Yeah -- staying out of the name the pill controversy ;) -- one neat little tidbit in the "I'm always amazed by how little I know and how little I've thought about what I do know" category. We think of Arsenic as a poison, but the only reason we think of it as a "poison" is (duh) that it is bad for *us*, i.e. humans + every other critter that we've run into before now. But the reason that it is bad is not that it is different from our chemistry, like an acid, but that it is so close to our chemistry, being next to phosphorous on the old periodic table, thus disrupting cellular mechanisms. So while typically we think of things that are close in structure or design to be friendly in fact here a movement to our nearest neighbor represents a major boundary shift, while one to a distant neighbor would of course be quite unlikely as the chances of slotting into the same role would be very slim. That idea could certainly argue for the idea that the current six element setup is arbitrary against some set of possible configurations. Once a choice is made in that configuration space it would be very unlikely (and only under these kind of extreme conditions) that we would move off it. The fact that we can (hmm, I mean I actually probably can't so please don't subject me to any experiments) anyway makes the argument that "because that's the only way it works here" even more tenuous.
On Dec 2, 2010, at 9:21 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote: > Following Glen, Roger, and James, and also wondering why Nick is being a > pill.... > > I believe the report is of interest for showing an organism that uses arsenic > in interesting ways, but it gets its magical-shininess (i.e. Science > worthiness) for showing an organism that does not use phosphorous. We have > never found a life form that could do the "life" thing without phosphorous. > It is almost (almost) like finding an organism that uses silicon instead of > carbon. > > Oh, and then there is the potential for practical application... like > cleaning up arsenic, which is a common pollutant coming out of mines. But > anything like that is a long way off. > > Eric > > > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 08:03 PM, Roger Critchlow <r...@elf.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 4:39 PM, glen e. p. ropella <g...@tempusdictum.com> > wrote: > > [*] FWIW, I find it odd for you to ask, of this particular article, "why > is this important?" Of all the obscure, mumbo-jumbo journal articles > out there (our discussion of PoMo aside ;-), it seems blatantly obvious > to me that the substitution of As for P in DNA is important, even if we > don't know what the implications are. I am woefully ignorant of the > literature, though. Is it fairly common to find and report substitutes > for DNA components? > > No, it's not common, it's never been reported before, all DNA and RNA in life > as we have known it up until today has been based on phospho-esters. > > -- rec -- > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied > Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's > College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at > http://www.friam.org > Eric Charles > > Professional Student and > Assistant Professor of Psychology > Penn State University > Altoona, PA 16601 > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
