Theoretical Exploration on Biological Metabolism and Biological Cycle of Substances (1)

–To analyse the serious omission in the traditional theory

and to breed new ideas on the theory

Abstract: The discovery and correct of a mistake always go hand in hand, and there is a relationship of the unity of opposites betwwen them. By reunderstanding the in vivo and in vitro and returning to the original condition of chloroplasts, this study discovered there is a transitional space for the pretreatment of the needed substances of both plants and animals. On the basis of a comparison of their metabolism, it discovered that is impossible to have a direct relationship between plants / animals and physical substances, and that the traditional theory has omited autotrophic / heterotrophic microorganisms. When filled up these theoretical loopholes, it smoothed away all of the contradictions and doubts, and found out the starting and end points of biological cycle of substances successfully. Based on the reality that all the substance transformation in the biological world are the results of biochemical reactions, it confirmed microorganisms are the only promoter of these series of reactions, and enzymes, coenzymes and vitamins are the necessary substances for them to take part in the biochemical reactions. As a result, it solved the problems how physical substances should have a relationship with plants and animals, adjusted the relationships among the three categories of the living things in the biological world and formed a new understanding on the theory.

Why is it difficult to constitute a unity of opposites between animal body and nature?

Why is not the same substances that plant roots and leaves would absorb?

Why does the biological chain reflect only the heterotrophic microorganisms, not reflect the autotrophic ones?

Why does not it reflect the microorganisms in biological metabolism?

Why……? 

Although these problems have been occupying our mind for many years and tried many ways to solve them, we are still pacing back and forth in their periphery, could not touch their core, and even also they could not be theoretically expounded well with irrefutable evidences. Well, where are the real crux of these contradictions and doubts? And how to dig out their roots and find out the key to unlock them? 

1. About in vivo and in vitro 

How to understand in vivo and in vitro is not beside the point. For instance, the territorial waters of a country are part of its maritime territory, which should be interpreted as the domestic, with some closure properties. But they also communicate with international waters and oceans, with a certain degree of openness. This closure and openness may not need to be paid an overclose attention to on the national sovereignty and both of them can be treated as the territorial jurisdiction of the country. However, it would count for much when they are applied to the understanding of the animal body. 

The relationship between in vivo and in vitro, in essence, involves how to apply the basic principles of philosophy in the animal body and how to understand it. 

In vivo and in vitro here mean the inside and outside of torso (trunk) respectively. If the tortuous digestive tract was shortened and caused it to go straight inside the trunk, it would trun out that the animal trunk is equal to a thick walled tube. Its mouth and anus would respectively be its entrance and exit, and the in vivo would communicate with in vitro. Based on this understanding, we have always been taking the contents and space in the digestive tract for in vivo, but in fact, they are part of in vitro (or the transitional “territorial waters” from in vitro to in vivo), and the animal body is in essence to mean the tube wall except the contents and space in the digestive tract, only containing its own body cells (corresponding to the inland of the territory). 

As a result, the food and microorganisms in this inner environment of the digestive tract have been taken away from in vivo, because they stay essentially in vitro though living “in vivo”, and are not a part of the body (but as a part of the sphere of the body influence), only as the passers along the digestive tract. In this way, the relationship between the body and nature has presented a unification, and made the body, plant (chyme) and microorganisms in the digestive tract into a relative unified whole. 

Philosophically, in relation to the constant dynamic nature, the body is temporarily in a relative static state during the period of the animal life, which is very easy to be understood. But how does this static body come into opposition to the dynamic natural world? And how to form a unification? Therefore, it essentially is also a basic problem of philosophy to find out the motion of the substances corresponding to the relative static body, and then corresponding to the plant unity of opposites, in order to reach a unification with plants. 

The leading passway that the animal body absorbs nutrients from nature is the digestive tract. Therefore, the food and microorganisms passing through the digestive tract are the constantly dynamic substances relative to the relatively static body. These substances are equivalent to the natural world corresponding to the tube wall of the body. On this point, it is not difficult to be accepted in philosophy. But regretably in reality, we have always understood and treated the food and microorganisms in the digestive tract as in vivo in the traditional theory and practice. This would be contrary to the above philosophical principle. If the food and microorganisms were understood and treated as in vivo, it is equal to enclosing the body, isolating the body from outside and being unable to form a dynamic and static unification, which engendered an error in concept. 

The distinction of in vitro and in vivo of plants seems relatively complex due to the chloroplasts. The substances absorbed by plant roots from soil obviously come from in vitro, but the ones absorbed by plant leaves seem to happen in vivo, because the chloroplasts are within the plant body (just like the digestive tract in the animal body). About the chloroplasts, the unanimous view of the current scientific circles is, “The endosymbiotic theory concerns the origins of mitochondria and plastids (e.g. chloroplasts), which are organelles of eukaryotic cells. According to this theory, these organelles originated as separate prokaryotic organisms that were taken inside the cell as endosymbionts. Mitochondria developed from proteobacteria (in particular, Rickettsiales or close relatives) and chloroplasts from cyanobacteria(1)”.Since the chloroplast function came from the evolution of the photosynthetic bacteria and it has been approved widely by the scientific circles, we have to adopt this presumption and to restore the chloroplasts, then treat the inner environment of the chloroplasts as the special digestive tract of the plant leaves (that is the preprocessing space of the matter and energy for plant absorption) while their function is classified into the head of autotrophic microorganisms. Certainly, perhaps plants are able to phytosynthesize some functional substances, but such a function should be genetic from autotrophic microorganisms and still has to be put under autotrophic microorganisms. 

Based on the above understanding and reality, all the needed substances of animals and plants need a preprocessing transition, and the spaces for the preprocessing transition would be: the inner-environment of the animal digestive tract, the inner-environment of the chloroplasts and the soil space covered by the plant roots. Strictly speaking, these spaces should not be counted in vivo, but in vitro. Thus, it has broken the conflicting interpretations that the preprocess of a part of the plant needed substances is in vitro and a part is in vitro but the decomposition of all the animal needed substances is in vivo, thereupon then achieving a unification on the digestive absorption of the needed substances of plant roots and leaves, and also achieving a unification on the digestive absorption of animals and plants. 

At the same time, this understanding can also be applied to the animal’s respiratory tract and urogenital tract. Since all the mammals’ fertilization and pregnancy are carried out in vitro, thus it also comes into a unification on the fertilization and pregnancy of all the mammals, reptiles, birds and fishes. 

Based on the example of the thick-walled tube and the philosophical understanding as well as the scientific presumption of the chloroplasts, the chyme and microorganisms in the animal digestive tract, the microorganisms in soil as well as the substances pending for the absorption of plant roots and being preprocessed in the chloroplasts are quite obvious to be in vitro, and are part of the dynamic natural world corresponding to the inner wall  of our thick-walled tube body. Such an understanding can solve some basic problems how to understand the relationship between life and nature, and many problems puzzling us for a long time could also be solved.

2. Serious omission in the traditional theory in biological metabolism and biological cycle of substances 

The discussion on in vivo and in vitro is by no means a simple meaning of the words, but would involve the understanding and application of some basic concepts in life sciences and would cause a series of changes. At the same time, it can provide a breakthrough for us to explain some contradictions and doubts that we face and enable us to suddenly see the light. 

Through the reunderstanding of the concepts of in vivo and in vitro, we can be aware not only there were some vague wording on nature and life sciences in the past, but also come to know the obvious loopholes in the traditional theory. 

2.1. Annotation of nouns 

According to the exploration in theory in this study, there is a relationship of the unity of opposites both between plant and animal metabolism, and between the substances of enzymes and ordinary organic substances, so that some words have to redefine their meanings in order to reflect this relationship. 

2.1.1. Physical substances and chemical substances. Physical substances mean the ones, with physical properties, not preprocessed by microorganisms and physical-chemical reaction, such as minerals. Chemical substances mean the ones, with chemical properties, not preprocessed by microorganisms and physical-chemical reaction and not got a chemical change, such as mineral elements. 

Chemicalized substances. They mean the ones preprocessed by microorganisms and physical-chemical reaction and got a chemical change, such as mineral ions. 

2.1.2. Functional substances and ordinary (organic) substances. Functional substances mean the catalyzing ones in the biochemical reactions, such as enzymes, coenzymes and vitamins (2), and ordinary (organic) substances mean the catalyzed ones in the biochemical reactions, such as carbohydrates and ordinary proteins. 

Some university textbooks have classified hormones, together with enzymes and vitamins, into the functional components of the organic substances (2). However, hormones would not to take part in the metabolic activities, and only play a role in the regulation of metabolism . So they are different from the functional substances, such as enzymes and vitamins, in the biochemical reactions, and there is a relationship of the unity of opposites between them and all the enzymes and vitamins, as well as the ordinary organic substances. Owing to the regulating function of hormones, whether there would be a close relationship between them and genes, pending a further verification (here, left a space for the involvement of genes). 

2.1.3. Phytosynthesis and restoration. Phytosynthesis means to produce organic substances or plants from inorganic, and restoration means to give organic substances or plants back to inorganic (2). 

2.1.4. Decomposition (breakdown) and composition (synthesis). Decomposition means the breakdown of the plants or organic substances in the inner-environment of the animal body, and composition means thesynthesis of the decomposed substances into the animal ones after absorption.Decomposition and compositionbelong to the subprocedure in the biological cycle of substances. 

2.2. Plant and animal bodies can not have a direct relationship with physical substances 

For a long time, we have been understanding all the food and microorganisms in the digestive tract as in vivo. And also, we have been understanding all the substances in the inner-environment of the photosynthetic chloroplasts as in vivo. Thereby we can put these two issues together for an exploration. 

It is because the chyme (food) and microorganisms in the digestive tract used to be regarded as in vivo that lead the traditional theory to make the body (or animal body) to have a direct relationship with food, even evolved into relating the body directly to the inorganic, for instance, to eat zinc could be to reinforce brain and to eat calcium could be to complement calcium etc. In fact, all the minerals in food are in organic form, and their properties are different from the ones in nature. According to the reflection of the below Table 2, only the chemicalized substances could be allowed to enter into the biological cycle, and the elemental minerals here look like chemical, but in fact they are physical without a chemical change and are not qualified to join the biological metabolism. As Mr. Yang Zhen-Bo, a water quality expert in China Monitoring Station of Environmental Sanitation, pointed out: “In fact only living plants can absorb and utilize the inorganic minerals in soil, and only the organic minerals transformed by plants can be absorbed and utilized by human and animal bodies. Almost no one can absorb the nutrition from inorganic minerals and also no one can use inorganic minerals effectively in vivo (3)“ 

While all sorts of textbooks and research articles are telling that minerals could only be absorbed by plant and animal bodies when they were in the ionic state, such an understanding and application like the above to make plants and animals to have a direct relation with physical substances has been continuing to this day in agriculture, nutriology and medical science, and the wording reflecting this relationship can also be found everywhere, such as:

Physical substances             Actual substances absorbed by plants and animals

 Minerals (or soil)                              Mineral ions

 Water                                               Hydrogen ions

 Carbon dioxide                                 Carbon and oxide ions

 Sunlight                                            Electric energy

 2.3. “Forced marriage” in plant and animal metabolism 

To be worse, the decomposers and producers are linked together with each other in the basic theory of life sciences – biological chain, and look like joining tightly without any flaw. 

According to the meaning of the “decomposers”, they apparently refers to the heterotrophic microorganisms. In this regard, there should not be any doubt, because in practice we do understand and treat them like this. The decomposed organic substances, for example, could be directly absorbed by plant roots (the organic substances available to plant roots are a very small amount). Obviously, such an understanding and application has losed the procedure to remove electrons by autotrophic microorganisms, and created a vital theoretical loophole. 

In the substance cycle, it is only the heterotrophic microorganisms (decomposers) emphasized in the traditional theory, and these “decomposers” are only reflected in the process from organic substances to inorganic, but just a decoration at the other levels of the substance transformation. Even in the biological cycle of substances, according to the law of the unity of opposites, they should come into existence on the basis of the opposite side, but in fact, there is no trace of their opposite side. Hence that creates an error of principle in philosophy. 

On this analysis, we can clearly see there is no direct relationship between plants and heterotrophic microorganisms. Interestingly, many theoretical articles have worked out that only the substances in ionic form can be absorbed by plant roots. But in the application of the theory, due to the puzzle of chloroplasts, we have been still directly supplying the physical substances, such as carbon dioxide, sunlight , water and minerals, to plants. If these relations were shady and not obvious enough, then, the most obvious one is the traditional biological chain, which has openly crossed over the autotrophic microorganisms and directly pressed the “decomposers” to sing a drama with plants, staging a typical scene “forced marriage”. 

On the relationship between the human (or animal) body and ingested substances, the traditional theory has been applying nothing less than the “forced marriage”, and causes the human (or animal) body to be related directly to the ingested substances. It would be reflected more clearly in the following Table 1.

(to be continuing) (available at http://www.bbfactor.com/group.php?keyno=26)

About the Author

1972.12—1992.12. Served in the army. During this period, I learnt English and mainly busy at the research of applied maths.

1992.11—2005.7. Tranfered to civilian work, and mainly occupied in import and export of foods. During this period, I ever had many other jobs.

2005.8, I was retired on account of unemployment.

2006.3—now. On the support of friends abroad, I established BB Factor Corperation (specializing in import and export trade), because my friends abroad were willing to trade with me. In fact, I am interested not in the trade, but in my started study of biological theory.

In my life, I often suffered from a twist of fate, rather the opponents always meet. For example, I eagered to go to university when I was young, but met with the “Great Cultural Revolution”; I prefer liberal arts, but mainly busy at the research of applied maths and biology; Influenced by traditional culture, I disdain merchants intent on nothing but profit, but I became a professional merchant after my transfer.

Bluebirds : What Is a Bluebird’s Life Cycle?

A New Duck : My First Look at the Life Cycle of a Bird (My First Look at Nature) $6.29 In A New Duck, Paul visits a city park through the seasons and observes Mallard ducks as they develop from egg to duckling to fledgling. Children will enjoy reading the cumulative, sing-song verse patterned after “The House that Jack Built,” and then peering under the flaps to learn interesting science facts. This book in the My First Look at series also contains a note to parents suggesting ways …

120 Learning Center Activities (Science Literacy Center, Set B Energy&Force Machines&Tools Animal Life Cycles Birds Desert Ocean) $4,098.03 …