According to Louis Savary, writing about Teilhard de Chardin's ideas
described in The Phenomenon of Man[1]:

<quote>
Early cells and the innumerable elements composing them are not
constructed haphazardly. As operating systems, all cells are alike.
The inner makeup, functions, and structures of all cells are similar
as are the relationships among their elements. Teilhard finds this
fact amazing. He explains why.

All cells, from those in the simplest bacteria to those in a human
brain, contain the same set of elements, the same types of proteins
and acids. This is true, despite the fact that first cells emerging
around the world could have been made up of other chemical formulas
and structures. Because different cells were born in different
climates and conditions, they had the opportunity to develop in a
variety of ways. Yet, variation did not happen. The liquid bath in
which a cell's parts move around has the same chemical makeup in all
cells on Earth today.

Because such a universal similarity in makeup does not appear
logically necessary, it suggests nature made an early choice. The
similarity of liquid bath in all cells worldwide "has been taken as
proof that all existing organisms descended from a single ancestral
group [of cells]" (95, 55).

… All cells on our planet share an "inherent kinship" (100, 58)
manifested in the absolute and universal uniformity of the basic
cellular structure found in all living things on Earth.

… Current research in DNA confirms Teilhard's statements in this
section even though DNA hadn't been described or mapped when he was
writing Phenomenon.

</quote>

Is Savary correct that almost 100 years on from when Teilhard came to
those conclusions, they still stand?

[1] Savary, L.M. (2020) Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man
Explained [online], Paulist Press

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 5:01:53 AM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote:
> According to Louis Savary, writing about Teilhard de Chardin's ideas
> described in The Phenomenon of Man[1]:
>
> <quote>
> Early cells and the innumerable elements composing them are not
> constructed haphazardly. As operating systems, all cells are alike.
> The inner makeup, functions, and structures of all cells are similar
> as are the relationships among their elements. Teilhard finds this
> fact amazing. He explains why.
>
> All cells, from those in the simplest bacteria to those in a human
> brain, contain the same set of elements, the same types of proteins
> and acids. This is true, despite the fact that first cells emerging
> around the world could have been made up of other chemical formulas
> and structures. Because different cells were born in different
> climates and conditions, they had the opportunity to develop in a
> variety of ways. Yet, variation did not happen. The liquid bath in
> which a cell's parts move around has the same chemical makeup in all
> cells on Earth today.
>
> Because such a universal similarity in makeup does not appear
> logically necessary, it suggests nature made an early choice. The
> similarity of liquid bath in all cells worldwide "has been taken as
> proof that all existing organisms descended from a single ancestral
> group [of cells]" (95, 55).
>
> … All cells on our planet share an "inherent kinship" (100, 58)
> manifested in the absolute and universal uniformity of the basic
> cellular structure found in all living things on Earth.
>
> … Current research in DNA confirms Teilhard's statements in this
> section even though DNA hadn't been described or mapped when he was
> writing Phenomenon.
>
> </quote>
>
> Is Savary correct that almost 100 years on from when Teilhard came to
> those conclusions, they still stand?

I'd say that "absolute and universal uniformity of the basic cellular structure" may be a bit of an overstatement, but that's a bit like arguing over whether some mountain is "really high" or "very high" or "unbelievably high.." Basically I think what he said is correct.
>
>
>
> [1] Savary, L.M. (2020) Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man
> Explained [online], Paulist Press

Martin Harran wrote:
> The inner makeup, functions, and structures of all cells are similar
> as are the relationships among their elements. Teilhard finds this
> fact amazing. He explains why.

I'd find that amazing only if abiogenesis was a high probability event.
IMO if abiogenesis is an event with low probability, the first living creature
would tend to reproduce, branch out and eat the precursors of life.
There could be relatively little in the way of raw precursors for new
abiogenesis events to occur from, and any new abiogenesis events
that did occur would generally result in unevolved organisms that would
be at a major disadvantage compared to life that had a chance to
improve itself a bit through evolution .... so established life would tend
to eat any new life that showed up. Only if abiogenesis was a high
probability event (or the new life forms were inedible to the old ones)
would multiple types of creature occur from different abiogenesis events
and have some chance of both getting established.

Not saying it's impossible, but simultaneous abiogenesis events doesn't
strike me as probable given what little we have learned about abiogenesis.

On 28/11/2023 11:40, Abner wrote:
> Martin Harran wrote:
>> The inner makeup, functions, and structures of all cells are similar
>> as are the relationships among their elements. Teilhard finds this
>> fact amazing. He explains why.
>
> I'd find that amazing only if abiogenesis was a high probability event.
> IMO if abiogenesis is an event with low probability, the first living creature
> would tend to reproduce, branch out and eat the precursors of life.
> There could be relatively little in the way of raw precursors for new
> abiogenesis events to occur from, and any new abiogenesis events
> that did occur would generally result in unevolved organisms that would
> be at a major disadvantage compared to life that had a chance to
> improve itself a bit through evolution .... so established life would tend
> to eat any new life that showed up. Only if abiogenesis was a high
> probability event (or the new life forms were inedible to the old ones)
> would multiple types of creature occur from different abiogenesis events
> and have some chance of both getting established.
>
> Not saying it's impossible, but simultaneous abiogenesis events doesn't
> strike me as probable given what little we have learned about abiogenesis.
>

A couple of other points

1) Even if abiogenesis occurred more than once, it is not required that
all instances have living representatives.

2) Even if another instance of abiogenesis survived to the present, we
wouldn't necessarily be aware of it. Some quite large and distinct
prokaryotic lineages are only known from environmental DNA samples;
single celled organisms with a different genetic material might be
overlooked.

Universal common descent of modern-day life on earth is a contingent and
provisional fact.

--
alias Ernest Major

Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
> According to Louis Savary, writing about Teilhard de Chardin's ideas
> described in The Phenomenon of Man[1]:
>
> <quote>
> Early cells and the innumerable elements composing them are not
> constructed haphazardly. As operating systems, all cells are alike.
> The inner makeup, functions, and structures of all cells are similar
> as are the relationships among their elements. Teilhard finds this
> fact amazing. He explains why.
>
> All cells, from those in the simplest bacteria to those in a human
> brain, contain the same set of elements, the same types of proteins
> and acids. This is true, despite the fact that first cells emerging
> around the world could have been made up of other chemical formulas
> and structures. Because different cells were born in different
> climates and conditions, they had the opportunity to develop in a
> variety of ways. Yet, variation did not happen. The liquid bath in
> which a cell's parts move around has the same chemical makeup in all
> cells on Earth today.
>
> Because such a universal similarity in makeup does not appear
> logically necessary, it suggests nature made an early choice. The
> similarity of liquid bath in all cells worldwide "has been taken as
> proof that all existing organisms descended from a single ancestral
> group [of cells]" (95, 55).
>
> … All cells on our planet share an "inherent kinship" (100, 58)
> manifested in the absolute and universal uniformity of the basic
> cellular structure found in all living things on Earth.
>
> … Current research in DNA confirms Teilhard's statements in this
> section even though DNA hadn't been described or mapped when he was
> writing Phenomenon.
>
> </quote>
>
> Is Savary correct that almost 100 years on from when Teilhard came to
> those conclusions, they still stand?
>
>
>
> [1] Savary, L.M. (2020) Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man
> Explained [online], Paulist Press
>
>
For Teilhard it may not have been about origins so much as the happy ending
of omega point toward Christ.

On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 03:40:34 -0800 (PST), Abner
<abnerinfinity@gmail.com> wrote:

>Martin Harran wrote:
>> The inner makeup, functions, and structures of all cells are similar
>> as are the relationships among their elements. Teilhard finds this
>> fact amazing. He explains why.
>
>I'd find that amazing only if abiogenesis was a high probability event.

That was Savary paraphrasing Teilhard who used the word 'amazin'g in a
slightly different context in his book where he said "And from that
initial proliferation stemmed the amazing profusion of organic matter
....."

I think context is also important. Teilhard was writing almost 100
years ago when there was a lot less known about cells and abiogenesis
than there is now. Perhaps someone more familiar with the history of
the ToE might be able to identify whether there were contemporaneous
scientists who saw cell structure as a verification of common descent.

>IMO if abiogenesis is an event with low probability, the first living creature
>would tend to reproduce, branch out and eat the precursors of life.
>There could be relatively little in the way of raw precursors for new
>abiogenesis events to occur from, and any new abiogenesis events
>that did occur would generally result in unevolved organisms that would
>be at a major disadvantage compared to life that had a chance to
>improve itself a bit through evolution .... so established life would tend
>to eat any new life that showed up. Only if abiogenesis was a high
>probability event (or the new life forms were inedible to the old ones)
>would multiple types of creature occur from different abiogenesis events
>and have some chance of both getting established.
>
>Not saying it's impossible, but simultaneous abiogenesis events doesn't
>strike me as probable given what little we have learned about abiogenesis.

On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 13:03:48 +0000, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 28/11/2023 11:40, Abner wrote:
>> Martin Harran wrote:
>>> The inner makeup, functions, and structures of all cells are similar
>>> as are the relationships among their elements. Teilhard finds this
>>> fact amazing. He explains why.
>>
>> I'd find that amazing only if abiogenesis was a high probability event.
>> IMO if abiogenesis is an event with low probability, the first living creature
>> would tend to reproduce, branch out and eat the precursors of life.
>> There could be relatively little in the way of raw precursors for new
>> abiogenesis events to occur from, and any new abiogenesis events
>> that did occur would generally result in unevolved organisms that would
>> be at a major disadvantage compared to life that had a chance to
>> improve itself a bit through evolution .... so established life would tend
>> to eat any new life that showed up. Only if abiogenesis was a high
>> probability event (or the new life forms were inedible to the old ones)
>> would multiple types of creature occur from different abiogenesis events
>> and have some chance of both getting established.
>>
>> Not saying it's impossible, but simultaneous abiogenesis events doesn't
>> strike me as probable given what little we have learned about abiogenesis.
>>
>
>A couple of other points
>
>1) Even if abiogenesis occurred more than once, it is not required that
>all instances have living representatives.
>
>2) Even if another instance of abiogenesis survived to the present, we
>wouldn't necessarily be aware of it. Some quite large and distinct
>prokaryotic lineages are only known from environmental DNA samples;
>single celled organisms with a different genetic material might be
>overlooked.
>
>Universal common descent of modern-day life on earth is a contingent and
>provisional fact.

That is more or less true of all of science. As I understand it,
absolutely no evidence has been found suggesting that abiogenesis took
place more than once and there is general scientific consensus that it
is highly probable that it only did take place once. Do you know of
any scientists who have suggested that otherwise?

On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 17:16:22 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>> According to Louis Savary, writing about Teilhard de Chardin's ideas
>> described in The Phenomenon of Man[1]:
>>
>> <quote>
>> Early cells and the innumerable elements composing them are not
>> constructed haphazardly. As operating systems, all cells are alike.
>> The inner makeup, functions, and structures of all cells are similar
>> as are the relationships among their elements. Teilhard finds this
>> fact amazing. He explains why.
>>
>> All cells, from those in the simplest bacteria to those in a human
>> brain, contain the same set of elements, the same types of proteins
>> and acids. This is true, despite the fact that first cells emerging
>> around the world could have been made up of other chemical formulas
>> and structures. Because different cells were born in different
>> climates and conditions, they had the opportunity to develop in a
>> variety of ways. Yet, variation did not happen. The liquid bath in
>> which a cell's parts move around has the same chemical makeup in all
>> cells on Earth today.
>>
>> Because such a universal similarity in makeup does not appear
>> logically necessary, it suggests nature made an early choice. The
>> similarity of liquid bath in all cells worldwide "has been taken as
>> proof that all existing organisms descended from a single ancestral
>> group [of cells]" (95, 55).
>>
>> ? All cells on our planet share an "inherent kinship" (100, 58)
>> manifested in the absolute and universal uniformity of the basic
>> cellular structure found in all living things on Earth.
>>
>> ? Current research in DNA confirms Teilhard's statements in this
>> section even though DNA hadn't been described or mapped when he was
>> writing Phenomenon.
>>
>> </quote>
>>
>> Is Savary correct that almost 100 years on from when Teilhard came to
>> those conclusions, they still stand?
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] Savary, L.M. (2020) Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man
>> Explained [online], Paulist Press
>>
>>
>For Teilhard it may not have been about origins so much as the happy ending
>of omega point toward Christ.

So what has that to do with the veracity of his conclusions about
cells?

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 6:16:54 AM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 13:03:48 +0000, Ernest Major
> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On 28/11/2023 11:40, Abner wrote:
> >> Martin Harran wrote:
> >>> The inner makeup, functions, and structures of all cells are similar
> >>> as are the relationships among their elements. Teilhard finds this
> >>> fact amazing. He explains why.
> >>
> >> I'd find that amazing only if abiogenesis was a high probability event..
> >> IMO if abiogenesis is an event with low probability, the first living creature
> >> would tend to reproduce, branch out and eat the precursors of life.
> >> There could be relatively little in the way of raw precursors for new
> >> abiogenesis events to occur from, and any new abiogenesis events
> >> that did occur would generally result in unevolved organisms that would
> >> be at a major disadvantage compared to life that had a chance to
> >> improve itself a bit through evolution .... so established life would tend
> >> to eat any new life that showed up. Only if abiogenesis was a high
> >> probability event (or the new life forms were inedible to the old ones)
> >> would multiple types of creature occur from different abiogenesis events
> >> and have some chance of both getting established.
> >>
> >> Not saying it's impossible, but simultaneous abiogenesis events doesn't
> >> strike me as probable given what little we have learned about abiogenesis.
> >>
> >
> >A couple of other points
> >
> >1) Even if abiogenesis occurred more than once, it is not required that
> >all instances have living representatives.
> >
> >2) Even if another instance of abiogenesis survived to the present, we
> >wouldn't necessarily be aware of it. Some quite large and distinct
> >prokaryotic lineages are only known from environmental DNA samples;
> >single celled organisms with a different genetic material might be
> >overlooked.
> >
> >Universal common descent of modern-day life on earth is a contingent and
> >provisional fact.
> That is more or less true of all of science. As I understand it,
> absolutely no evidence has been found suggesting that abiogenesis took
> place more than once and there is general scientific consensus that it
> is highly probable that it only did take place once. Do you know of
> any scientists who have suggested that otherwise?

I'm not sure I'd agree there's a scientific consensus that abiogenesis took place only once. I'd say there's a consensus that there's unlikely ever to be a way to determine whether life, however defined, got started at just one place and spread from there, or had many tentative starts, all but one of which were out-competed by the ultimately successful lineage. I can't imagine how evidence would have survived to let you know.

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 5:01:53 AM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote:
> According to Louis Savary, writing about Teilhard de Chardin's ideas
> described in The Phenomenon of Man[1]:
>
> <quote>
> Early cells and the innumerable elements composing them are not
> constructed haphazardly. As operating systems, all cells are alike.
> The inner makeup, functions, and structures of all cells are similar
> as are the relationships among their elements. Teilhard finds this
> fact amazing. He explains why.
>
> All cells, from those in the simplest bacteria to those in a human
> brain, contain the same set of elements, the same types of proteins
> and acids. This is true, despite the fact that first cells emerging
> around the world could have been made up of other chemical formulas
> and structures. Because different cells were born in different
> climates and conditions, they had the opportunity to develop in a
> variety of ways. Yet, variation did not happen. The liquid bath in
> which a cell's parts move around has the same chemical makeup in all
> cells on Earth today.
>
> Because such a universal similarity in makeup does not appear
> logically necessary, it suggests nature made an early choice. The
> similarity of liquid bath in all cells worldwide "has been taken as
> proof that all existing organisms descended from a single ancestral
> group [of cells]" (95, 55).
>
> … All cells on our planet share an "inherent kinship" (100, 58)
> manifested in the absolute and universal uniformity of the basic
> cellular structure found in all living things on Earth.
>
> … Current research in DNA confirms Teilhard's statements in this
> section even though DNA hadn't been described or mapped when he was
> writing Phenomenon.
>
> </quote>
>
> Is Savary correct that almost 100 years on from when Teilhard came to
> those conclusions, they still stand?
>
>
>
> [1] Savary, L.M. (2020) Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man
> Explained [online], Paulist Press

Frankly, when you read those words you quoted, they are empty balderdash.
Try as one might, they don't fit to modern biochemistry. To be specific,

This part:
> All cells, from those in the simplest bacteria to those in a human
> brain, contain the same set of elements, the same types of proteins
> and acids. This is true, despite the fact that first cells emerging
> around the world could have been made up of other chemical formulas
> and structures. Because different cells were born in different
> climates and conditions, they had the opportunity to develop in a
> variety of ways. Yet, variation did not happen. The liquid bath in
> which a cell's parts move around has the same chemical makeup in all
> cells on Earth today.

How do you parse all of that? The best I can do is to see that he's saying
that life is built up of the same amino acids. the same building blocks.
That isn't significant in the way he would wish.

It's perhaps unfair to be too critical of him given the lack of understanding
of proteins and the significance of specific amino acid sequences, or the
nature of DNA and its role to encode specific protein sequence structure.

But ultimately it's gibberish in a modern context. It does not include useful
specific information. It's vague generalities that ultimately say very little of
significance. This should be clear ro you.

So the question is, what is it about that quote that you find compelling?
To me, as a biochemist, it's flowerily words that say nothing of significance.

On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 13:36:54 UTC+2, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 5:01:53 AM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote:
> > According to Louis Savary, writing about Teilhard de Chardin's ideas
> > described in The Phenomenon of Man[1]:
> >
> > <quote>
> > Early cells and the innumerable elements composing them are not
> > constructed haphazardly. As operating systems, all cells are alike.
> > The inner makeup, functions, and structures of all cells are similar
> > as are the relationships among their elements. Teilhard finds this
> > fact amazing. He explains why.
> >
> > All cells, from those in the simplest bacteria to those in a human
> > brain, contain the same set of elements, the same types of proteins
> > and acids. This is true, despite the fact that first cells emerging
> > around the world could have been made up of other chemical formulas
> > and structures. Because different cells were born in different
> > climates and conditions, they had the opportunity to develop in a
> > variety of ways. Yet, variation did not happen. The liquid bath in
> > which a cell's parts move around has the same chemical makeup in all
> > cells on Earth today.
> >
> > Because such a universal similarity in makeup does not appear
> > logically necessary, it suggests nature made an early choice. The
> > similarity of liquid bath in all cells worldwide "has been taken as
> > proof that all existing organisms descended from a single ancestral
> > group [of cells]" (95, 55).
> >
> > … All cells on our planet share an "inherent kinship" (100, 58)
> > manifested in the absolute and universal uniformity of the basic
> > cellular structure found in all living things on Earth.
> >
> > … Current research in DNA confirms Teilhard's statements in this
> > section even though DNA hadn't been described or mapped when he was
> > writing Phenomenon.
> >
> > </quote>
> >
> > Is Savary correct that almost 100 years on from when Teilhard came to
> > those conclusions, they still stand?
> >
> >
> >
> > [1] Savary, L.M. (2020) Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man
> > Explained [online], Paulist Press
> Frankly, when you read those words you quoted, they are empty balderdash.
> Try as one might, they don't fit to modern biochemistry. To be specific,
>
> This part:
> > All cells, from those in the simplest bacteria to those in a human
> > brain, contain the same set of elements, the same types of proteins
> > and acids. This is true, despite the fact that first cells emerging
> > around the world could have been made up of other chemical formulas
> > and structures. Because different cells were born in different
> > climates and conditions, they had the opportunity to develop in a
> > variety of ways. Yet, variation did not happen. The liquid bath in
> > which a cell's parts move around has the same chemical makeup in all
> > cells on Earth today.
> How do you parse all of that? The best I can do is to see that he's saying
> that life is built up of the same amino acids. the same building blocks.
> That isn't significant in the way he would wish.
>
> It's perhaps unfair to be too critical of him given the lack of understanding
> of proteins and the significance of specific amino acid sequences, or the
> nature of DNA and its role to encode specific protein sequence structure.
>
> But ultimately it's gibberish in a modern context. It does not include useful
> specific information. It's vague generalities that ultimately say very little of
> significance. This should be clear ro you.
>
> So the question is, what is it about that quote that you find compelling?
> To me, as a biochemist, it's flowerily words that say nothing of significance.
>
As I see it there was indicated in gibberish maneer such facts:
* there can be hundreds of different amino acids.
* about 80 of those can be found formed abiotically in high enough
concentrations (in meteorites and such)
* life here uses 20 "standard" amino acids in proteins.
* not all 20 are present among said 80
* some of 20 are present but in way lower concentrations than some
other "non-standard" amino acids.
So the significant (for layman) things from that:
1) Common decent was likely long after choice of amino acids?
2) There can be innumerable alternative biochemistries?
3) Biochemistry that we have might be is not the most obvious?
4) Choice of (winner) biochemistry was based on something else
but on availability of materials in abiotic nature?

On 30/11/2023 11:34, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 5:01:53 AM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote:
>> According to Louis Savary, writing about Teilhard de Chardin's ideas
>> described in The Phenomenon of Man[1]:
>>
>> <quote>
>> Early cells and the innumerable elements composing them are not
>> constructed haphazardly. As operating systems, all cells are alike.
>> The inner makeup, functions, and structures of all cells are similar
>> as are the relationships among their elements. Teilhard finds this
>> fact amazing. He explains why.
>>
>> All cells, from those in the simplest bacteria to those in a human
>> brain, contain the same set of elements, the same types of proteins
>> and acids. This is true, despite the fact that first cells emerging
>> around the world could have been made up of other chemical formulas
>> and structures. Because different cells were born in different
>> climates and conditions, they had the opportunity to develop in a
>> variety of ways. Yet, variation did not happen. The liquid bath in
>> which a cell's parts move around has the same chemical makeup in all
>> cells on Earth today.
>>
>> Because such a universal similarity in makeup does not appear
>> logically necessary, it suggests nature made an early choice. The
>> similarity of liquid bath in all cells worldwide "has been taken as
>> proof that all existing organisms descended from a single ancestral
>> group [of cells]" (95, 55).
>>
>> … All cells on our planet share an "inherent kinship" (100, 58)
>> manifested in the absolute and universal uniformity of the basic
>> cellular structure found in all living things on Earth.
>>
>> … Current research in DNA confirms Teilhard's statements in this
>> section even though DNA hadn't been described or mapped when he was
>> writing Phenomenon.
>>
>> </quote>
>>
>> Is Savary correct that almost 100 years on from when Teilhard came to
>> those conclusions, they still stand?
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] Savary, L.M. (2020) Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man
>> Explained [online], Paulist Press
>
> Frankly, when you read those words you quoted, they are empty balderdash.
> Try as one might, they don't fit to modern biochemistry. To be specific,
>
> This part:
>> All cells, from those in the simplest bacteria to those in a human
>> brain, contain the same set of elements, the same types of proteins
>> and acids. This is true, despite the fact that first cells emerging
>> around the world could have been made up of other chemical formulas
>> and structures. Because different cells were born in different
>> climates and conditions, they had the opportunity to develop in a
>> variety of ways. Yet, variation did not happen. The liquid bath in
>> which a cell's parts move around has the same chemical makeup in all
>> cells on Earth today.
>
> How do you parse all of that? The best I can do is to see that he's saying
> that life is built up of the same amino acids. the same building blocks.
> That isn't significant in the way he would wish.
>
> It's perhaps unfair to be too critical of him given the lack of understanding
> of proteins and the significance of specific amino acid sequences, or the
> nature of DNA and its role to encode specific protein sequence structure.
>
> But ultimately it's gibberish in a modern context. It does not include useful
> specific information. It's vague generalities that ultimately say very little of
> significance. This should be clear ro you.
>
> So the question is, what is it about that quote that you find compelling?
> To me, as a biochemist, it's flowerily words that say nothing of significance.

Taking it literally, life doesn't all have the same (homologous)
proteins. There may be some that are universal, but most are
phylogenetically restricted. (I suspect that the balance is somewhat
different for protein domains.) Like you I presume that he was referring
to use of the same amino acid residues in all organisms, which is
approximately true (see pyrolysine, selenocysteine, hypusine,
hydroxyproline, etc.), at least before humans started creating extended
genetic codes.

Reading him charitably he is appealing to biochemical universalities as
evidence for universal common descent. Biochemical commonalities are a
part of the evidence for universal common descent, with the proviso we
don't have a good handle on the range of possible biochemistries.

However I don't see what he is referring to when he refers to cell
structure.

--
alias Ernest Major

On 2023-11-30 14:01:23 +0000, Ernest Major said:

> On 30/11/2023 11:34, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 5:01:53 AM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> According to Louis Savary, writing about Teilhard de Chardin's ideas
>>> described in The Phenomenon of Man[1]:
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>> Early cells and the innumerable elements composing them are not
>>> constructed haphazardly. As operating systems, all cells are alike.
>>> The inner makeup, functions, and structures of all cells are similar
>>> as are the relationships among their elements. Teilhard finds this
>>> fact amazing. He explains why.
>>>
>>> All cells, from those in the simplest bacteria to those in a human
>>> brain, contain the same set of elements, the same types of proteins
>>> and acids. This is true, despite the fact that first cells emerging
>>> around the world could have been made up of other chemical formulas
>>> and structures. Because different cells were born in different
>>> climates and conditions, they had the opportunity to develop in a
>>> variety of ways. Yet, variation did not happen. The liquid bath in
>>> which a cell's parts move around has the same chemical makeup in all
>>> cells on Earth today.
>>>
>>> Because such a universal similarity in makeup does not appear
>>> logically necessary, it suggests nature made an early choice. The
>>> similarity of liquid bath in all cells worldwide "has been taken as
>>> proof that all existing organisms descended from a single ancestral
>>> group [of cells]" (95, 55).
>>>
>>> … All cells on our planet share an "inherent kinship" (100, 58)
>>> manifested in the absolute and universal uniformity of the basic
>>> cellular structure found in all living things on Earth.
>>>
>>> … Current research in DNA confirms Teilhard's statements in this
>>> section even though DNA hadn't been described or mapped when he was
>>> writing Phenomenon.
>>>
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> Is Savary correct that almost 100 years on from when Teilhard came to
>>> those conclusions, they still stand?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] Savary, L.M. (2020) Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man
>>> Explained [online], Paulist Press
>>
>> Frankly, when you read those words you quoted, they are empty balderdash.
>> Try as one might, they don't fit to modern biochemistry. To be specific,
>>
>> This part:
>>> All cells, from those in the simplest bacteria to those in a human
>>> brain, contain the same set of elements, the same types of proteins
>>> and acids. This is true, despite the fact that first cells emerging
>>> around the world could have been made up of other chemical formulas
>>> and structures. Because different cells were born in different
>>> climates and conditions, they had the opportunity to develop in a
>>> variety of ways. Yet, variation did not happen. The liquid bath in
>>> which a cell's parts move around has the same chemical makeup in all
>>> cells on Earth today.
>>
>> How do you parse all of that? The best I can do is to see that he's saying
>> that life is built up of the same amino acids. the same building blocks.
>> That isn't significant in the way he would wish.

The fact that he calls amino acids "acids" is a clear indication that
he doesn't understand basic chemistry. That was certainly understood in
1923. [Merriam-Webster
(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zwitterion) says that the
term zwitterion dates from 1906, but I think the idea was understood
before that.] Anyone who thinks glycine, for example, is an acid has
obviously never tasted it. It has an acidic group (-NH_3^+, not -COO^-,
as some textbook authors seem to think), but it lacks the normal
characteristics of an acid. Given that -COO^- is not acidic implies, of
course, that "amino acid" is a bad name, but it's too late to worry
about that.
>>
>> It's perhaps unfair to be too critical of him given the lack of understanding
>> of proteins and the significance of specific amino acid sequences,

Specific sequences OK, but that doesn't forgive his ignorance of
acid-base chemistry.

>> or the
>> nature of DNA and its role to encode specific protein sequence structure.
>>
>> But ultimately it's gibberish in a modern context. It does not include useful
>> specific information. It's vague generalities that ultimately say very
>> little of
>> significance. This should be clear ro you.
>>
>> So the question is, what is it about that quote that you find compelling?
>> To me, as a biochemist, it's flowerily words that say nothing of significance.

Yes.
>
> Taking it literally, life doesn't all have the same (homologous)
> proteins. There may be some that are universal, but most are
> phylogenetically restricted. (I suspect that the balance is somewhat
> different for protein domains.) Like you I presume that he was
> referring to use of the same amino acid residues in all organisms,
> which is approximately true (see pyrolysine, selenocysteine, hypusine,
> hydroxyproline, etc.), at least before humans started creating extended
> genetic codes.
>
> Reading him charitably he is appealing to biochemical universalities as
> evidence for universal common descent. Biochemical commonalities are a
> part of the evidence for universal common descent, with the proviso we
> don't have a good handle on the range of possible biochemistries.
>
> However I don't see what he is referring to when he refers to cell structure.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On 30/11/2023 16:57, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> The fact that he calls amino acids "acids" is a clear indication that he
> doesn't understand basic chemistry. That was certainly understood in
> 1923. [Merriam-Webster
> (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zwitterion) says that the
> term zwitterion dates from 1906, but I think the idea was understood
> before that.] Anyone who thinks glycine, for example, is an acid has
> obviously never tasted it. It has an acidic group (-NH_3^+, not -COO^-,
> as some textbook authors seem to think), but it lacks the normal
> characteristics of an acid. Given that -COO^- is not acidic implies, of
> course, that "amino acid" is a bad name, but it's too late to worry
> about that.

My interpretation was that by acid he meant DNA and RNA. While their
function wasn't known when he was writing, it was known that they were a
major chemical constituent of the cell.

But, as I thought of commenting to Martin, to understand Teilhard's
intended meaning may require looking closer at the context.

--
alias Ernest Major

On 11/30/23 5:12 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 13:36:54 UTC+2, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 5:01:53 AM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> According to Louis Savary, writing about Teilhard de Chardin's ideas
>>> described in The Phenomenon of Man[1]:
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>> Early cells and the innumerable elements composing them are not
>>> constructed haphazardly. As operating systems, all cells are alike.
>>> The inner makeup, functions, and structures of all cells are similar
>>> as are the relationships among their elements. Teilhard finds this
>>> fact amazing. He explains why.
>>>
>>> All cells, from those in the simplest bacteria to those in a human
>>> brain, contain the same set of elements, the same types of proteins
>>> and acids. This is true, despite the fact that first cells emerging
>>> around the world could have been made up of other chemical formulas
>>> and structures. Because different cells were born in different
>>> climates and conditions, they had the opportunity to develop in a
>>> variety of ways. Yet, variation did not happen. The liquid bath in
>>> which a cell's parts move around has the same chemical makeup in all
>>> cells on Earth today.
>>>
>>> Because such a universal similarity in makeup does not appear
>>> logically necessary, it suggests nature made an early choice. The
>>> similarity of liquid bath in all cells worldwide "has been taken as
>>> proof that all existing organisms descended from a single ancestral
>>> group [of cells]" (95, 55).
>>>
>>> … All cells on our planet share an "inherent kinship" (100, 58)
>>> manifested in the absolute and universal uniformity of the basic
>>> cellular structure found in all living things on Earth.
>>>
>>> … Current research in DNA confirms Teilhard's statements in this
>>> section even though DNA hadn't been described or mapped when he was
>>> writing Phenomenon.
>>>
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> Is Savary correct that almost 100 years on from when Teilhard came to
>>> those conclusions, they still stand?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] Savary, L.M. (2020) Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man
>>> Explained [online], Paulist Press
>> Frankly, when you read those words you quoted, they are empty balderdash.
>> Try as one might, they don't fit to modern biochemistry. To be specific,
>>
>> This part:
>>> All cells, from those in the simplest bacteria to those in a human
>>> brain, contain the same set of elements, the same types of proteins
>>> and acids. This is true, despite the fact that first cells emerging
>>> around the world could have been made up of other chemical formulas
>>> and structures. Because different cells were born in different
>>> climates and conditions, they had the opportunity to develop in a
>>> variety of ways. Yet, variation did not happen. The liquid bath in
>>> which a cell's parts move around has the same chemical makeup in all
>>> cells on Earth today.
>> How do you parse all of that? The best I can do is to see that he's saying
>> that life is built up of the same amino acids. the same building blocks.
>> That isn't significant in the way he would wish.
>>
>> It's perhaps unfair to be too critical of him given the lack of understanding
>> of proteins and the significance of specific amino acid sequences, or the
>> nature of DNA and its role to encode specific protein sequence structure.
>>
>> But ultimately it's gibberish in a modern context. It does not include useful
>> specific information. It's vague generalities that ultimately say very little of
>> significance. This should be clear ro you.
>>
>> So the question is, what is it about that quote that you find compelling?
>> To me, as a biochemist, it's flowerily words that say nothing of significance.
>>
> As I see it there was indicated in gibberish maneer such facts:
> * there can be hundreds of different amino acids.
> * about 80 of those can be found formed abiotically in high enough
> concentrations (in meteorites and such)
> * life here uses 20 "standard" amino acids in proteins.
> * not all 20 are present among said 80
> * some of 20 are present but in way lower concentrations than some
> other "non-standard" amino acids.
>
> So the significant (for layman) things from that:
> 1) Common decent was likely long after choice of amino acids?
> 2) There can be innumerable alternative biochemistries?
> 3) Biochemistry that we have might be is not the most obvious?
> 4) Choice of (winner) biochemistry was based on something else
> but on availability of materials in abiotic nature?

But de Chardin did not say any of that. His "same types of proteins" is
vague enough that it could include all proteins made with 30 or 40 amino
acids, or it could exclude most of the proteins we find in our bodies.

Lawyer Daggett called it "flowery words that say nothing of
significance." I think the significance is that the reader can read into
those words almost anything they want to. In some contexts, that it a
useful skill for a writer to have.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

On 2023-11-30 17:36:09 +0000, Ernest Major said:

> On 30/11/2023 16:57, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> The fact that he calls amino acids "acids" is a clear indication that
>> he doesn't understand basic chemistry. That was certainly understood in
>> 1923. [Merriam-Webster
>> (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zwitterion) says that the
>> term zwitterion dates from 1906, but I think the idea was understood
>> before that.] Anyone who thinks glycine, for example, is an acid has
>> obviously never tasted it. It has an acidic group (-NH_3^+, not -COO^-,
>> as some textbook authors seem to think), but it lacks the normal
>> characteristics of an acid. Given that -COO^- is not acidic implies, of
>> course, that "amino acid" is a bad name, but it's too late to worry
>> about that.
>
> My interpretation was that by acid he meant DNA and RNA. While their
> function wasn't known when he was writing, it was known that they were
> a major chemical constituent of the cell.

It was much later that it was understood that they were important for
reproduction (Astbury, 1937; or, pehapd more, Florence Bell).
>
> But, as I thought of commenting to Martin, to understand Teilhard's
> intended meaning may require looking closer at the context.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 12:56:55 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 11/30/23 5:12 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 13:36:54 UTC+2, Lawyer Daggett wrote:

> > So the significant (for layman) things from that:
> > 1) Common decent was likely long after choice of amino acids?
> > 2) There can be innumerable alternative biochemistries?
> > 3) Biochemistry that we have might be is not the most obvious?
> > 4) Choice of (winner) biochemistry was based on something else
> > but on availability of materials in abiotic nature?
> But de Chardin did not say any of that. His "same types of proteins" is
> vague enough that it could include all proteins made with 30 or 40 amino
> acids, or it could exclude most of the proteins we find in our bodies.
>
> Lawyer Daggett called it "flowery words that say nothing of
> significance." I think the significance is that the reader can read into
> those words almost anything they want to. In some contexts, that it a
> useful skill for a writer to have.

That is my central point even if I wasn't as clear as you.
It's a very plastic set of claims easily deformed to mean whatever the
beholder chooses it to mean.

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 5:21:55 PM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 12:56:55 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> > On 11/30/23 5:12 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 13:36:54 UTC+2, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>
>
> > > So the significant (for layman) things from that:
> > > 1) Common decent was likely long after choice of amino acids?
> > > 2) There can be innumerable alternative biochemistries?
> > > 3) Biochemistry that we have might be is not the most obvious?
> > > 4) Choice of (winner) biochemistry was based on something else
> > > but on availability of materials in abiotic nature?
> > But de Chardin did not say any of that. His "same types of proteins" is
> > vague enough that it could include all proteins made with 30 or 40 amino
> > acids, or it could exclude most of the proteins we find in our bodies.
> >
> > Lawyer Daggett called it "flowery words that say nothing of
> > significance." I think the significance is that the reader can read into
> > those words almost anything they want to. In some contexts, that it a
> > useful skill for a writer to have.
> That is my central point even if I wasn't as clear as you.
> It's a very plastic set of claims easily deformed to mean whatever the
> beholder chooses it to mean.

This business with Chardin is a little bit less extreme, but in the vein of someone taking a few versus from the Upanishads and concluding that they were consistent with the Standard Model of particle physics.

On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 19:56:55 UTC+2, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 11/30/23 5:12 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>
> > As I see it there was indicated in gibberish maneer such facts:
> > * there can be hundreds of different amino acids.
> > * about 80 of those can be found formed abiotically in high enough
> > concentrations (in meteorites and such)
> > * life here uses 20 "standard" amino acids in proteins.
> > * not all 20 are present among said 80
> > * some of 20 are present but in way lower concentrations than some
> > other "non-standard" amino acids.
> >
> > So the significant (for layman) things from that:
> > 1) Common decent was likely long after choice of amino acids?
> > 2) There can be innumerable alternative biochemistries?
> > 3) Biochemistry that we have might be is not the most obvious?
> > 4) Choice of (winner) biochemistry was based on something else
> > but on availability of materials in abiotic nature?
>
> But de Chardin did not say any of that. His "same types of proteins" is
> vague enough that it could include all proteins made with 30 or 40 amino
> acids, or it could exclude most of the proteins we find in our bodies.
>
I understood "same type of proteins" as polymers made of same set of
amino-acids. He did die in fifties so had no ways to sequence peptides
and proteins and find out levels of homology in those.
> Lawyer Daggett called it "flowery words that say nothing of
> significance." I think the significance is that the reader can read into
> those words almost anything they want to. In some contexts, that it a
> useful skill for a writer to have.
>
I feel it bit silly to expect someone to talk in modern language about
concepts that arose after their death in microbiology. How about the
4 points I raised that are related to what he was likely capable to talk
about? Are these significant or insignificant or totally not worth
discussing?

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 03:34:14 -0800 (PST), Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 5:01:53?AM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote:
>> According to Louis Savary, writing about Teilhard de Chardin's ideas
>> described in The Phenomenon of Man[1]:
>>
>> <quote>
>> Early cells and the innumerable elements composing them are not
>> constructed haphazardly. As operating systems, all cells are alike.
>> The inner makeup, functions, and structures of all cells are similar
>> as are the relationships among their elements. Teilhard finds this
>> fact amazing. He explains why.
>>
>> All cells, from those in the simplest bacteria to those in a human
>> brain, contain the same set of elements, the same types of proteins
>> and acids. This is true, despite the fact that first cells emerging
>> around the world could have been made up of other chemical formulas
>> and structures. Because different cells were born in different
>> climates and conditions, they had the opportunity to develop in a
>> variety of ways. Yet, variation did not happen. The liquid bath in
>> which a cell's parts move around has the same chemical makeup in all
>> cells on Earth today.
>>
>> Because such a universal similarity in makeup does not appear
>> logically necessary, it suggests nature made an early choice. The
>> similarity of liquid bath in all cells worldwide "has been taken as
>> proof that all existing organisms descended from a single ancestral
>> group [of cells]" (95, 55).
>>
>> … All cells on our planet share an "inherent kinship" (100, 58)
>> manifested in the absolute and universal uniformity of the basic
>> cellular structure found in all living things on Earth.
>>
>> … Current research in DNA confirms Teilhard's statements in this
>> section even though DNA hadn't been described or mapped when he was
>> writing Phenomenon.
>>
>> </quote>
>>
>> Is Savary correct that almost 100 years on from when Teilhard came to
>> those conclusions, they still stand?
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] Savary, L.M. (2020) Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man
>> Explained [online], Paulist Press
>
>Frankly, when you read those words you quoted, they are empty balderdash.
>Try as one might, they don't fit to modern biochemistry. To be specific,
>
>This part:
>> All cells, from those in the simplest bacteria to those in a human
>> brain, contain the same set of elements, the same types of proteins
>> and acids. This is true, despite the fact that first cells emerging
>> around the world could have been made up of other chemical formulas
>> and structures. Because different cells were born in different
>> climates and conditions, they had the opportunity to develop in a
>> variety of ways. Yet, variation did not happen. The liquid bath in
>> which a cell's parts move around has the same chemical makeup in all
>> cells on Earth today.
>
>How do you parse all of that? The best I can do is to see that he's saying
>that life is built up of the same amino acids. the same building blocks.
>That isn't significant in the way he would wish.
>
>It's perhaps unfair to be too critical of him given the lack of understanding
>of proteins and the significance of specific amino acid sequences, or the
>nature of DNA and its role to encode specific protein sequence structure.
>
>But ultimately it's gibberish in a modern context. It does not include useful
>specific information. It's vague generalities that ultimately say very little of
>significance. This should be clear ro you.
>
>So the question is, what is it about that quote that you find compelling?
>To me, as a biochemist, it's flowerily words that say nothing of significance.

As already noted, those are not the words of Teilhard, they are Louis
Savary's summary of Teilhard's conclusions. Teilhard obviously went
into much more technical explanation in his book 'The Phenomenon of
Man' but Savary sets out to capture the essence of Teilhard's response
to what he saw through his scientific work and the impact it had on
his philosophical /theological beliefs. I think Savary broadly
succeeds in that [1].

Here is what I find compelling about them.

First of all, I find it a compelling reminder that the vast multitude
of living forms that we see around us are all derived from the same
basic elements. I am not a biochemist but if I understand it
correctly, although we now know of over 500 amino acids, DNA in all
living things is built from only 22 of them. That technical
understanding of DNA obviously came sometime after Teilhard was
expressing his thoughts but, going back to my original question, I
think it is an example of an area where growth in scientific knowledge
has confirmed Teilhard's thinking rather than negating it.

A second thing I find compelling is the interconnectedness between all
living things. Over the last few years, I have got into genealogy and
yesterday afternoon I was doing a bit of work on my family tree. I
glanced out the window and spotted my neighborhood robin poking
through leaves and other debris from that morning's storms. The
thought struck me that if I could do my family tree back far enough, I
would eventually find an ancestor of mine who was either an ancestor
of that Robin or a close relative of an ancestor. If I could go back
even further, I would likely find a living thing who was the ancestor
of me, the robin and the insects he was so avidly seeking.

A third thing I find compelling is that someone who was not just a
devout Christian, but a respected theologian was able to not just come
to terms with the findings of science but was able to develop his
theological thinking as a result of what science was telling him. I
see that as a contrast with. for example, Stepehen Gould who argued
for science and religion to be kept very much apart; Teilhard showed
it is possible to combine both science and philosophy to help get a
wider understanding of everything we are and everything around us. I
think there is a lesson there for those who feel they must dismiss
science because it challenges their religious beliefs; equally so for
those who think that science has somehow eliminated or replaced God.

A fourth thing that I find compelling is that Teilhard was able to do
all this near enough 100 years ago when our knowledge of biology was
still in some ways primitive compared to what we know today and that
he was able to do so in the face of fierce opposition from Church
authorities to his theological conclusions.

----------------------------------------------

[1] 'The Phenomenon of Man' was Teilhard's volume targeted at
scientists and focusing on scientific conclusions from his research.
He wrote a companion volume 'The Divine Milieu', dealing with his
theological conclusions. Savary has also written a book on that
volume: 'Teilhard De Chardin-The Divine Milieu Explained: A
Spirituality for the 21st Century'

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 17:57:10 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<me@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2023-11-30 14:01:23 +0000, Ernest Major said:
>
>> On 30/11/2023 11:34, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 5:01:53 AM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> According to Louis Savary, writing about Teilhard de Chardin's ideas
>>>> described in The Phenomenon of Man[1]:
>>>>
>>>> <quote>
>>>> Early cells and the innumerable elements composing them are not
>>>> constructed haphazardly. As operating systems, all cells are alike.
>>>> The inner makeup, functions, and structures of all cells are similar
>>>> as are the relationships among their elements. Teilhard finds this
>>>> fact amazing. He explains why.
>>>>
>>>> All cells, from those in the simplest bacteria to those in a human
>>>> brain, contain the same set of elements, the same types of proteins
>>>> and acids. This is true, despite the fact that first cells emerging
>>>> around the world could have been made up of other chemical formulas
>>>> and structures. Because different cells were born in different
>>>> climates and conditions, they had the opportunity to develop in a
>>>> variety of ways. Yet, variation did not happen. The liquid bath in
>>>> which a cell's parts move around has the same chemical makeup in all
>>>> cells on Earth today.
>>>>
>>>> Because such a universal similarity in makeup does not appear
>>>> logically necessary, it suggests nature made an early choice. The
>>>> similarity of liquid bath in all cells worldwide "has been taken as
>>>> proof that all existing organisms descended from a single ancestral
>>>> group [of cells]" (95, 55).
>>>>
>>>> … All cells on our planet share an "inherent kinship" (100, 58)
>>>> manifested in the absolute and universal uniformity of the basic
>>>> cellular structure found in all living things on Earth.
>>>>
>>>> … Current research in DNA confirms Teilhard's statements in this
>>>> section even though DNA hadn't been described or mapped when he was
>>>> writing Phenomenon.
>>>>
>>>> </quote>
>>>>
>>>> Is Savary correct that almost 100 years on from when Teilhard came to
>>>> those conclusions, they still stand?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1] Savary, L.M. (2020) Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man
>>>> Explained [online], Paulist Press
>>>
>>> Frankly, when you read those words you quoted, they are empty balderdash.
>>> Try as one might, they don't fit to modern biochemistry. To be specific,
>>>
>>> This part:
>>>> All cells, from those in the simplest bacteria to those in a human
>>>> brain, contain the same set of elements, the same types of proteins
>>>> and acids. This is true, despite the fact that first cells emerging
>>>> around the world could have been made up of other chemical formulas
>>>> and structures. Because different cells were born in different
>>>> climates and conditions, they had the opportunity to develop in a
>>>> variety of ways. Yet, variation did not happen. The liquid bath in
>>>> which a cell's parts move around has the same chemical makeup in all
>>>> cells on Earth today.
>>>
>>> How do you parse all of that? The best I can do is to see that he's saying
>>> that life is built up of the same amino acids. the same building blocks.
>>> That isn't significant in the way he would wish.
>
>The fact that he calls amino acids "acids" is a clear indication that
>he doesn't understand basic chemistry. That was certainly understood in
>1923. [Merriam-Webster
>(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zwitterion) says that the
>term zwitterion dates from 1906, but I think the idea was understood
>before that.] Anyone who thinks glycine, for example, is an acid has
>obviously never tasted it. It has an acidic group (-NH_3^+, not -COO^-,
>as some textbook authors seem to think), but it lacks the normal
>characteristics of an acid. Given that -COO^- is not acidic implies, of
>course, that "amino acid" is a bad name, but it's too late to worry
>about that.
>>>
>>> It's perhaps unfair to be too critical of him given the lack of understanding
>>> of proteins and the significance of specific amino acid sequences,
>
>Specific sequences OK, but that doesn't forgive his ignorance of
>acid-base chemistry.

That ignorance may possibly be due to t him being a paleontologist,
not a biochemist.

>
>>> or the
>>> nature of DNA and its role to encode specific protein sequence structure.
>>>
>>> But ultimately it's gibberish in a modern context. It does not include useful
>>> specific information. It's vague generalities that ultimately say very
>>> little of
>>> significance. This should be clear ro you.
>>>
>>> So the question is, what is it about that quote that you find compelling?
>>> To me, as a biochemist, it's flowerily words that say nothing of significance.
>
>Yes.
>>
>> Taking it literally, life doesn't all have the same (homologous)
>> proteins. There may be some that are universal, but most are
>> phylogenetically restricted. (I suspect that the balance is somewhat
>> different for protein domains.) Like you I presume that he was
>> referring to use of the same amino acid residues in all organisms,
>> which is approximately true (see pyrolysine, selenocysteine, hypusine,
>> hydroxyproline, etc.), at least before humans started creating extended
>> genetic codes.
>>
>> Reading him charitably he is appealing to biochemical universalities as
>> evidence for universal common descent. Biochemical commonalities are a
>> part of the evidence for universal common descent, with the proviso we
>> don't have a good handle on the range of possible biochemistries.
>>
>> However I don't see what he is referring to when he refers to cell structure.

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 14:01:23 +0000, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 30/11/2023 11:34, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 5:01:53?AM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> According to Louis Savary, writing about Teilhard de Chardin's ideas
>>> described in The Phenomenon of Man[1]:
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>> Early cells and the innumerable elements composing them are not
>>> constructed haphazardly. As operating systems, all cells are alike.
>>> The inner makeup, functions, and structures of all cells are similar
>>> as are the relationships among their elements. Teilhard finds this
>>> fact amazing. He explains why.
>>>
>>> All cells, from those in the simplest bacteria to those in a human
>>> brain, contain the same set of elements, the same types of proteins
>>> and acids. This is true, despite the fact that first cells emerging
>>> around the world could have been made up of other chemical formulas
>>> and structures. Because different cells were born in different
>>> climates and conditions, they had the opportunity to develop in a
>>> variety of ways. Yet, variation did not happen. The liquid bath in
>>> which a cell's parts move around has the same chemical makeup in all
>>> cells on Earth today.
>>>
>>> Because such a universal similarity in makeup does not appear
>>> logically necessary, it suggests nature made an early choice. The
>>> similarity of liquid bath in all cells worldwide "has been taken as
>>> proof that all existing organisms descended from a single ancestral
>>> group [of cells]" (95, 55).
>>>
>>> … All cells on our planet share an "inherent kinship" (100, 58)
>>> manifested in the absolute and universal uniformity of the basic
>>> cellular structure found in all living things on Earth.
>>>
>>> … Current research in DNA confirms Teilhard's statements in this
>>> section even though DNA hadn't been described or mapped when he was
>>> writing Phenomenon.
>>>
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> Is Savary correct that almost 100 years on from when Teilhard came to
>>> those conclusions, they still stand?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] Savary, L.M. (2020) Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man
>>> Explained [online], Paulist Press
>>
>> Frankly, when you read those words you quoted, they are empty balderdash.
>> Try as one might, they don't fit to modern biochemistry. To be specific,
>>
>> This part:
>>> All cells, from those in the simplest bacteria to those in a human
>>> brain, contain the same set of elements, the same types of proteins
>>> and acids. This is true, despite the fact that first cells emerging
>>> around the world could have been made up of other chemical formulas
>>> and structures. Because different cells were born in different
>>> climates and conditions, they had the opportunity to develop in a
>>> variety of ways. Yet, variation did not happen. The liquid bath in
>>> which a cell's parts move around has the same chemical makeup in all
>>> cells on Earth today.
>>
>> How do you parse all of that? The best I can do is to see that he's saying
>> that life is built up of the same amino acids. the same building blocks.
>> That isn't significant in the way he would wish.
>>
>> It's perhaps unfair to be too critical of him given the lack of understanding
>> of proteins and the significance of specific amino acid sequences, or the
>> nature of DNA and its role to encode specific protein sequence structure.
>>
>> But ultimately it's gibberish in a modern context. It does not include useful
>> specific information. It's vague generalities that ultimately say very little of
>> significance. This should be clear ro you.
>>
>> So the question is, what is it about that quote that you find compelling?
>> To me, as a biochemist, it's flowerily words that say nothing of significance.
>
>Taking it literally, life doesn't all have the same (homologous)
>proteins. There may be some that are universal, but most are
>phylogenetically restricted. (I suspect that the balance is somewhat
>different for protein domains.) Like you I presume that he was referring
>to use of the same amino acid residues in all organisms, which is
>approximately true (see pyrolysine, selenocysteine, hypusine,
>hydroxyproline, etc.), at least before humans started creating extended
>genetic codes.
>
>Reading him charitably he is appealing to biochemical universalities as
>evidence for universal common descent. Biochemical commonalities are a
>part of the evidence for universal common descent, with the proviso we
>don't have a good handle on the range of possible biochemistries.

Yes, he sees it as further confirmation of what was already known, not
something he spotted for the first time.

>
>However I don't see what he is referring to when he refers to cell
>structure.

<quote>
a. *External Revolution*. From an external point of view, which is the
ordinary biological one, the essential originality of the cell seems
to have been the discovery of a new method of agglomerating a larger
amount of matter in a single unit. This discovery was doubtless
prepared over a long period by the tentative gropings in the course of
which the mega-molecules gradually emerged; but for all that it was
sufficiently sudden and revolutionary to have immediately enjoyed
prodigious success in the natural world.
We are still a long way from being able to define the basic principle
of cellular organisation, though it is probably clarity itself. We
have, however, learnt enough to be able to estimate the extraordinary
complexity of its structure and the no less extraordinary fixity of
its fundamental type.

First the *complexity*. Chemistry teaches us that the cellular edifice
is based on albuminoids, nitrogenous organic substances (amino acids)
of enormous molecular weight (up to 10,000 and over). In combination
with fats, water, phosphorus, and all sorts of mineral salts
(potassium, sodium, magnesium, and various metallic compounds) these
albuminoids constitute a ' protoplasm ', a sponge made up of
innumerable particles in which come appreciably into play the forces
of viscosity, osmosis, and catalysis which characterise matter when
molecular groupings have reached an advanced stage. And that is not
all. In the centre of this agglomeration a nucleus containing '
chromosomes ' may generally be seen against the background of the
surrounding ' cytoplasm ', perhaps itself composed of fine rods or
filaments (' mitochondria ' ). With the increased powers of the
microscope and advances in the use of stains, new structural elements
continue to appear in the complex (whether in height or depth). We
find a triumph of multiplicity organically contained within a minimum
of space.

Next the fixity. As we have already pointed out, indefinite as are the
possible modulations of the fundamental theme, inexhaustible as are
the various forms it assumes in nature, the cell remains in all cases
essentially true to itself. Looking at it, we hesitate to compare it
to anything either in the world of the ' animates ' or that of the '
inanimates '. Yet cells still seem to resemble one another more as
molecules do than as animals do. We are right to look on them as the
first of living forms. But are we not equally entitled to view them as
the representatives of *another state* of matter, something as
original in its way as the electronic, the atomic, the crystalline, or
the polymerous? As a new type of material for a new stage of the
universe?

In this cell (at the same time so single, so uniform and so complex)
what we have is really the stuff of the universe reappearing once
again with all its characteristics-only this time it has reached a
higher rung of complexity and thus, by the same stroke (if our
hypothesis be well founded), advanced still further in interiority,
i.e. in consciousness.

</quote>

[1] Teilhard de Chardin, P. (1965) The Phenomenon Of Man, Collins, pp
95-96