Theoretical Exploration on Biological Metabolism and Biological Cycle of Substances (2)
3. Generating mode of inorganic ions
All the inorganic substances, such as phosphorus, nitrogen, carbon, potassium, calcium, etc., must become an ionic form, then can be absorbed by plants. Otherwise, these substances could not generate their potential energy to move into the plant body.
There are two ways to make inorganic substances into the ionic form: one is physical-chemical mode (such as rays, lightning, storms, waves, waterfalls, etc.), and another is biochemical mode. Both of them have their rationality.
3.1. Physical-chemical mode. This is the mode that went through from inorganic substances to organic in the ancient times, and now is still playing a role.
3.2. Biochemical mode. There are two different forms in this mode: one is the plant photosynthesis, and another is the reaction of removing electrons by autotrophic microorganisms.
3.2.1. Photosynthesis. By the restoration of chloroplasts, their function has been classed under the head of autotrophic microorganisms (only in this way it can make sense in theory). Moreover, whether the ATP production in the photoreaction or the carbon assimilation in the dark reaction, both of them are inseparable from the effect of coenzymes or enzymes, and inextricably linked with microorganisms (about the relationship between enzymes and microorganisms, please refer to “Formula Derivation of Biological Enzymes Originating from Microorganisms”, and the below “Unsolved mystery of vitamins” and “Talk about enzymes and vitamins again”).
3.2.2. Reaction to remove electrons by autotrophic microorganisms. In the process of inorganic substances transformed into organic, to remove their electrons is usually completed by autotrophic microorganisms.
Thus, we have to understand the biochemical mode of the generation of all the inorganic ions as the function of autotrophic microorganisms or the reactions of their removing electrons.
It is very slow that the ions produced by physical-chemical mode become organic substances, with which mode to generate microorganisms had gone through more than 1 billion years, and the rapid transformation from inorganic substances to organic happened only after the birth of microorganisms. So, considering both the main mode for plants to assimilate ions and in order to be convenient for our discussion, we have to adopt the normal biochemical mode promoted by autotrophic microorganisms, which is correspondent with the whole theory discussed by us.
4. Start and end points of biological cycle of substances
4.1. Are there the start and end points in biological cycle of substances?
According to the traditional biological chain theory, the substance transformation is linked each other and interlocking among the so-called decomposers, producers and consumers, and there should not be the start and end points. In the traditional definition of biological cycle of substances, it also said that is “a continuous process that plants absorb air, water, inorganic nutrients in soil and synthesize them into plant organic matter, the plant organic matter is synthesized into animal organic matter after animal absorption, and the residues of plants and animals, when they died, are decomposed into inorganic substances and return to air, water, soil (4)”. This definition has obviously also included the inorganic substances in the biological cycle.
But on a careful deliberation, we would be aware that the traditional biological chain is closed, and implies a logic that the formers have to be converted completely into the latters, otherwise, the substance cycle would be interrupted. But in fact, the organic substances decomposed by microorganisms (decomposers) could not be absorbed totally by plants (producers), plants could not be converted totally into animals (consumers), and also the low-level consumers (such as herbivores) could not be “consumed” by the high-level ones (such as carnivores). At the every level of the substance cycle, most of the substances would return to the inorganic state at any time. This type △of the cycle situation with small top and big bottom illustrates there should be its start and end points, otherwise, it would break itself in operation, and could not continue.
Upon a literal understanding of the biological cycle of substances, since limited to “biological”, it should not include the inorganic substances.
Furthermore, before the organic matter came into being, although there was a geochemical cycle in nature because of the solar imbalance, atmospheric motion, precipitation and rivers, it had been belonging to a relative static inorganic world as opposed to the biogeochemical cycle of substances. It was only after more than 1 billion years that the inorganic world began to slowly generate microorganisms through physical-chemical reaction, and thereby the inorganic substances had been launched in large scale from their static state and accelerated biogeochemical cycle of substances.
4.2. Where are the start and end points?
Now that the plant and animal bodies can not be related directly to the physical substances and only the inorganic substances in ionic state can be absorbed by plants, so the start point of the substances cycle in biological world should be the inorganic substances in ionic state, and the starter of the biological cycle of substances should be autotrophic microorganisms, because the procedure of removing electrons is completed by them (in the reality the physical-chemical reaction also has its contribution). Only the inorganic substances lost some electrons can have a potential energy for their motion to the organic phytosynthesis.
In the biological cycle of substances, the result of heterotrophic microorganisms’ effect is inverted against autotrophic microorganisms’, which is the restoration of organic substances. Although there would be some animal decomposition (one–stage and two-stage decomposition) during the restoration, their final end is still the restoration, and return the organic substances to the inorganic state. The restored inorganic substances are no different from other inorganic ones not involving in circulation and impossible to be absorbed directly by plants. Therefore, the essential function of heterotrophic microorganisms is to get the substances involving in the circulation back to their start, and thus it creates the end point of the biological cycle of substances.
So from the direct kinetic energy angle, in essence, the biological cycle of substances starts from autotrophic microorganisms and ends with heterotrophic microorganisms. Therefore, in the biological cycle of substances, the substances are the base, and microorganisms are the key.
According to this section and all the above discussions, we may show the whole process of the biological cycle of substances with a simple diagram:
(Available at http://www.bbfactor.com/group.php?keyno=26)
Diagram of biological cycle of substances
The explanations of biological cycle of substances is as follows:
①Cleared away the closed state. The “Diagram of biological cycle of substances”cleared away theimplicit logic that the substances would be transformed totally among the so-called decomposers, producers and consumers. Whether the inorganic substances in ionic state or plants can drop out from the cycle at any time, and return to the inorganic state.
②Autotrophic and heterotrophic creatures could be classified respectively. By the classification of autotrophic creatures (autotrophic microorganisms and plants) and heterotrophic creatures (heterotrophic microorganisms and animals), highlighted the equal status of autotrophic and heterotrophic microorganisms, and gave expression to playing their promoting role in the process of phytosynthesis and restoration (or bio-fixation and bio-release).
③Various elements came into the unity of opposites. Plants and animals, autotrophic and heterotrophic microorganisms, phytosynthesis and restoration, inorganic and organic, all of them came into a relationship of unity of opposites.
In the traditional theory, it is emphasized there would be no synthesis without decomposition (catabolism and anabolism), which obviously refers to the metabolism in the animal body, and should not be a universal law of the substance cycle in biosphere. But in the biological cycle of substances, the opposite side of phytosynthesis should not be the “decomposition”, but restoration. So, here adjusted the phytosynthesis and restoration as the two sides of the unity of opposites.
It also needs to indicate that animals’ decomposition and composition are the secondary procedures during the biological cycle of substances, which do not belong to the same conceptual level of the phytosynthesis and restoration. We need to further clarify, in the biological cycle of substances, the phytosynthesis is primary, which is no phytosynthesis, no restoration. It is just opposite to that the animals’ decomposition is primary, which is no decomposition, no composition.
④ Made animals dependent on plants. In the process of the restorations of plants or organic substances, animals are not treated as the “consumers” paralleling to or even higher than plants, but treated as a branch deriving from plants, and belong to a kind of creatures deriving from plants or organic substances. Human and animals are subject to plants in the substance transformation, which is independent of our subjective will but is decided by their heterotrophic nature. It conforms to the basic theory and reality that human and animals are based on plants.
⑤ Did not reflect the animals’ high “consumption”. As animals were classified into the category of plants, and only the main categories were expressed, this diagram only reflected the lower “consumption” that animals were derived from plants, did not reflect their high “consumption”.
5. Comparison of the substances needed by plants and animals
Based on the above reunderstanding of in vivo and in vitro, the digestion of the chyme in the animal digestive tract is carried out in vitro. The substances can not be regarded as (the ones) in vivo, but only as in vitro before they are absorbed. This is the primary difference from the traditional theory.
5.1. Traditional theory. On the question that the human body absorbs the ingested substances, although some frontier researches have already stated clearly that only the organic compounds decomposed from large molecular into small could be absorbed, many popular science readings are still making carbohydrate and protein etc. directly absorbed (5), causing most people think so. According to the traditional theory and its application in practice, we can make a table to compare the metabolism of plants and animals:
Comparison table of the traditional substances needed as well as
phytosynthesized and restored by plants and animals
(Available at http://www.bbfactor.com/group.php?keyno=26)
Table 1
Explanations:
①Listed enzymes alone. As enzymes belong to protein, the traditional theory has been classing them into the protein category. But enzymes are part of the functional substances similar to coenzymes and vitamins, and play a catalytic role in the metabolism in plants and animals, and are fundamentally different from the properties of the catalyzed common protein and other substances. Because enzymes have a qualitative difference in functions and properties from the common protein and other substances, so they are listed as an individual item.
Since the animal and plant absorption of enzymes, coenzymes and vitamins is very complicated, and their theoretical elaboration is also not unified, therefore, they did not appear in the form of their precursors, but listed them directly in the form of enzymes, coenzymes and vitamins.
② Classification of enzymes. Although a lot of data reflected that microorganisms are sure to produce enzymes in their life activities, the mainstream theory still insists on that the enzymes in animal body come from the animal cells besides supplied from plants. Therefore, enzymes have to be classified to both the phytosynthesis and the animal synthesis.
From Table 1 reflecting the traditional metabolism, we can see:
①Physical and chemical substances were mixed with each other. The substances absorbed by plants reflected their physical properties in fact, because carbon dioxide and mineral elements looked like their chemical properties, but they were mixed with water and sunlight and directly absorbed by plants. Even if the substances absorbed by animals, although various studies reflected only the big molecular organic substances broken down into small could be absorbed, usually in its theory popularization and practice, people still got the big molecule organic substances to have a direct relation with animals as showed in Table 1 , which caused them only to have a change of position in the table, not a corresponding chemical change (they did not belong to the same properties as enzymes, coenzymes and vitamins in essence, too). So they are essentially part of the physical substances. In other words, in the traditional theory, the substances absorbed by plants and animals were mixed with each other in their physical and chemical properties.
②Hard to tell where is the inorganic world and where is the organic world. Table 1 showed us that the inorganic is included in the organic, and the organic is also included in the inorganic (for example the mineral elements and vitamins in “Phytosynthesis” and “Needed anergy and substances”). It has confused the inorganic with the organic, and both of the inorganic and organic world were included in the range of the material cycle.
③ Did not show the substances in motion. The substance and energy metabolism reflected by plants and animals, although they could cross each other in the table and seemed cycling, they did not show the substances in transformation and motion and were still in a static state. So they could not form a circulation.
④ Without the participation of microorganisms. In the traditional metabolic theory, it was the physical substances to be directly absorbed by plants, and it was also the plant substances for animals to absorb directly. This meant there was no involvement of microorganisms during the course of substance transformation from inorganic substances to plant substances and then to animal substances. It was in the absence of not only autotrophic microorganisms, but also heterotrophic microorganisms.
Although the vitamins needed by animal were considered some came from the microorganisms in the digestive tract and the rest came from plants, microorganisms were still believed as “Generally speaking, there is no much sense (6)”, making this sprout, that could inspire us to explore the biological metabolism theory reasonably, suffered misfortune again.
In the traditional theory, whether plants or animals, all of their absorption is to relate directly to the physical substances, so both of them are the obvious “forced marriage” too. it is just because that the direct absorption of the physical substances by plants and animals is very intuitive and easy to be understood and accepted, so it is extremely inconspicuous and concealed that the autotrophic and heterotrophic microorganisms are obliterated in the traditional theory.
(to be contining) (Available at http://www.bbfactor.com/group.php?keyno=26)
