photo was taken on that occasion.
Appendix 3
Experimental part
Soluble glass in commerce is formed
Na2SiO3 in colloidal silica and its average
formula Is: Na2O · 2SiO2 · 2H2O.
In solution Na2SiO3 solubilizes forming:
Na2SiO3 +
3H2O ---- 2NaOH + H4SiO4
H4SiO4, an orthosilicic acid, polymerizes in part
giving origin to colloidal silica which adds itself to that already existing.
The greater part of colloidal silica aggregates giving origin to flakes of
amorphous silica. Hence, when soluble glass dissolves one has in solution the
simultaneous presence of:
NaOH, H4SiO4, colloidal silica and amorphous
silica.
Exactly because of the presence of big molecules of colloidal silica and
amorphous silica, the solution has a certain turbid aspect. Such turbid aspect
depends on the concentration of the soluble glass and on the temperature, and
it can impede observation on the polarimeter. How then can one choose the
concentration of soluble glass for measurements on the polarimeter?
As the turbid aspect increases when the temperature decreases, the
concentration must be specific for a certain interval of temperature.
It must be as concentrated as possible, but the resulting turbid aspect
must give on the polarimeter such a visibility that the measurement is credible
and repeatable.
If one increases the concentration of soluble glass, NaOH increases
also. The increase of pH is an obstacle to formation of the colloid. With
concentrations above 0,04 g/40 cc the solutions must be neutralized.
Measurements of solutions of soluble glass, at various concentrations
and time intervals, have been made with the polarimeter.
When the technique was standardized, it was observed that such solutions
demonstrate optical activity.
Observations on the polarimeter lead moreover to think that it is the
colloidal silica which rotates the plane of polarized light.
Three standard concentrations were chosen as demonstrative experiments;
in these experiments one observes the maximum deviation with the minimum
waiting time.
1st experiment
temp.
soluble
glass 0,05g , 40cc H2OBid. to
in solution
50-60 s. move with glass stick,
after
agitation,30 s. rest
in the
polarimetric tube, total time 2 min.
at the polarimeter
Negative: -0,10° -0,15° ( verified by: Bianchi Stefania,
Branca Salvatore, Russo Rosa )
waiting
time ¼ h, remixed in the polarimetric
tube
Negative: - 0,05°
another
waiting time ¼ h, remixed in the polarimetric tube,
the solution
is slightly turbid
No deviation.
2nd
experiment
temp.
soluble glass
dissolved with
magnetic agitation , 1 min. ( 200 speed )
addition
of 12cc CH3CH2OH, magnetic
agitation 30 sec. wait 2 min.
at the polarimeter
Negative: -0,25° ( verified by: Bianchi
Stefania, Russo Rosa, Serratore Sandra)
The deviation
slowly decreases and after about 30 min. it disappears. When the solution is
mixed again in the polarimetric tube, one observes almost no deviation of
polarized light.
Verified by: Bianchi Stefania, Russo Rosa,
Serratore Sandra
3rd
experiment
Temp.
Soluble glass
0,05g, 40cc H2OBid. to
at the
polarimeter
No deviation
(verified by: Branca Salvatore, Russo Rosa )
Silica in solution rotates the plane of polarized light to the left.
From the reaction 1), orthosilic
acid gives origin first to colloidal silica and afterwards to amorphous silica.
Observation on the polarimeter of colloidal silica must take account of the
particularity of the colloids. The colloidal suspensions are not really
solutions and their properties are not direct functions of the dimensions of
state.
From H4SiO4
is formed a certain quantity of colloid which slowly aggregates forming
amorphous silica, whereas other colloid begin to form. The concentration of
colloid in solution is not always constant. Observation shows, first a
deviation of polarized light (the right half of the visual field seems darker)
which slowly weakens and then increases again unexpected. In some observations
the two halves of the visual field seem to be equal but slowly the right half
becomes darker and this means that the concentration of colloid is increasing.
In some cases one can observe immediately a consistent deviation which slowly
weakens, whereas in other cases the deviation maintains itself for more than a
quarter of an hour. The fact that after a certain time of waiting the deviation
of the plane of polarized light disappears means that it is the colloid that
has this characteristic. The amorphous silica which afterwards forms, gives
only a turbid solution without deviations.
Experiment 2) shows how the addition of ethyl alcohol amplifies the
deviation of the plane of polarized light. It is in fact known that the
addition of alcohol to a colloidal suspension at first increases the Tyndall
effect. Probably alcohol retards the aggregation of the colloidal particles and
their concentration is temporarily higher.
Because the colloids, as we have already said, are extremely unstable,
even with very small variations of physical chemical conditions, it is very
difficult to obtain results which can be reproduced. In particular, during the
observations the following is observed.
If one uses H2O demineralised the deviation is almost
imperceptible.
If one uses H2O bidistilled, the deviation is clear but not always
repeatable.
If one uses H2O
bidistilled heated to
As already said amorphous silica shows tridimite and crystobalite
crystallites.
Colloidal silica, which precedes amorphous silica, rotates the plane of
polarized light to the left.
Hence it seems that orthosilic
acid, when it polymerizes, gives origin, during its very brief existence, to
ordered structures of the quartz L type. Such structures transform themselves in
tridimite and crystobalite in amorphous silica, to rebecome, after geological
times, quartz in chalcedony
Measures of silica suspensions have been made also in different
concentration and temperatures.
Experimental data indicate that when the temperature increases and up to
Over the temperature of
As already stated, the most believable hypothesis is that, at the
temperature of
Although it is not clear how
this can happen, it seems however evident that there is a direct relationship
between the cluster of H2O and the colloidal silica structure; when
the cluster are destroyed, the deviation of polarized light definitely
disappears.
As already said, colloidal
silica is surrounded by a cloud of water molecules. The tetrahedral structural
units of silica, by binding to give colloidal particles, could orient
themselves in any direction, but not being rigid, they actually
"rest" on the clusters. If we imagine that these clusters may have a
random modulation, a contribution, even if very small, could give it a
preferential direction. This contribution could be the consequence of the
Earth's magnetic field on H2O asymmetry.
Precautions
Make signs on the glass and on the cap and position them always in
correspondence.
During closing, the slide does not remain attached to the gum-packing;
put a small drop of water on the gum-packing and apply it to the slide.
When the polarimeter is at zero and empty, if one inserts its tube with
water, one observes different values when it is rotated. Stick an adhesive tape
with four signs around the polarimetric tube.
Observe the polarimeter, rotate in the four positions, and choose the
position closest to zero. Put on zero-set and start measuring the specimen
using the reference position.
Appendix 4
Procedure
Na2O·2SiO2·2H2O g. 1,1 + 50 cc of H2Obid.,
cover with parafilm, wait 20-30 min. one obtains a limpid solution. Add about
0,30g of amino acid DL. Neutralize into pH 6,8-7,4 drop by drop ,mixing, with
about 21 drops HCl 6N, temperature 18-
EXPERIMENTAL DATA
Amino acids used
Threonine to H2O
Valine to HCl 6N
Alanine to HCl 6N
Threonine DL solubility in H2O g 1,25 to 14cc, weighed 0,30g.
Because one prelevates 25cc these will contain 0,15g of Thr DL;
1,25/0,15 = 8 experiments max for a total of 200cc , dry and follow the procedure.
On the polarimeter: no
appreciable value.
Valine DL solubility in HCl
6N g 1,30 to 14cc, weighed 0,30g.
Because one prelevates 25cc these will contain 0,15g of Val DL;
1,30/0,15 = 8 experiments max for a total of 200cc , dry and follow the procedure.
On the polarimeter: no
appreciable value.
Because one prelevates 25cc these will contain 0,16 of Ala DL;
8,25/0,16= 50 experiments max.
Experiments:
1st Test
Solution used to bring the polarimeter to zero: solution 6N to HCl
saturated on NaCl 15 cc + 5g. of Ala DL
1,1g of Na2O·2SiO2·2H2O to 50cc of H2O
+ 0,34g of ALA DL x 32,total 800cc; follow the procedure, one adds 14cc of HCl
6N. Solution and precipitate 21cc.
On the Polarimeter: -0,075 ÷ -0,1
average -0,85 (verified by Bianchi Stefania).
2nd Test
Solution used to bring the polarimeter to zero: solution 6N to HCl saturated on NaCl 15 cc + 5g. of Ala DL
1,1g of Na2O·2SiO2·2H2O to 50cc of H2O
+ 0,34g of ALA DL x 32,total 800cc; follow the procedure, one adds 14cc of HCl
6N. Solution and precipitate 21cc.
On the Polarimeter: -0,1
average (verified by Russo Rosa).
3rd Test
Solution used to bring the polarimeter to zero: H2OBID:
a) 1,1g of Na2O·2SiO2·2H2O to 50cc of H2O
+ 0,32g of ALA DL x 16, total 400cc; follow the procedure. One adds 14cc of HCl
6N. Solution and precipitate 19cc.
On the Polarimeter: -0,05 ÷ 0,075
average -0,63. (Verified by
Bianchi Stefania and Russo Rosa).
b) 1,1g of Na2O·2SiO2·2H2O
to 50cc of H2O + 0,32g of ALA DL x 48, total 1200cc; follow the
procedure. One adds 14cc of HCl 6N. Solution and precipitate 24,5cc.
On the polarimeter: -0,10÷ -0,15 average -0,13 (verified by Bianchi
Stefania , Russo Rosa)
As they are triplicate the solutions should give -0,20. But the final
solution has results of 24,5cc with a dilution of 30%with respect to the
preceding. When the due calculations have been made, the theoretical deviation
should be -0,14.
The same experiments repeated at the temperature of 24-
Solution used to bring the
polarimeter to zero: solution 6N to HCl saturated on NaCl 15 cc + 5g. of Ala DL
1,1g of Na2O·2SiO2·2H2O to 50cc of H2O
+ 0,32g of ALA DL x 48, total 1200cc; follow the procedure. One adds 14cc of
HCl 6N. Solution and precipitate 24,5cc.
On the polarimeter: -0,10 average
Appendix 5
Around the quartz with Matlab
Computer simulation of the electric field generated near a structure similar to that of quartz
By Nicola Occhipinti
The quartz crystal is constituted of helical structures whose unities are tetrahedrons of SiO4. Such structures can be developed in a right sense or a left sense and are the mirror image one of the other. These two crystal forms rotate the plane of polarized light to the left or to the right.
I have developed a program to observe the
behaviour of the vectorial electric field generated by a structure similar to a
quartz crystal. The program, once the structure and the distribution of the
charges have been defined, would treat the calculation and the vectorial
visualization of the electric field in a given portion of space.
The silicon-oxygen bond has a character for the most
part ionic. For this reason tetrahedric units with four positive charges in the
centre and a negative charge for every vertex have been constructed, figure 1.
The distance between the centre and the vertexes is
|
|
|
|
|
|
These units have been rotated and
translated and a helical structure of 9 tetrahedrons has been created. The
units are linked together at the vertexes. Every unit is rotated 120° with
respect to the preceding unit, figure 2. The direction of rotation is
anticlockwise and this corresponds to the structure of a quartz L.
Figure 2. Basic structure: made up of 9 tetrahedra, each rotated 120°
with respect to the previous one.
|
|
|
Figure 3. Reproduction of the crystal structure of the quartz used for
the simulation. |
For the calculation of the electric field,
different portions of the surrounding space have been rendered discrete. The
contributions of every single charge have been summed for every point of these
portions. The electric field is visualized only in particular surfaces which
are equipotential, and this to create a greater clarity of the images. At a
distance these surfaces are ellipsoids because the structure is comparable to a
body with a uniform charge density. The equipotential surfaces are more
irregular near the crystalline structure, and at the apexes of the ellipsoids
one can see characteristic holes,
figure 4.
|
|
|
Figure 2.4 |
Figure 4. Electric field generated: a particular equipotential surface
is represented; the cones indicate rotation and direction of the electric
field. You notice how the direction of the field tends to go from one pole to
another.
To better analyse the behaviour of the
electric field near these convergence zones, I chose a smaller discrete interval.
The electric field will thus be more precise. (Figure 5, 6, 7)
Figure 5. Detail of the convergence zone with more precise
discretization.
Figure 6.
Zoom with different angle.
Figure 2.7
Figure 7. Image without equipotential surface. The appearance of circles is caused by discretization, the distance between them corresponds to the discretization interval.
Afterwards, with the purpose of increasing the likeness of the structure to the real one of quartz, the single helical structures were disposed in phase. But, as can be seen in figure 2.8, the result is the same.
Figure 8. Image without equipotential surface.
If quartz comes into contact with a
solution, on the surface micro capacitors take origin. The theory of «The
molecular selection. Amino acids: first hypothesis and experimental data»,
makes the hypothesis that inside these micro capacitors, the helical structures
of quartz give origin to electric fields whose line forces have a helical form,
that is they are like the hole of a screw orientated to the right or to the
left. The simulation on computer does not definitely confirm this theory. But
it demonstrates the existence of electric fields which are not uniform and are
very similar to those of our hypothesis.
Thanks to Matlab for the authorization to publish the processed images.
Acknowledgments
For the first edition,
of which ample excerpts are contained in this new edition, I warmly thank:
For their
critical contribution
Borghi Emilio, Cattaneo Clemente, Cavaliere Maria Laura,
Pietramala Anna Maria, Rigano Carlo, Ruberto Placido, Zappacosta Francesco
For the correction of many parts of the text and for the elaboration of
images on the computer.
Fossati Pasquale
For the
illustrations on AutoCAD
Bonansea luigi, Castiglioni Mara, Liuzzi Niccolò
For the observations of the experimental data on the polarimeter
Branca Salvatore, Bianchi Stefania, Russo Rosa, Serratore Sandra.
For the new edition, I warmly thank:
Cattaneo Clemente for his contribution on
"molecular asymmetry and the Earth's magnetic field".
Fossati Pasquale and Modafferi Antonia who
read large parts of the essay and their appreciation was a source of strong
encouragement for me.
Translation from the Italian by
Silvia Occhipinti
and
Oketayot Sydney Isaiah Luke
The Appendix 1 is Philips’ original translation.
Bibliography
Adler Julius, La
chemiosensibiltà dei batteri, Le Scienze, Agosto 1976
Ageno Mario, Lezioni
di biofisica 3, Zanichelli S.p.A., Bologna, 1984
Ageno Mario, Le
radici della biologia, Feltrinelli Editore, Milano, 1986
Al-Khalili Jim, McFadden Johnjoe, La fisica della vita, Bollati Boringhieri, Torino,2015
Atkins W. Peter, Il
secondo principio, Zanichelli Editore S.p.A., Bologna, 1996
Bairati Aurelio, Compendio
di Anatomia Umana Vol.2° Pag.245, Edizioni Minerva Medica, Torino, 1974
Barghoorn E. S., I fossili più antichi, Gli albori della vita,
Le Scienze S.p.A. editore, Milano,1984
Bellone Enrico, Quattro
saggi sulla scienza, Edizioni Le Scienze, Roma, 2012
Bernal
J. D., Haldane J.B.S., Pirie N.W., Pringle J.W.S., L’origine della vita, Feltrinelli Editore, Milano 1962
Bernal J. D. and Fowler R. H. 1933 J. Chem. Phys.
1 515, da Iopscience
Bernstein M., Sandford A., Allamandola J.: Dallo spazio le molecole della vita, Le
Scienze, Milano, Settembre 1999
Bertola F., Calvani M., Curi U., Origini: l’universo, la vita, l’intelligenza, Il Poligrafo s.r.l.,
Padova, 1994
Bianchi Giuseppe, Elettrochimica,
Libreria Editrice, Milano, 1963
Blitz Leo, Complessi
giganti di nubi molecolari nella Galassia, Gli albori della vita, Le
Scienze S.p.A. editore, Milano,1984
Boys C.V., Le bolle di sapone,
Zanichelli, Bologna, 1966
Cadeddu Antonio, Genesi
di una teoria scientifica, CUEC, Cagliari, 1998
Casterton J.W., Stewart S. Philip, Combattere i Biofilm, Le Scienze, Agosto
2001
Cairns-Smith Graham, Argille e origine della vita: le frontiere della vita, Treccani on
line, 1998
Cairns-Smith Graham, Sette indizi sull’origine della vita, Liguori Editori S. r. l.
Napoli,1986
Crawford Dorothy, Il
nemico invisibile, Raffaello Cortina Editore, Milano, 2002
Damasio Antonio, Il
sé viene alla mente, Adelphi Edizioni S.p.A., Milano, 2012
Darwin Charles, L’origine
delle specie, Newton Compton, Roma, 1985
Davies Paul, Da
dove viene la vita, Arnoldo Mondadori Editore S.p.A., Milano, 2000
De Duve Christian, Polvere
vitale, Longanesi, Varese, 1998
De Duve Christian, Alle
origini della vita, Longanesi & C., Milano, 2008
Di Mauro E., Saladino R, Dal Big Bang alla cellula madre, Società editrice Il Mulino,
Bologna, 2016
Dickerson E. Richard, L’evoluzione chimica e l’origine della vita, Gli albori della vita, Le Scienze S.p.A. editore, Milano,1984
Doolittle R. F., Bork P., La modularità delle proteine, Le Scienze Quaderni n. 89, Aprile
1996
Doolittle
F. Russel Le proteine, Le Scienze,
Dicembre 1985
Duranti Marcello, Introduzione
allo studio delle proteine, Zanichelli Editore S.p.A. Bologna, 2015
Dyson J. Freeman, Origini
della vita, Bollati Boringhieri Editore s.r.l., Torino, 2002
Edelman Shimon, La
felicità della ricerca, Codice Edizioni Le Scienze, Torino, 2012
Eigen Manfred, Gradini
verso la vita, Adelphi Edizioni, Milano, 1992
Eigen Manfred e al., L’origine dell’informazione genetica, Gli albori della vita, Le Scienze S.p.A. editore,
Milano,1984
Eldredge Niles, Ripensare
Darwin, Einaudi editore s.p.a., Torino, 1999
Encrenaz Thérèse, L’acqua
nel sistema solare, Le Scienze, Agosto 2001
Ehrenfreund P., al., Astrophysical and astrochemical insights
into the origin of life (Rep. Prog. Phys. 65 (2002) 1427–1487)
Engelberg-Kulka Hanna e al., Two
Programmed Cell Death Systems in Escherichia coli, PLoS Biology, Marzo 2012 (da Le
Scienze on line)
Ezzel Carol, Adesso
comandano le proteine, Le Scienze, Maggio 2002
Fry
Iris, L’origine della vita sulla terra,
Garzanti Libri, Milano, 2005
Galletta
Giuseppe, Valentina Sergi, Astrobiologia:
le frontiere della vita, Ulrico Hoepli S.p.A., Milano, 2009
Gary
Marcus, La nascita della mente,
Codice edizioni, Torino, 2008
Glasstone
Samuel, Trattato di chimico-Fisica,
Manfredi Editore, Milano, 1963
Gilroy
Simon, Comunicazioni vegetali, Le
Scienze, Novembre 2018
Gould J. S., Vrba S. E., Exaptation. Il bricolage dell’evoluzione, Bollati Boringhieri, Torino, 2008
Gregory
L. Richard, La mente nella scienza,
Biblioteca della EST Mondadori, Milano 1985
Haldane J. B. The
origin of life, Rationalist annual, (1929), p. 148
Harrison
J. Joe, Raymond J. Turner, Biofilm,
Le Scienze, luglio 2006
Hazen M. Robert, Vita
dalle rocce, Le Scienze, Aprile 2001.
Hazen M. Robert, Breve
storia della terra, il Saggiatore S.r.l., Milano,2017
Hegstrom R.A., Kondepudi D.K., La chiralità dell’universo, Le Scienze, Marzo1990
Hoffmann M. Peter, Gli
ingranaggi di Dio, Bollati Boringhieri S.p.A., Torino, 2014
Humphrey Nicholas, Polvere
d’anima, Codice Edizioni, Le Scienze, Roma 2013
Koshland
E. Daniel Jr, Conformazione delle
proteine e controllo biologico, Le Scienze quaderni n.44, 1988
Koonin V. Eugene
and. Novozhilov S. Artem, Origin and evolution of the genetic code:
the universal enigma, 2009 Feb;
61(2): 99–111
Kuchment
Anna, Il batterio più intelligente,
Le Scienze, Luglio2011,
Leglu D., Gli orologi della
chimica, Nuova Scienza. Maggio 1982
Losick
Richard, Kaiser Dale, La comunicazione
nei Batteri, Le Scienze, Maggio 1997
Lorenz
Konrad, L’etologia, Bollati
Boringhieri editore, Torino, Ed. 2011
Luisi
Pier Luigi, Sull’origine della vita e
della biodiversità, Mondadori Edition S.p.A., Milano, 2013
Mancuso
S., Viola A. Verde brillante, Giunti
Editore, Firenze 2013
Mayr
Ernest, L’unicità della biologia, Raffaello Cortina
Editore, Milano, 2005
Miller L. S., Urey H. C., Organic compound syntesis on the primiitve Earth, Science (1959),
130. P. 245
Minelli Alessandro, Gli albori della vita, Le Scienze S.p.A. editore, Milano,1984
Minelli Alessandro, Forme del divenire, Einaudi editore, Torino, 2007
Monod Jaques, Il
caso e la necessità, Mondadori, Milano, 1979
Omodeo Pietro,
Anatomia comparata ed evoluzione della cellula, Le Scienze Quaderni n.7
1983
Oparin A. I. L’origine
della vita, Editore Boringhieri s.p.a., Torino, 1977
Orgel
L., L’origine della vita sulla terra, Le Scienze quaderni n. 89, Aprile
1994
Ponnamperuma Cyril, Origine della vita, Treccani on line, 1984
Prigogine Ilya, La
nuova alleanza, Longanesi & C., Milano, 1981
Rykart Rudolf, Quarz
Monographie, Ott Verlag, Thun, 1995
Ricardo Alonso e al., Planetary Organic Chemistry
and the Origins of Biomolecules, Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology 2(7):a003467 · July
2010
Sasselov Dimitar, Un’altra
terra, La biblioteca delle Scienze, Roma, 2012
Schopf J. William, La
culla della vita, Adelphi Edizioni Milano 2003
Schrödinger Erwin, Che
cosa è la vita, Adelphi Edizioni Milano ed.1995
Sheldrake Rupert, Le
illusioni della scienza, Urra-Apogeo, Milano, 2013
Smith Maynard, La
teoria dell’evoluzione, Newton Compton editori s.r.l. Roma, Edizione 2005
Unwin Nigel, Henderson Richard, La struttura delle proteine delle membrane biologiche, Le Scienze,
Aprile 1984
Vallortigara Giorgio, La mente che scodinzola, Mondadori Education S.p.A., Milano, 2011
Valsecchi Cristina, La vita sociale dei batteri, Le Scienze, Febbraio 2005
Villarreal P. Luis, I virus sono vivi? Le Scienze,
Febbraio 2005
Viviani Romano, Elementi
di Biochimica, (Tomo Primo, Significato biochimico dei fosfolipidi,
pag.239), UTET, Torino, 1984
Weber Arthur and Miller Stanley, Reasons
of the Occurrence of the Twenty Coded Protein Amino Acids, J Mol Evol. 1981;17(5):273-84
Williamson Mike, Come
funzionano le proteine, Zanichelli Editore S.p.A., Bologna, 2013
Winfree A. T. Reazioni
chimiche rotanti, Le Scienze, Luglio 1974
Woese C. R. e al., The molecular
basis for the genetic code. Proc Natl
Acad Sci U S A. 1966 Apr. 55(4): 966–974
Yarus M., RNA-ligand chemistry: a testable source for the genetic code, PMC RNA.
2000 Apr. 6(4): 475–484
Yarus M1, Caporaso JG, Knight,
Origins of the genetic code: the escaped triplet
theory, Annu Rev Biochem. 2005;74:179-98.
Index
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………..
Chapter 1. But what is
life? ............................................................
Chapter 2.
Introduction to the origin of life and the laws of nature.
Chapter 3.Origin of the constituents of nucleic acids and proteins….
Chapter 4. Organizing principle and molecular asymmetry..............
Chapter 5. The problem of molecular asymmetry: the disappearance of the form D ........................
Chapter 6. The origin of the genetic code: the electrokinetic theory 106
Chapter 7. The choice of 20 amino acids ........................................
Chapter 8. Protein synthesis ........................................... ............. ..
Chapter 9. Origin of life: the protoorganism ................................ ..
Chapter 10. From the protoorganism to the cell ............................
Chapter 11. Cell duplication ............................................................
Chapter 12. The origin
of the mind .......................................... ......
Appendix 1.
Explorations: as different as two drops.
Superficial phenomena near slow bumps between chemical compounds or "chemotaxis of the non-living"……………………………….
Appendix 2. Apparatus for the measurement of flow potentials ....
Appendix 3. Experimental part .......................................................
Appendix 4. Procedure .............................................. .....................
Appendix 5. Around quartz with Matlab .........................................
Acknowledgments ...........................................................................
Bibliography......................................................................................
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento