We all knew...
"Hacksaw"
Posted on 04/14/2004 6:15:04 AM PDT by Momaw Nadon
Every species seems to come and go. Some last longer than others, but nothing lasts forever. Humans are a relatively recent phenomenon, jumping out of trees and striding across the land around 200 000 years ago. Will we persist for many millions of years to come, or are we headed for an evolutionary makeover, or even extinction?
According to Reinhard Stindl, of the Institute of Medical Biology in Vienna, the answer to this question could lie at the tips of our chromosomes. In a controversial new theory he suggests that all eukaryotic species (everything except bacteria and algae) have an evolutionary "clock" that ticks through generations, counting down to an eventual extinction date. This clock might help to explain some of the more puzzling aspects of evolution, but it also overturns current thinking and even questions the orthodoxy of Darwin's natural selection.
For over 100 years, scientists have grappled with the cause of "background" extinction. Mass extinction events, like the wiping out of dinosaurs 65m years ago, are impressive and dramatic, but account for only around 4% of now extinct species. The majority slip away quietly and without any fanfare. Over 99% of all the species that ever lived on Earth have already passed on, so what happened to the species that weren't annihilated during mass extinction events?
Charles Darwin proposed that evolution is controlled by "survival of the fittest". Current natural selection models imply that evolution is a slow and steady process, with continuous genetic mutations leading to new species that find a niche to live in, or die. But digging through the layers of rock, palaeontologists have found that evolution seems to go in fits and starts. Most species seem to have long stable periods followed by a burst of change: not the slow, steady process predicted by natural selection. Originally scientists attributed this jagged pattern to the imperfections of the fossil record. But in recent years more detailed studies have backed up the idea that evolution proceeds in fits and starts.
The quiet periods in the fossil record where evolution seems to stagnate are a big problem for natural selection: evolution can't just switch on and off. Over 20 years ago the late Stephen Jay Gould suggested internal genetic mechanisms could regulate these quiet evolutionary periods but until now no-one could explain how it would work.
Stindl argues that the protective caps on the end of chromosomes, called telomeres, provide the answer. Like plastic tips on the end of shoelaces, all eukaryotic species have telomeres on the end of their chromosomes to prevent instability. However, cells seem to struggle to copy telomeres properly when they divide, and very gradually the telomeres become shorter.
Stindl's idea is that there is also a tiny loss of telomere length between each generations, mirroring the individual ageing process.
Once a telomere becomes critically short it causes diseases related to chromosomal instability, or limited tissue regeneration, such as cancer and immunodeficiency. "The shortening of telomeres between generations means that eventually the telomeres become critically short for a particular species, causing outbreaks of disease and finally a population crash," says Stindl. "It could explain the disappearance of a seemingly successful species, like Neanderthal man, with no need for external factors such as climate change."
After a population crash there are likely to be isolated groups remaining. Stindl postulates that inbreeding within these groups could "reset" the species clock, elongating telomeres and potentially starting a new species. Studies on mice provide strong evidence to support this. "Established strains of lab mice have exceptionally long telomeres compared to those in wild mice, their ancestors," says Stindl. "Those strains of lab mice were inbred intensively from a small population."
Current estimates suggest telomeres shorten only a tiny amount between each generation, taking thousands of generations to erode to a critical level. Many species can remain stable for tens to hundreds of thousands of years, creating long flat periods in evolution, when nothing much seems to happen.
Telomere erosion is a compelling theory, helping to explain some of the more mysterious patterns in evolution and extinction. There are few data - partly because telomeres are tiny and difficult to measure - but new DNA sequencing techniques could soon change that. Studies have already shown a huge variation in telomere length between different species.
Other scientists are going to take some convincing. David Jablonski, a palaeontologist from the University of Chicago, says: "The telomere hypothesis is interesting, but must be tested against factors like geographic extent, or population size and variability, that have already been proven effective in predicting extinction risk."
Stindl accepts that more experiments need to be done to test his ideas. "We need to compare average telomere lengths between endangered species and current successful species," he says. "I don't expect all endangered species to have short telomeres, since there are clearly other extinction mechanisms resulting from human threats to ecosystems, but I would expect some correlation between extinction risk and telomere length."
If Stindl is correct it will have interesting implications for mankind. Although inbreeding seems to have been the traditional way of lengthening telomeres, there could be a less drastic alternative. Stindl believes that it may be possible to elongate telomeres by increasing the activity of the enzyme telomerase in the embryo. So humans could perhaps boost biodiversity and save endangered species simply by elongating their telomeres. We may even be able to save ourselves when our own telomeres become critically short, making humans the first species to take hold of destiny and prevent their own extinction.
Indicators for human extinction Human telomeres are already relatively short. Are we likely to become extinct soon?
Cancer: Cancer incidence does seem to have increased, but it is hard to say whether this is due to longer lifespans, more pollution, or telomere erosion. The shortest telomere in humans occurs on the short arm of chromosome 17; most human cancers are affected by the loss of a tumour suppressor gene on this chromosome.
Immunodeficiency: Symptoms of an impaired immune system (like those seen in the Aids patients or the elderly) are related to telomere erosion through immune cells being unable to regenerate. Young people starting to suffer more from diseases caused by an impaired immune system might be a result of telomere shortening between generations.
Heart attacks and strokes: Vascular disease could be caused by cells lining blood vessels being unable to replace themselves - a potential symptom of telomere erosion.
Sperm counts: Reduction in male sperm count (the jury is still out on whether this is the case) may indicate severe telomere erosion, but other causes are possible.
1. or else: if things had been different "It's good we evolved limbs and lungs," said Joe, "otherwise we'd be dead here inside this submarine."
2. differently: different from or opposite to something stated Human beings die quickly in a hard vacuum unless otherwise provided with oxygen.
3. in other ways: in any other ways An otherwise fragile human race was rendered effectively invulnerable by its development of technologies for survival.
I truly appreciated your post and I am pleased to be in the ‘virtual company’ of you and the others you have ‘virtually invited’ again. I have been busy lately and – well… I’m just glad to have a little time to read through and think about the ideals on this thread. I hope you don’t mind if I add a thought or two though.
I agree that Darwin was captive to the “Newtonian concept of the universe”, but unfortunately (as you know) the naturalistic view of the universe was not Newton’s view and was ‘naturalized’ due in part to Fontanelle and Voltaire (and of course Descartes and others were being ‘naturalized’ in realms of science) Now some may disagree but please understand I am criticizing a ‘scientific movement’ and not a individual. With Descartes and Newton’s fundamental ideas forgotten, science forgot ‘their inherent intelligent ideal’, and eventually matter was thought to have all the forces inherent in ‘itself’, existing independent of “Divine Providence” – i.e. naturalism.
Yes, naturalism has been ‘my’ problem with modern science all along and it is not a big secret. When science declares, "Matter and Energy is all there is for eternity” and at the same time states, “Science has no ‘proofs’ and we should only learn from science” – I see a problem. They have created this ‘matter/energy box’ without real proof and limiting the actual learning science seeks by trapping those who seek scientific knowledge into a box of only natural explanations regardless of what they find.
But wait, before I am criticized here I ask of those who adhere to this naturalistic philosophy, “How do you know anything for sure if the only thing you believe to be true is your faith that matter and energy is all there for eternity?” And, “How do you know that you know ‘anything’ considering your very mind and the universe that created it comes solely from mindlessness?”
"One of the awfulest consequences of taking epistemological nihilism seriously is that it has led some to question the very facticity of the universe. To some, nothing is real, not even themselves. When a person reaches this state, he is in deep trouble, for he can no longer function as a human being. Or, as we often say, he can't cope. ---We usually do not recognize this situation as metaphysical or epistemological nihilism. Rather, we call it schizophrenia, hallucination, fantasizing, daydreaming or living in a dream world. And we "treat" the person as a "case," the problem as a "disease."
(Ref. "The Universe Next Door", J. Sire, Inter-Varsity, Downers Grove, p.87)
I apologize if this does offend some, but does it offend ‘you’ or just the atoms that comprise you?
Let me put it this way (as Paul A. Dernavich points out):
Two similar clusters of matter came into physical contact with each other at a single point in space and time. One cluster dominated, remaining intact; while the other began to break down into its component elements.
Well, lets look at this exact same situation here:
A 26-year old man lost his life today in a violent and racially motivated attack, according to Thompson County police. Reginald K. Carter was at his desk when, according to eyewitness reports, Zachariah Jones, a new employee at the Clark Center, entered the building apparently carrying an illegally-obtained handgun. According to several eyewitnesses, Jones immediately walked into Carter's cubicle and shouted that "his kind should be eliminated from the earth," before shooting him several times at point-blank range.
Beyond the naturalistic account in the first situation we have survival of the fittest in the second situation. So how do we determine right and wrong from the second account but not from the first account? Are we to draw upon the ‘clusters of matter’ in the first account to attribute evil, guilt, and justice into the second account of the same situation?
Now I am going to say something to you, Betty, which seems crazy and ridiculous to others.
May God continue to bless you with His Divine Providence.
Man harder to terminate than cockroaches? I really do wonder about that, djf.
Here’s something that might shed some light on the problem, from Jacob Needleman’s A Sense of the Cosmos. It has the flavor of something straight out of sci-fi, which disguises the serious reflection I believe it to be. To me, the question Needleman explores is a fascinating one.
He begins by referencing Alvin Toffler’s Future Shock, in which book Toffler discusses designer embryos, the possibility of extra-utero birth, the miniaturization of humans. Apparently (I haven’t read the book) Toffler suggests that if one wanted to colonize remote planets, sending a whole lot of embryos with a a tiny crew of miniaturized scientist/stewards to oversee them on the journey would be maximally efficient, given the exorbitant cost of lifting payloads off the launch pad, etc. Needleman writes:
“On hearing these passages read to the class, one of my students excitedly suggested that there was a possible solution to the population crisis: miniaturizing the human race! To my amazement, nobody laughed at this. Only I smiled uncomfortably.”
He was “uncomfortable,” because this exchange triggered the recollection of a passage from Russian mathematician and philosopher P. D. Ouspensky’s A New Model of the Universe (a book I read years ago). The passage had to do with “the remarkable organization of the social insects, suggesting that they were, so to say, an early experiment in consciousness, an experiment that failed. I had never been able to take that passage seriously. But now for a moment there loomed before me the picture of man, ‘the noblest of God’s creations,’ as a colony of miniaturized beings whose central organ of intelligence was external to their bodies – bodies which were now as hardened as the chitinous exterior of the ants and bees, and whose mode of reproduction involved the fertilization of eggs outside the body.”
Here’s the relevant passage from Ouspensky:
“It is impossible to become acquainted with [the life of the social insects] without giving oneself up to emotional impressions of astonishment and bewilderment. Ants and bees alike both call for our admiration by the wonderful completeness of their organization, and at the same time repel and frighten us, and provoke a feeling of undefinable aversion by the invariably cold reasoning which dominates their life and by the absolute impossibility for an individual to escape from the wheel of life of the anthill or the beehive. We are terrified at the thought that we may resemble them.
“Indeed what place do the communities of ants and bees occupy in the general scheme of things on our earth? How could they have come into being such as we observe them? All observations of their life and their organization inevitably lead us to one conclusion. The original organization of the ‘beehive’ and the ‘anthill’ in the remote past undoubtedly required reasoning and logical intelligence of great power, although at the same time the further existence of both the beehive and the anthill did not require any intelligence or reasoning at all.
“How could this have happened?
“It could only have happened in one way. If ants or bees, or both … had been intelligent and evolving beings and then lost their intelligence and their ability to evolve, this would have happened only because their ‘intelligence’ went against their ‘evolution,’ in other words, because in thinking that they were helping the evolution they managed somehow to arrest it….
“…They must have become convinced that they knew what was good and what was evil, and must have believed that they themselves could act according to their understanding. They renounced the idea of higher knowledge … and placed all their faith in their own knowledge, their own powers and their own understanding of the aims and purposes of their existence….
“We must bear in mind that … every ‘experiment’ of Nature, that is, every living being, every living organism, represents the expression of cosmic laws, a complex symbol or a complex hieroglyph. Having begun to alter their being, their life and their form, bees and ants, taken as individuals, severed their connection with the laws of Nature, ceased to express these laws individually and began to express them collectively. And then Nature raised her magic wand, and they became small insects, incapable of doing Nature any harm.”
Whether sci-fi fantasy or fascinating parable, Needleman reminds us that “we have only to remember that nature’s ‘magic wand’ need not be an external force, but an internal desire coupled with an extraordinary opinion about our own greatness and the inevitability of the steps we are about to take.
“Upon what basis shall we choose between the molecular biologist’s vision of modern man as approaching the level of divinity, and the suggestion that present-day humanity is potentially a race of cosmic insects?”
LOL!!! Whatta question! Needleman puts it into perspective for us, making the crux of Ouspensky's meditation explicit:
“In front of the discoveries of molecular biology, we feel burdened with great and fearful decisions involving the control not only of external nature, but of our very structure as living beings. We can do anything, be anything – all that we lack is the moral conviction to match our scientific power. Or, so say many of our scientists and social critics. A burden, but what a delicious burden! We are terrified of ourselves, but what a magnificent terror! No civilization in the history of the earth – not even, perhaps, in the history of the universe – has faced such a momentous decision. Truly, we are extraordinarily significant beings, we of the modern world.”
* * * * * * *
djf, you ask: “Which is the better lesson? We were created, without sin, in the garden, then fell, and are now trying to get back to where we were?”
I’d say the first. For it reminds us of our in-built limits. In any case, we can’t “get back to the garden” under our own power. Though every utopian who ever came down the pike tried to do just that, such efforts have all been in vain. The journey back can only happen with God’s help. Or so I believe.
Perhaps if left entirely to our own devices, humanity’s future would resemble, not the bliss of return to the paradise from which we were evicted (for gross insubordination), but the life and purposes of the ant heap, of the termite colony – having utterly lost our humanity in the act of rejecting the divine ground of our own (and all) being…. We humans are “in the image.” If we “lose God,” what would we, could we be the image of?
Anyhoot, IMHO these are issues worthy of further reflection. Especially in light of the fact that virtually all human cultures, of all places and times, had some sort of myth about an antediluvian “Paradise” or “Golden Age” that was temporally located in remote pre-history. The universality, ubiquity and sheer persistence of the myth of the Garden (even today!) is fascinating to me. It seems there must be something very basic, elemental, even instinctual in human nature that can resonate to it.
Thank you so very much for your thoughtful, perceptive essay, djf. I truly enjoyed reading and thinking about the issues you raise.
The ant, bee and man as a cosmic insect discussion ties in rather well with the discussion of Pinker's worldview here and especially on this other thread. He, of course, sees consciousness as an epiphenomenon of the physical brain. Pinker’s view is based on the biochemistry of the physical brain being understood by the rules of classical physics.
In rebuttal on the other thread, I’ve offered several articles by Henry Stapp, a Physicist with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Stapp argues that the brain must be understood by quantum mechanics and not classical physics due to the size and motion of such things as calcium ions, that it is the ripple effect (or Quantum Zeno effect) and not a single quantum event (the Tegmark et al objection to quantum applicability) which characterizes consciousness.
I may post more about all of this on the other thread which has a decidedly scientific slant, but I believe it is relevant here to the insect discussion because …. if there were not a quantum mechanical or geometric (dimensionality, space/time) harmonic underlying consciousness then the behavior of ants, bees, muskoxen, penguins, fish, etc. would not make much sense. They act as a collective, conscious to the environment and responding as a whole.
Unique among creatures --- man is willful, his mind is internalized, self-aware, concentrates, remembers, theorizes and reaches beyond physical contemplation. In contrast to the ants, bees, penguins et al where the harmonic is to the physical environment --- the mind of a man is additionally harmonic to self-interest and to the cosmos or “all that there is”. It is as if man does not exist only in a collective and further, is one being tiered into three distinct but cohesive levels of consciousness.
I’m considering whether this distinction points to man’s special origin, the garden and would like to hear your thoughts on it. Here is the distinction made by Stapp but only wrt to the physical brain – the applicability to ants, bees, etc. can be inferred:
6.1 Classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, considered as conceivable descriptions of nature, are structurally very different. According to classical mechanics, the world is to be conceived of as a simple aggregate of logically independent local entities, each of which interacts only with its very close neighbors. By virtue of these interactions large objects and systems can be formed, and we can identify various 'functional entities' such as pistons and drive shafts, and vortices and waves. But the precepts of classical physics tell us that whereas these functional units can be identified by us, and can be helpful in our attempts to comprehend the behaviour of systems, these units do not thereby acquire any special or added ontological character: they continue to be simple aggregates of local entities.
No extra quality of beingness is appended to them by virtue of the fact that they have some special functional quality in some context, or by virtue of the fact that they define a spacetime region in which certain quantities such as 'energy density' are greater than in surrounding regions. All such 'functional entities' are, according to the principles of classical physics, to be regarded as simply consequences of particular configurations of the local entities: their functional properties are just 'consequences' of the local dynamics; functional properties do not generate, or cause to come into existence, any extra quality or kind of beingness not inherent in the concept of a simple aggregate of logically independent local entities. There is no extra quality of 'beingness as a whole', or 'coming into beingness as a whole' within the framework of classical physics.
There is, therefore, no place within the conceptual framework provided by classical physics for the idea that certain patterns of neuronal activity that cover large parts of the brain, and that have important functional properties, have any special or added quality of beingness that goes beyond their beingness as a simple aggregate of local entities.
Yet an experienced thought is experienced as a whole thing. From the point of view of classical physics this requires either some 'knower' that is not part of what is described within classical physics, but that can 'know' as one thing that which is represented within classical physics as a simple aggregation of simple local entities; or it requires some addition to the theory that would confer upon certain functional entities some new quality not specified or represented within classical mechanics.
This new quality would be a quality whereby an aggregate of simple independent local entities that acts as a whole (functional) entity, by virtue of the various local interactions described in the theory, becomes a whole (experiential) entity. There is nothing within classical physics that provides for two such levels or qualities of existence or beingness, one pertaining to persisting local entities that evolve according to local mathematical laws, and one pertaining to sudden comings-into-beingness, at a different level or quality of existence, of entities that are bonded wholes whose components are the local entities of the lower-level reality.
Yet this is exactly what is provided by quantum mechanics, which thereby provides a logical framework that is perfectly suited to describe the two intertwined aspects of the mind/brain system.
Through electronics, humans are now integrating a 'higher' aspect of their physical being that is (we don't know exactly how) connected to a realm of consciousness we have so little understanding for. The organ(s) associated with our consciousness connection to this 'greater realm' is the brain (and the nervous system) and through chemical interactions the organ utilizes electrical pulses and flow to integrate the physical organ into an existence that is greater than the sum of the physical parts. Our dabbling with electronic machines is leading inexorably (because we do not talk these new applications of scientific discovery over as a society, to decide which we wish to exploit based upon a moral/ethical/spiritual/survival paradigm) in the direction of deeper electrical connection between electronic machines and our biological machine of habitation.
Cochlear implants are a prime example of the gradual climb from external eletronic machines being consciously manipulated, to internalized connection with our biological mechanisms, operating symbiotically without conscious effort.
There was a Clint Eastwood movie about a Soviet fighter that he stole, that had brainwave connections to the operation of the controls (thoughts directed control functions). That concept was much deeper in portense than the triviality of the movie directed.
If and when humans discover the way our complex chemico-electrical brains work to project consciousness, we will be so very vulnerable to the 'final fatal' fusion of machines and biological entities. I personally don't believe our Creator will allow us to reach such a stage in our current adolescent socialization/civilization/spiritual developmental stage. I personally believe that one of the first things we learn about our Creator is that creation is a continuous rather than distant phenomenon. We are still being created, as our direction as planned by our Creator is inexorably followed.
Given the moon worshipers and bioweapons, it's by no means certain that we as a species will survive long enough to colonize anywhere else.
We all knew...
"Hacksaw"
The Anternet...
betty boop wrote a wonderful article on the metaxy. I've seemed to have messed up my bookmarks or I'd link to it for you. (I have to head off to bed shortly because I'll be out of town for two days ... sigh) Her article explained both Plato's musings and her own thoughts on the subject.
I'm painfully rambling, but if you are interested in mine: Evolution through the back door
Barely time to kiss your ass goodbye. Seriously, you couldn't outrun the cloud even if you had a 10 minute head start in the fastest motor vehicle on the road. As such, I don't let worries about it affect my life. I just spent the past 2 days running all over the Norris geyser basin and Upper/Lower Geyser basins near Old Faithful. I plan to enjoy it as long as I can.
Regards,
Oh my, how to parse this challenging statement? I think we need to take it point by point, in order.
Does man have some sort of cosmic monopoly on God? I don’t think so. Who said he did? Clearly man is not God’s “sole” creation; but that doesn’t necessarily mean that he is not His “greatest” creation. Man seems to be distinguished by qualities that no other order of being possesses as far as we know. Preeminent among them are reason and free will. This “extra” endowment is summed up in the symbol of the imago dei.
Man is said to have been created in the image or reflection of God, his Creator. This is not to be understood as a “mirrorlike” image in the physical sense. Rather, it is a symbol pointing to certain qualities that man shares with the divine, and this because God chose to share them. We are endowed with divine gifts.
Other orders of nature are intelligent beside man; perhaps all of them are in some degree. But it seems that man is the only creature in nature capable of self-reflective thought and, therefore, of a sense of self, of personal identity. It is the capacity for self-reflection that makes the exercise of reason possible. And free will creates the scope for its exercise.
No animal species comes even close to the possibilities of autonomous self-direction and self-development that the human species routinely demonstrates. Compared to humans, the rest of our fellow denizens of the biosphere seem to be carrying out well-defined programs so efficient that “decision-making” by individuals is little called for. It seems to me that “instinct” is quite literally a program in the sense of a “pre-loaded instruction set” that tells an organism how to perform the routines that will sustain its life, more or less automatically.
The human position – the human condition -- is vastly more complicated. To live, we must decide. To decide, we must reason. Free will makes us responsible for the result.
As far as man making God in his image – to me, this would be the total inversion of fundamental reality. The only reason man can have an idea of God in the first place is because man is made in the “likeness” of his Creator, with reason and free will: truth recognizes Truth; nous recognizes Nous. The lesser knows the Greater because the lesser is constituted and sustained by the Greater and is the carrier of its law….
To say that God is the image of man is to enter the Hall of Mirrors at the traveling carny show… you just can never trust anything you see within its precincts.
Before there was sin, there was free will. But free will didn’t cause sin. An actual human choice did. The point may seem a minor one; but I think there’s an important distinction to be made here. Note that, even after sin, still God left us free….
My heart goes out to you in sorrow for your loss of your beloved wife, djf. Perhaps such dreadful separation lasts only for a while. After all, we don’t know where we were before we were born; and we don’t know where we’ll be after we die. That doesn’t necessarily mean we “are nowhere” in either case. When people tell you “Life goes on,” please take it to heart. For all the rest, put your love and faith and trust in the Lord of Life. And never give up hope. These are the most divine human qualities.
One of the awfulest consequences of taking epistemological nihilism seriously is that it has led some to question the very facticity of the universe. To some, nothing is real, not even themselves. When a person reaches this state, he is in deep trouble, for he can no longer function as a human being….
You nail it, Heartlander! And I surely do agree with that last statement.
It seems that scientific naturalists have got themselves embroiled in a hopeless epistemological dilemma, as you so lucidly point out: You can’t say that matter and energy are the only existents in the universe and then turn around and say that “reason” provides the proof of the assertion.
Thank you so much, Heartlander, for your insightful and penetrating post!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.