Background
In 1843, Darwin started to explore the food chain. In 1923 (some said in 1927), the British zoologists Summerhayes and Elton put forward the concept of the food chain for the first time based on the relations among plants, animals and micro-organisms, and made it a complex network of interactions where energy and materials circulate within an ecosystem (1). Just because of the circulation, it was understood as the biological chain, and became the mode of the material cycle in the ecosystem. The questions ''who'' and ''when'' the food chain soon became an outright biological chain (2) remain unclear since there are no adequate resources and proof. Since then in nearly a century, this theory had been actually regarded as an indubitable creed and became an important basic theory of life sciences (See Fig. l).
FoodWeb.jpg
1. Serious Contradictions
It seems that the theory previously mentioned and described is irrefutable. However, with continuous discovery and gradual in-depth research, it appears that there are too many contradictions:
1.1 Blotted out the transformation law of decomposition and synthesis. Based on the illustration (Fig. 1), the food chain is simply shown as the substance cycle in the ecosystem, misleading people to believe that the figure is just the so-called substance cycle in the ecosystem. The figure only shows the food chain being a phenomenon of the substance cycle but it does not show the essence of the decomposition and synthesis that promote the substance cycle. At all the levels of the chain's transfers built up by plants – herbivores - carnivores, just as clearly shown in the figure that the soil microorganisms decompose the organic substances in the natural substance cycle, they are implying the process of the decomposition and synthesis.
It is the energy that drives the transformation between the substances. If there was no decomposition (catabolism), there would be no release of energy and energy flow, thus the so-called substance transformation would not be able to continue (4). The substance transformation from plants to animals and from animals to animals (that are in animal bodies) reflected in the food chain does not show or include decomposition (or catabolism), thus, giving the wrong idea of animal's food = animal, which does not conform to the law of substance transformation and energy flow.
1.2 Exclusion of the passage of atmospheric circulation. Again, referring to Fig. 1 where the sun is placed on top, it intends to show that the plants are storing energy through photosynthesis but it does not emphasize on the role of the atmosphere. It seems that the substance cycle only occurred between underground and ground surface. According to the willow test of Belgium scientist Helmont, carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is a major reactant for photosynthesis (5). In the course of the substance cycle when plant and animal bodies are decomposed by microorganisms, most of their substances would be volatilized to the atmosphere and take part in the natural re-cycle (4). This cycle where plants carry on their substance cycle through the atmosphere is excluded in the above figure.
1.3 Met an obstruction and discontinued the circulation. What the figure shows about food chain is an eating and being eaten relationship, however between the producers (plants) and decomposers (microorganisms), what the former would eat is not the latter, but the substances acted upon by the latter. As a result, the substance cycle reflected in this food chain would meet an obstruction and unable to continue its circulation.
1.4 Not being able to conform to the theory and reality. As the theoretical study continuously progresses, it does not conform to the theory and the reality that the figure of the food chain was divided into three major links as producers, consumers and decomposers:
1.4.1 Theoretical aspect
1.4.1.1 Food chain category: Food is the substances used in appeasing hunger. However, microorganisms do not have any alimentary function. If the Figure is to be treated as a pure food chain then it will be inaccurate since the microorganisms do not serve as food for plants or animals. The original intention to categorize organisms of the food chain into producers, consumers and decomposers is supposedly to represent the substance cycle, but the concept of the three major links are also not in the category of the food to appease hunger.
1.4.1.2 Biological chain category: Since the original intention of the author of the food chain was the desire to embody the substance cycle and divide the organisms into three major links (i.e. producers, consumers and decomposers) it should be understood in the biological chain category. Referring to the equation "a + b = c" from the article "Preliminary Analysis of Biological Enzymes Originating from Microorganisms", the microorganisms would play an intermediate role at all the levels of the substance transformation in the whole ecosystem (not only in nature) (6). It is just them to make the substances to have a mutual transformation between the inorganic and organic world, promote the decomposition and synthesis at all levels of substance movement and promote a continuous energy flow. In this case, they should not be the decomposers only in the natural substance cycle and become an essential link of the biological chain. The classification about the decomposers in Fig. 1 is obviously some offside and neither fish nor flesh as well. Thus it would not conform to the theory of the substance transformation and equation "a + b = c".
1.4.1.3 Right and wrong transformation mode interweaved mutually. Refer to "2. Biological chain ≠ food chain" in this article. When the plants and animal bodies are reflected to be transformed in the soil, Fig. 1 applies the equation "a + b = c", which is reasonable and right. But In the reflected transforming process of plants - animals and animals - animals, that is in the animal bodies, what are applied is the equation "a + 0 = c", that is the transformation occurred under no change of any addent or others, which is obviously wrong. Because the equation "a + b = c" is used in the easily observable and acceptable link, people are confused to believe that the biological chain = food chain, so that the right and wrong concept are intertwined, mutually contradictory and difficultly distinguished. That is neither fish nor fowl, resulting in the biological chain and food chain mixed into one pot of porridge, boiling for nearly a century.
1.4.2Reality side
The microorganisms embodied in the food chain only appeared in the soil, but in fact they massively exist in the animal body, too. This aspect does not conform to the reality.
2.Biological Chain ≠ Food Chain
The traditional theoretical view is that the biological chain＝food chain (2). There is no difference between them. But in fact, there is an essential difference between them. (See the table below).
Comparable table of living things and food
Item Living things Food
Entry
1 Including micro-organisms. Not including micro-organisms.
2 Including the contact with Not Including the contact
inorganic world. with inorganic world.
3 Relative subject in material cycle. Relative object in material cycle.
4 Living, able to metabolize. Nonliving?unable to metabolize.
5 Ingester of energy. Supplier of energy.
We can see from Entry 3/4/5 in the table, living things and food seem to be two sides of one matter: the subject and object of the substance transformation in the substance cycle movement. If only these were considered, it would be impeccable to call the biological chain as food chain. However, there are no symmetrical relations in the Entry 1/2, meaning including or not the microorganisms and the contact with the inorganic world. Only including the microorganisms it could have the transforming relationship with the inorganic world and bring about the circulation. If not, the transforming relationship with the inorganic world could not occur and bring about the circulation. Of course it might be said that inorganic substances are the autotrophic microorganisms' food, but the microorganisms have not been included in the food concept, and even there are not any other living things to take the autotrophic microorganisms for their food to continue the circulation of the food chain.
If it might be said that the organic substances (carbohydrates) could serve as the heterotrophic microorganisms' food, but to make an inference according to the theory of "Preliminary Analysis of Biological Enzymes Originating from Microorganisms" and an analysis that the food, after most of the nutrient have been absorbed in the small intestine, would cause a massive proliferation of microorganisms only into the large intestine, the heterotrophic microorganisms' food should yet be different from the animals'. At the same time, there are no other living things as a relay member in the substance cycle movement would take them (heterotrophic microorganisms) for its food to continue the circulation of the food chain. On the contrary, this is further to explain they only belong to a role to promote the substance transformation.
Although edible fungus could be used as human and other animal's food, it is only restricted in the fungus type, does not represent the broad heading of the microorganisms and is not yet the necessary food for human and other animals. Moreover, whether the edible fungus should be classified as microorganisms or plants, there is no final conclusion. Some aquatic animals sometimes may take aquatic microorganisms (such as seaweed or algae) as their food. However, although the edible fungus and algae fall into the microorganisms in classification, they are not "micro" now, and not the ones that can only be seen via a microscope, but rather can be visible and tangible. Human and animals are naturally to make use of these natural resources in their growth and multiplication.
Very obviously, the food chain inventor intended to reflect the meaning of the substance cycle in the biological chain. From the above analysis we could see that the biological chain should contain all the living things, including the microorganisms and the relation between the living nature and inorganic world. What it would embody is the material property that the substances could be transformed each other and circulate unceasingly. But the food chain occurs actually between plants and animals, then between animals and animals. What it embodied is the material property that food might appease hunger, and it should not include the microorganisms, which had no food function and only acted as a medium in the substance transformation. The biological chain could cycle repeatedly, but the food chain could only be a unidirectional movement. The above analysis shows that the biological chain ≠ food chain, which should not be confused in concept. If the microorganisms were far-fetchedly dragged into the food chain, then which was renamed as the biological chain and attempted to make it to reflect the substance cycle, it would be somewhat poles apart. The result can only produce confusion in the basic theory concept and cause the disorder of the relevant disciplines.
Such confusion in the basic theory concept and its caused disorder has been producing a great harm. First is the humanity ourselves. Except having restricted a breakthrough and further development of the theory of medical, health and nutrition, it has been misleading us in practice to believe that food could be directly transformed into the human body and not to value the role of the microorganisms in the body (even some synthetic drugs would kill the microorganisms in vivo). Even the role of large intestine, where is the main site of the microorganism activities, can not be paid an enough attention in theory and practice and occupy its rightful place in the whole human digestive system. Therefore it has affected people's health seriously and even caused many diseases difficult to be explained at present. Next, that has had a serious influence to the agriculture, animal husbandry and fishery production. Because the biological chain belongs to the basic theory, many of the specific researches in the life sciences would be led to a directional error with its fetter and unable to have an active breakthrough and development in the right direction.
No comments:
Post a Comment