Re: Function, unfractionable as first principle

[Dan Fiscus <***>]

Tim,

Thanks a lot. Very good info. But I think that Rosen (if I understand him)
would not agree with that quote by Martinez, which suggests that the M
and R (or catabolic, anabolic) processes are *decomposable*. This to me
would be more in line with unfractionability and Rosen complexity. This
is also my view of the origin of life, that these two functions are
inseparable
and that their unity and mutual causality at the origin of life enabled the
later creation of cells and organisms. Cells/organisms seem even more
easily
decomposable, separable or fractionable into two types (plant, animal) or
even independent "free-living" cells and organisms, but I suggest this
is only
a superficial appearance of independence or fractionability and that if you
do simple thought experiments it is easy to see and show that no cell or
organism is self-sustaining on its own, that the smallest unit of life
that is
self-sustaining and self-reproducing is an ecosystemic team with those two
original functions coupled, integral, intact in their unity.

Here's another quote for you, from Rashevsky :

"First one or a few biological functions becomes specialized, then others.
Some general rule must now be looked for, which determines the sequence
of different steps. Again we have some clues in observation. The earliest
specialization seems to be in the separation of the two groups of biological
functions, the animal and vegetative."

From (p 339) "Topology and life: in search of general mathematical
principles in biology and sociology", N. Rashevsky, Bulletin of
Mathematical
Biophysics, Vol. 16, 1954, p 317-348.

Other places in the article Rashevsky (as for Rosen) considers cells and
organisms as the basic unit of life, but quotes such as this, and Rosen's
M-R models combined with the principle of unfractionability, suggest to me
that prior to the specialization into separately indentifiable functions of
autotrophy and heterotrophy these functions were inseparable and unified.
This pre-separation era is the interesting period for me, and I think it the
time of ecosystemic life, before cells and organisms existed but when life
was going strong and and an unfractioned, undifferentiated "life function"
was busy generating these now-common structures. This primordial life
function would have been Rosen complex, a coupled complementary
function of  autotrophy-heterotrophy, metabolism-repair or
catabolism-anabolism.

Dan

Tim Gwinn wrote:
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Dan
>  > Fiscus
>  > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 5:34 PM
>  > To: ***
>  > Subject: Re: Function, unfractionable as first principle
>  >
>  >
>  > Tim Gwinn wrote:
>  >
>  > > Thanks, that helps me understand it better.
>  > > This sounds somewhat along the lines of Don's alternate
>  > (M,R)-system that
>  > > explicitly includes anabolic/catabolic pathways, which are
>  > integral to the
>  > > diagram as a whole. Have you looked at that on his website?
>  >
>  > Is this the same article as the one showing Gaia as an organism as
>  > in closed to efficient cause? I saw this once but now cannot find it
>  > on his site. Can you send the URL?
>
> Dan,
>
> The above was an old thread, but I was reading some old Bulletin of
> Mathematical Biology journals I had bought awhile back and ran across
> something you might find interesting with regard to your CCP (coupled
> complementary processes).
>
> In an article entitled "Towards an Optimal Design Principle in
> Relational Biology" by H.M. Martinez (BMB:26-4, 1964), regarding the
> (M,R) system he writes in his introduction:
>
>     "In the approach by R. Rosen for the relational representation of
>     the metabolic aspects of unicellular organisms it is assumed that
>     this physiological process is decomposable into a collection of two
>     types of component processes. One type, collectively called the
>     /*M*/ components, stands roughly for the set of catabolic processes,
>     while the other, consisting of the /*R*/ components, can be
>     interpreted as the anabolic part."
>
> I had never considered the M & R processes in that light, nor do I
> recall recall Rosen mentioning it (so I don't know what his view would
> be). But I recall you asking once about the (M,R) model and
> complementary processes, and so I thought I'd just mention it to
> you. This is a somewhat different view than Don M.'s extended (M,R)
> model (http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mikuleck/cellmr.html) which
> includes additional explicit pathways to/from *B* to represent
> anabolic/catabolic pathways.
>
> Regards,
> Tim

--

Dan Fiscus
Ecologist/Research Assistant
University of Maryland
Center for Environmental Science
Appalachian Lab
301 Braddock Rd
Frostburg, MD 21532
301-689-7121 (phone)
http://al.umces.edu/~fiscus/research