Why only L amino acids?(Why not?)

Rafael N Szeinfeld szeinfel at FOX.CCE.USP.BR
Wed Jul 13 08:12:43 EST 1994


	I would like to say tha Jim Miller's message is stupid and this 
gives us a image of what he is. Now to Jim : if you don't have anything 
serious to say be quiet.
				Rafael Iosef Najmanovich Szeinfeld
				(from south hemisphere)


On 12 Jul 1994 dallas at mcvax4.d48.lilly.com wrote:

> I know much of the discussion has been on a serious note, but I tend to like
> the "We don't know" theory the best.  Why blow smoke?
> 
> One thing I do like is that nature is parsimonious (thrifty for those without
> $.25).  At some point (much like when Moses(aka Mel Brooks) came down from the
> Mount and dropped one of THE THREE tablets), a choice was made.
> 
> (see "History of the World-Part I")
> 
> Other explanations:
> Life only existed in the Northern hemisphere( what was the structure of
> Gondwana Land?). Does life exist in the Southern hemisphere today?  A joke to
> my mates in Oz.
> 
> We all know the partiality of God to right-handers (if you think of the protein
> helix) and that 'left' in Latin is 'sinister'.  God also picked L-amino acids
> because he does have a sense of humor and likes to read a good discussion on
> the net.
> 
> Now serious stuff but questions for thought.
> 
> Was the beginning of life proteinaceous or nucleic acid in nature?  I thought
> it was AGREED to be proteinaceous.
> 
> Should we separate the synthesis of proteins (ribosomal) v. peptides with
> D-amino acids (non-ribosomal).  Absolutely!  What does it mean?  I don't know.
> 
> Whatever the discussion, systems have to be placed in chronological
> (evolutionary) order.  For example, can you have stereochemically favored
> enzymatic reactions BEFORE the selection (a presumption) of L-amino acids?
> 
> I don't know still seems like the best option.  :-)
> 
> Jim Miller
> Indianapolis, IN
> 
> 



More information about the Proteins mailing list