| ALTHOUGH BOB GALLO may have missed out on this year's Nobel Prize, which went instead to fellow AIDS researchers, I think one of his early papers might still get him the prize. That paper is discussed below and in my web material concerning AIDS and the nature of viruses.
Bob and I are both graduates of the University of Chicago. UChicago has a unique ambiance that comes from having an administration carefully selected from those Chicago residents who are deemed too hostile, antisocial, and unpredictable to find a comfortable niche in the Chicago mob. I spoke with Bob earlier this year, before the Nobel awards, and he mentioned that he thought bacteria developed earlier in evolution than viruses. I found that interesting, but, on reflection found that I've a somewhat different view. My own view combines some earlier generalizations of mine to create what seems to me to be a consistent picture of microbial origins. Here it is in brief: In my scenario, there was what might be described as an evolutionary "big bang:" the first sign of life was a primal "reproducing loop;" in a sense, the first living thing was the ecosystem or the "biochemical system." Viruses and bacteria are also derived from reproducing loops, from other loops that came later in evolution. Viruses and genes had a common origin, which is also the origin of the male sex. Bacteria were derived a bit differently. Interested readers are invited to peruse the following longer explanation of this and to offer any comments they may think appropriate. (Since I'm a graduate of UChicago, any criticism, including the crudest invective is unlikely to offend). THE PERSON WHO COINED the term "free radical" did a great service to humanity. In the 20th century, when the term came into use, there were lots of radical political movements and radical organizers who tried to disrupt the established systems of government. A chemical free radical was therefore described as playing a somewhat comparable role, by disrupting chemical "systems." But, as molecule bumps against molecule, as various reactions occur in the material world, what sort of "systems" are we talking about? Free radicals are often cited as causing cancer, and cancer is a surely a disruption of the "system" in a healthy body. But "free radical" seems to imply the existence of a broader biochemical system. In my view the whole of biochemistry can indeed be described as a system, which may appropriately and specifically compared to languages. In both the biochemical system and in any language there are rules, but also a good deal of flexibility. There's another comparison, though, which many reading this may not have thought about. Both biochemistry and language are inherently restricted: there are fewer biochemical molecules and fewer words in a given language than might seem potentially possible. Consider how this may be seen in the English language. The popular syndicated newspaper Jumble puzzle can illustrate. The Jumble that was published July 15, 2008 in the Indianapolis Star required one to unscramble six letters to arrive at the word "bygone." bygone goneyb nogyeb ybeong . . . . Now, the puzzle wouldn't work if there was any other English word that could be made from those same six letters. So there are 719 non-words, such as "gobyen," that can be made, but only one actual English word. Written English language is restricted or constrained and the number of possible letter permutations is much greater than the number of actual English words. In other words, the set of English words is a very small subset of the set of letter permutations from the English alphabet. Similarly, the set of biochemical molecules is a very small subset of the combined set of all possible organic and inorganic molecules. Continue article |
| This article is based on an e-mail I sent in late 2008 to about two hundred biochemists on my list and other professionals. In that period I was also phoning biochemists in order to argue with them (pleasantly, if at all possible) and thus obtain confirmation that I was on the right track. I was pleased to find that they were, indeed, able to provide such confirmation, and one of them is, in fact, quoted below. I also think I may have priority with this. I am happy to hear from anyone who would like to tell me about related work, even if it might pop my egoistical bubble of claiming priority. At the time of this writing, the closest thing I could find which was in any way related was due to mathematician, Chris Langton, who also wrote of "reproducing loops". However his idea and mine aren't otherwise connected. Entire article last modified July 2009 |
Degas "Before the Race" |
 |