Thursday, May 25, 2017

The Philosophy of Sex, Part II: From Bacteria to Complex Life Forms



The Philosophy of Sex, Part II: From Bacteria to Complex Life Forms
By Josh Glazer

                It has been argued in the past, most notably by Richard Dawkins, et. al., that the most basic unit of selection, at the evolutionary level, is the gene.  In it, we hit a kind of biological bedrock, in which it is difficult to move beyond.  We know that certain genes contain the instructions (in DNA format) for creating specific proteins, the basic building blocks of life.  But we don’t know how DNA ‘evolved’.  We know how the properties of certain proteins emerge; from their specific makeup of amino acids, and their 3-dimensional structure, for example.  We also know that there are long stretches of so-called ‘junk’ DNA that do not code for any effective proteins .  Some of this junk DNA is the debris from genes that were lost in the evolutionary past.  Yet some junk DNA holds vitally important switches which control key components of embryonic development, such as the timing and activation of certain body parts in their growth cycle.  There are still large gaps in our knowledge of how DNA came about, and the earliest life, but we are beginning to make inroads towards an understanding of how both simple, and complex, life forms can develop, and even evolve, from certain sequences of genes.

We do have rich archeological and  geological records, among others, and along with modern genomics, we are able to extrapolate a great deal of data about the different lineages of animals, and also their lateral transfers of genes, which can happen at the bacterial level, as will be discussed below.  What we want to explore, here, however, is more basic question: how did complex body plans form from simple multi-cellular organisms? 

                In order to begin our inquiry, it will be helpful to briefly review, at this point, the first 4 billion years or so of earth’s history, and how life behaved during that time.  The earth formed as a fiery pit of asteroid collisions and volcanic eruptions about 4.5 million years ago, about the same age as the solar system as a whole.  After a period of cooling and a cessation of tectonic fireworks, the first vestiges of microbial life have been established as about 3.5 million years old.  These consist in faint impressions of the first living cells on this planet.  (Prothero, 164)
               
                These first cells, however, were simple in nature, lacking nuclei, and other complex components of life as we know it now.  These simple cells, or bacteria, would be the only life forms on the planet for about 3 billion years, until the formation of the first complex cell with a nucleus – the eukaryotic cell (Latin for ‘having a nucleus.  Prokaryotes are cells without a nucleus).  What brought about this transformation?  It is generally agreed upon now, although it was quite controversial when first published, that the eukaryotic cell was the result of two or more bacterium combining to live in symbiosis with one another.  In this way, the waste products of one bacteria could be used as the fuel for another type of bacterium, and vice versa.  Although prokaryotes far outnumber complex organisms on this planet, all plants and animals are made up of eukaryotic cells.

                The question now becomes; how did life make the jump from eukaryotic cells to complex life, with body plans that continued to evolve?  We can begin our inquiry with the first possible ‘version’ of sex, known as ‘bacterial conjugation’.  This, simply put, is when two bacteria link up via a cytoplasmic tube, and freely exchange genes.  Exactly why they do this, we do not know.  Another form of bacterial genetic exchange is the existence of ‘plasmids’, which are basically just floating chunks of bacterial DNA, ready to be taken up by any bacteria in the immediate area.  These methods are still in use today, as, for example, bacteria pass genes for resistance to modern antibiotics between one another, leading to an arms race between the bacteria’s ability to evolve counter-measures, and our ability to devise efficient anti-microbial medicines.

                But even these forms of ‘bacterial sex’, or, more literally, the exchange of DNA between two bacteria, are not representative of sexual reproduction, as it is known in more complex life.  A bacteria divides by asexual reproduction, making an exact copy of itself.  Rare mutations may occur through radiation, copying errors, or UV light, but these mutations are not nearly enough to produce the millions of species that exist on the planet today.

                In order for more complex body plans to exist, sexual reproduction had to evolve.  This came about around the beginning of the Cambrian Explosion, as it is known, about 650 million years ago, when radiations of new body plans and forms began to proliferate.  Why did this new form of reproduction lead to such a vast new number of organisms?  As opposed to asexual reproduction, sexual reproduction is a complex procedure which thoroughly mixes the genes of the two parents.  To summarize:

“Meiosis is simply the procedure by the which the male selects the genes that will go into a sperm or the female selects the genes that will go into an egg… During meiosis something peculiar happens.  Each of the 23 pairs of chromosomes is laid alongside its opposite number.  Chunks of one set are swapped with chunks of the other in a procedure called ‘recombination’.  One whole set is then passed on to the offspring, to be married with a set from the other parents – a procedure known as ‘outcrossing’...

“Sex is recombination plus outcrossing; this mixing of genes is its principal feature.  The baby gets a thorough mixture of its four grandparents’ genes (through recombination) and its 2 parents genes (through outcrossing).”  (Ridley, 29-30)

                This blending of genes eventually leads to the creation of an embryo, which then develops into a more fully grown young, ready to be exposed to the world.  One question that may still be asked at this point is, how does all of this ‘genetic mixing’ lead to the incredible proliferation of life forms in the Cambrian period, and afterwards?

                The answer may lie in a relatively new biological field call ‘Evolutionary Developmental Theory’, or just ‘Evo / Devo’ for short.  This new field lies at the crossroads of embryology and evolutionary biology; hence the name.  (Carroll, 9)  Essentially, it compares an embryo’s development across several related species, and tries to figure out what controls the formation of the body, limbs, etc.  Being that 98% of our DNA is the same as chimpanzees, that 2% is rather important in the understanding of our human species.  Evo / Devo seeks to understand how embryos both develop and evolve by creating genetic maps, which indicate where certain body parts begin to emerge from the once single celled embryo.

                The first studies of Evo / Devo were done using simple laboratory animals like fruit flies, and provided almost miraculous results.  They revealed, after years of studies on the fruit fly’s third chromosome, that there sat 8 genes, in order, which formed the entire body of the fruit fly.  More so, all animals, from fruit flies to mice to humans, shared a similar set of these form making genes.  They controlled modular formation of the organism, such as you might see in a millipede; the same structure repeated a thousand times.  Or, a new appendage grown where there had been only a bud before.  Through careful manipulation, scientists were able to show that these genes existed across major species lines; growing weird mutants with legs in strange places, all to demonstrate the ubiquity of these genes.  These genes were somehow controlling the growth of the embryo, telling it what to do and when to do it, in order to create a specific organism.

                Since the form of these genes was similar across protein domains (existing spaces of possible DNA coded proteins), ‘The shared DNA sequence was dubbed the homebox and the corresponding domain it encoded, the homeodomain… Hox genes for short.’  (Carroll, 65)  The discovery of these Hox genes opened a whole new window into the way that body plans were organized through genetic mixing; simple switches could enable a particular body part to either multiply or appear at a different place.  Over evolutionary time, this was enough evidence to explain the immense diversity of organisms on this planet, and also their basic similarities at the same time, like DNA and other formations, such as Mitochondria and other organelles.  One incredible revelation is that all the instructions for most animals are contained in the DNA of similar animals; it is the genetic switches (or Hox genes) which controlled what life form would develop from the initial blastula. 


               
                (Above Picture, from Carroll, 62.  Illustrates Hox genes expressed in a fruit fly.)

And so, we can see that the genetic mixing of sexual reproduction greatly increases the chances of new adaptations, which, over evolutionary time, can create entirely different forms, based on an organism’s adaptation to its environment.  Additionally, when we use all of our most advanced scientific techniques to look backward in time towards our most universal common ancestor, it appears that many of the key elements of life already existed almost 1 billion years ago; it was merely a matter of arranging them in the correct format.

                Here, we will end Part II.  In Part III, we will finally see how sexual selection in human beings has helped shaped human nature, our species, our history, and even our different cultures.

Sources Cited:

Carroll, Sean B. Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo. Norton, New York (2005).

Jastrow, Robert & Rampino, Michael. Origins of Life in the Universe. Cambridge, London (2008).

Ridley, Matt. The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature. Harper Perennial, London (2003).

Sunday, May 14, 2017

Interlude: A Proof Offered Against the Possible Existence of Heaven or Hell



A Proof Offered Against the Possible Existence of Heaven or Hell
By Josh Glazer

This proposal, to be adopted as seen fit be each individual,  under the larger umbrella of normative cultural ethics, will attempt to prove that the traditional notion of Heaven or Hell (As from the larger historical tradition of  Judeo/Christian ethics), is not logical, based on true and fair standards.

                Since a significant part of the population believe, or have faith in, supernatural eternal realms called ‘Heaven’ and ‘Hell’, upon which one’s soul enters after death, based on one’s actions during life, I will argue that it is not logically ‘fair’ for any one person to enter either eternal realm, based on their earthly actions.  I will argue, instead, utilizing the rules set down as ‘Justice as Fairness’ by John Rawls in 1971, that it is not fair to assign eternal blame or reward, based on any one single individual’s actions during their lifetime.

                First, to define my terms: in this case, acting ‘Good’ in one’s life, means what the normative cultural idea of good is, in any particular society (as cultural norms of ‘Good’ may differ between cultures or societies).  Here, in America, acting good during one’s life requires not only following legal institutions, but also moral institutions of loving, kindness, and charity.  Acting ‘Bad’, however, means violating these institutions to some degree during one’s life.  When a person dies, they are ‘Judged’ to be either Good or Bad, and are sent to either Heaven, or Hell, respectively.

                The ‘Judge’ in this scenario would be God, as the ultimate moral arbiter.  Here, I am using the general idea of God as put forth in the Old Testament, otherwise known as the Pentateuch, or the Five Books of Moses.  God, in this case, is an active persona who takes an interest in human affairs at some level, acting  as the ultimate judge of one’s life.  God has the power to send you to either Heaven or Hell, eternally, based on God’s judgment.

This  conception of Heaven and Hell, as evidenced through certain religions, common discourse, film, TV, literature, etc., is one in which one’s soul goes to Heaven if one’s life is ‘judged’ to be ‘Good’, and ‘Hell’, if one’s life is ‘judged’ to be ‘Bad’.  I would now like to state for consideration the idea that there cannot logically exist such eternal institutions, based on truly ‘Fair’ rules.

                The main problem with assigning eternal justice, blame, reward, etc. lies in the ‘original position’ of each person, or in their socio-economic/political position upon entering this world (i.e. being born).  Although it is an established fact that each individual person is equal before the law, considering mitigating circumstances such as mental illness, intoxication, etc., it is also clearly obvious that each person is a unique individual with their own special qualities, deficiencies, talents, and abilities.  In addition to these more innate qualities, there is also the environment in which a person grows up, socio-economically, educationally, and politically. 

                Based on these factors, it can be argued that certain tendencies can achieve the role becoming habits, either in ‘Good’ ways, or ‘Bad’ ways, which may not be due to the individual’s free choice, but rather are due (at least, in part) to the individual in question’s original position.

                In order to illustrate this point further, we will use the definition of the ‘Original Position’, as put forth in John Rawls’ Theory of Justice.   (Rawls, 1999)  In Rawls’  doctrine of ‘Justice as Fairness’ (a modernized version of Locke’s Social Contract), societal rules, laws, and other norms are decided behind a theoretical ‘veil of ignorance’, in which each individual does not know their original starting point in any of these areas.  As Rawls writes:

“The main idea of justice as fairness carries to a higher level of abstraction the traditional conception of the social contract… They are the principles that free and rational persons would accept in an initial position of equality… The original position of equality corresponds to the state of nature in the traditional theory of the social contract… It is understood as a purely hypothetical situation… No one knows his place in society, his class, social, fortune, abilities, intelligence, strength, and the like…  Thus, the principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance.  This ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged by the outcome of natural chance or of social circumstances… This explains the name ‘Justice as Fairness’: it conveys the idea that the principles of justice are agreed to in an initial situation that is fair. ”  (Rawls, 3 – 11)

In this way, according to Rawls, a society can be constructed whereby no special person or group is enfranchised at the cost of other individuals, since no one person knows where they will end up after the veil of ignorance is lifted,  and they see where they have ended up in the lottery of life.  This situation, as Rawls points out, is purely hypothetical; in no way did such a ‘state of nature’ ever trule exist, just as in the other major social contract theories of Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. 

(Incidentally, Rawls also argues that any truly fair society is one in which any benefits which end up being distributed to the most rich must also somehow be offset by equally benefitting those at the lower socio-economic rungs.  Although that does not bear directly on our current subject, it is the second major part of this theory of justice.)

                Returning  to real life, however, it soon becomes obvious that, based on where on the socio-economic scale a person is born / raised, an element of determinism inevitably finds its way into the lives of every human individual on this planet.  Rich or poor, educated or not, every individual ends up pre-disposed towards certain habits, or actions, during their lifetime.  Since this is not a ‘fair’ situation, as defined above, each individual cannot fairly be judged on their actions during their lifetime, and surely not for all of eternity.

                Logically, therefore, it is not fair for any single individual to enter either Heaven or Hell, for all eternity, based on their earthly actions. 

                This same problem has been written about since before the first millennium.  Epicurus (341 BC – 270 BC), held  that:

“Two of the greatest sources of fear were religion, and the dread of death, which were connected, since religion encouraged the view that the dead were unhappy.  He therefore sought a metaphysic which would prove that the gods do not interfere in human affairs, and that the soul perishes with the body… Supernatural interference with nature seemed to him a source of terror, and immortality fatal to the hope of release from pain… We cannot escape death, but death, rightly understood, is no evil.”  (Russell, 246 – 247)

Living prudently, according to Epicurus, is our best hope for achieving a measure of relief from pain.  This is certainly a modest gospel, but one which could still inspire some enthusiasm for life without invoking the interfering powers of the gods.

                Arthur Schopenhauer (c. 1860) also had some choice words on the subject of the afterlife:

“With man the terrifying certainty of death necessarily appeared along with the faculty of reason… All religions and philosophical systems are directed principally toward this end… For example, to teach him that he came but recently from nothing, and yet for the future is to be immortal, is just like teaching him that, although he is the work of another, he shall nevertheless be responsible to all eternity for his maker’s commissions and omissions… An entire infinity ran its course when we did not yet exist, but this in no way disturbs us…”  (Schopenhauer, 463-466)

Schopenhauer is here drawing attention to the glaringly obvious fact that, although we do not envision ourselves as having existence before we were born, the idea of non-existence after our death is almost unthinkable to us.  He also sets forth the argument, similar to Rawls’ original position, that being responsible for all eternity for the things which we were ‘made’ to do, is ridiculous.

                Thinking ahead, other alternatives to the theory of the existence of Heaven and Hell might be proposed, though completely out of faith.  For example, perhaps souls are tormented in Hell for a finite amount of time, before rising to Heaven.  Or, perhaps in the afterlife, all souls are treated equally, based on the unfairness of life on earth.  The implications of such a ‘policy’ would be grand indeed.

                In conclusion, there can be no logically fair basis for any one single individual being assigned to either Heaven or Hell, for all eternity, based on their earthly actions, and that therefore those supernatural realms cannot exist as traditionally believed in, although certain modifications may make the idea more easy to have faith in.  One final note: these ideas apply to the theoretical possibility of life after death, and not to those legal institutions we currently have in place for people during their lifetimes.

Bibliography:

Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard Press (1999), Cambridge, Mass.

Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy. Simon and Shuster (1945), New York, NY.

Schopenhauer, Arthur. The World as Will and Representation, Volume II. Dover (1966), Mineola, NY.