As said above: In spite of an immense lot of research
and new knowledge during last decades there is no consensus on how
to interpret the genetic code and the system for protein synthesis
but a lot of quite different hypothetical aspects and approaches.
To really get the faintest idea or intuitive guess on the development
of a cell - and life, it's proposed here as necessary to start from
general assumptions as the following ones, some of them surely shared
by many, others more controversial.
a. The enormous complexity of the cell and its metabolism must
be understood as an internal differentiation, through
opposite forces, which implies starting from some kind of (partly)
enclosed "unit", defined by a centre and an substantiated
"anti-center" as a partly penetrable circumference. (This
could perhaps in a first stage be some kind of metal shell - analogous
to later Me-skeletons of unicellular organisms; metals representing
anticenter in relation to non-metals, the main structure-building
elements of life.)
b. Next, about forces, it must be assumed that all
forces recognized at the level of physics (probably redefined in
the future) appear on the biochemical level too, in one or another
form, not just the electromagnetic one. (Naturally also aspects
from quantum mechanics.)
c. Further, about dimensional conceptions on
the biochemical level: To get the slightest intuitive comprehension
of the biochemical complexity, it seems quite necessary to extend
the dimensional analysis to higher dimension degrees (d-degrees).
It would imply that aspects on structure in simple 3D-terms were
integrated with other biochemical gradients of different kinds -
binding and polarizing ones - as 4-dimensional vector fields, into
some unified, multidimensional analysis.
It's surely also time to leave the concept of
dimensions defined only in terms of "independent" variables
(already questioned in physics) and adopt a view where dimensions
are deeply integrated and interdependant in dynamical processes.
d. The character of the genetic code as an information system
should be closer analysed: Is it a reference system between connected
complementary forms, a memory system and / or a parallel
development of the same structural kind on different levels, where
underlying level becomes the "memory" ... or is seen as
"representing" the superposed one - or the inverse. Perhaps
it's only part in a more general system of references connected
with concepts as inversions, resonances, conjugates, complementary
units - and relations between different, dependent d-degrees?
e. Then, about mass, mostly disregarded when the
genetic code is discussed. Mass is a property not yet understood
by physicists. That shouldn't be taken as a reason for regarding
mass as an unimportant property for the emergence of life. Sooner,
it would be extremely astonishing if not all atomic properties played
essential roles at the creation.
The main objection to reevaluate
mass is surely such experiences which seem to show that some unusual
isotopes don't change the studied metabolism in an established cell
milieu of today.
Smaller changes of isotopes may be possible to
neglect in properties as structures and volumes of molecules, (even
if they theoretically should influence gradients in mass fields,
if this term is allowed),
However, does such facts necessarily contradict
a presumption that mass of common isotopes had a decisive importance
at first configurations of elementary biomolecules?
It is reasonable to assume that mass is a property
of higher d-degree, representing a deeper level, than charge. (The
physicists' application of the gravity concept into microcosm and
quantum mechanics could be mentioned here.) If so, it would agree
with dimensional views that the deeper mass level was decisive for
elementary structures, while the more superficial level of charge,
expressed in electron shells, becomes the relevant level in processes,
in metabolism as characterized by more of released kinetic energy.
Further, in research to find shortened ways to
predict destinations and functions of proteins, mass is used as
one factor besides polarity with obviously good results .
About counting on ordinary isotopes, the overwhelmingly
most common ones, it could also be reason for reminding of the carbon-nitrogen
cycle in the sun, where it is the 3 alpha carbon and 4 alpha oxygen
that make up the start and end of the fusion: 4 protons (H) giving
an alpha-particles (4He).
Some more about this matter in concluding remarks.
f. Looking for an eventual guiding principle behind
emergence of the code, where could it be found? If it isn't regarded
as an invention from heaven, it's unavoidable to look for the guiding
principle somewhere else, most naturally expressed in the singular
Hence, we could suspect that the atoms themselves
- with their underlying relations in the fusion processes - should
serve as microcodes for cellular life and the principles guiding
it. Those principles should probably be found in their internal
configurations, also deeper in their nuclei and on a higher level
in their spectral lines?
g. Finally, about numbers in general, it's hard to
see why numeral series as such should be regarded as special exceptions
when appearing in Nature. Different elements are regarded as characterized
by numbers of units (u) and on a molecular level by protons equivalent
with electrons and their relation to the "octet rule".
Since all matter - as well as radiation - is quantified, it shouldn't
be too strange to find underlying arithmetical relations behind
the structuring principles in the genetic code.
Most scientists in the field may perhaps feel
inconvenient with this idea, regarding it too abstract for any practical
work. However, since pure mathematics has led to deeper understanding
of nature on the level of physics and astronomy, why shouldn't it
In fact, such number series could be compared
with structure drawings for buildings, revealing mutual relations
between later, stepwise materialized structures. Or perhaps more
resemble the principal scheme for the working processes, the logistics?
Just the way of Nature to organize itself.
After all, the numeral series behind the periodic
system didn't "exist" - in any recognizable form - in
the first materialized Universe after Big Bang.
Rather few contributions to interpretation of the genetic code
have paid attention to number regularities as it seems (among references
chiefly [2 and 3] but also in one aspect ). Recently, according
to reference , it has been shown that the human genome as a whole
single strand is of a fractal kind regarding frequency of codons.
Since long ago it's observed that features of
Fibonacci number series and the golden section appear in Nature.
(Below it's shown that such series show up also in mass analysis
of the genetic code.)
There are more general and recognized numeral
series: One very simple example is the valences of the central structuring
elements in the genetic code: P - C - N - O - H with valences 5
- 4 - 3 - 2 - 1. (A suggestion here is that numbers also could refer
to d-degrees or to dimensional steps, presumably as fractals, with
the same patterns reappearing on different levels of evolution.)
Another essential example is the 2x2-series
(x = 5 - 0), 50 - 32- 18 - 8 - 2, behind the periodic
system, with intervals
defining number of electrons in the different orbitals, the orbitals
p, d, f also occupying increasing d-degrees in their orientation.
It's natural to assume that the arrangement of electron shells have
correspondences in the atomic nuclei, responsible for most of the
A third example is the formulas for spectral lines
of hydrogen, where differences between inverted squares of integers
as n = 1, 2, 3, 4 and m = 2,3,4, 3,4,5 etc. times a constant give
Quotients between wavelengths (n = 2, m = 5, 4,
3) in the Balmer series times 102 happen to give the
mass numbers of U- and A-bases too (112 and 135) and approximately
the G-base (151,2), which could awake some suspicions...* (Quotients
as a kind of phase waves? Alleged not to carry any information!)
Fig 1-1: From Balmer series for spectral lines of hydrogen:
(C-base eventually later developed to give two pairs?
Last term in c. = 1/9, x 1000, = 111,1. C-base = 111 )
of amino acids and first observations.