Directed Evolution
Ever since the radical ideas of Charles Darwin on evolution and natural selection were accepted by the scientific community, we have been studying evolution and looking deeper into the concept. From there, we discovered DNA and genes, invented classification systems for related animals, and are increasingly able to understand the evolutionary tree from which we are coming to believe the roots of all (Earth) life began.
But does evolution start and end there? We accept that life and evolution have this inherent relation to each other, but we typically don't carry the idea any further. By taking a more general look at the idea of evolution and then looking at the Universe at large, it is possible to abstract similar recognizable patterns. It is currently believed, as part of the Big Bang Theory, that in the early days of the Universe, matter and energy exploded from a central point, out into all directions. As time passed, the expansion began to slow allowing for these atomic particles to begin collecting. Eventually, more time had passed, allowing these atoms to form molecules. From these molecules we begin to see larger, more complex objects in the Universe. To me, this sounds very much like the early stages of evolution. A single cell organism, over time, develops into a muti-cell organism. As time continues to pass, the multi-cell organism develops into larger and more complex lifeforms such as plants and animals. The formation of matter follows a handful of rules such as the forces acting on it (gravity, electromagnetism, etc.), atomic structure, availability of different atoms, and so on. While the notion of random mutation may not exist in terms of matter, each molecule that is formed is in a way "tested" for viability.
In each process, be it the formation of complex matter or complex life, there are certain rules which are followed. The rules are different for each process, but one thing remains the same; once constructed, the result of both are then tested by the Universe against the criteria of viability and survival. It may sound odd that a carbon atom is tested for "survival", but it really isn't much of a stretch at all. If the carbon atom proves that it is a viable and a stable atom in the Universe, it will continue to exist, and thus survive. It will survive and attempt to find it's place in the Universe. In the specific case of carbon, it will most likely bind itself to other carbon atoms creating a larger, more complex object. An example of an atom that would not survive in the Universe would be most of the "artificially" created atoms that we've discovered in labs or only know theoretically. Atomic decay is one challenge each atom faces. There are many atoms which have a relatively higher rate of decay, and thus, they exist in lesser volume in the Universe. Similarly, organisms which repeatedly fail the test of survival will exist in lesser volume in the Universe. If the failure is significant enough, the organism (or atomic element) will cease to exist at all. And of course, just as bacteria and animals are tested for survival, so both are molecules and the objects they form. After all, the underlying self-evidency is that the most complex animal is still made up of atoms.
The observed by-product of this random formation/mutation has resulted in the most astounding objects. From planets to stars and everything in between. But all the while, these processes at work have been in whole, deterministic. It isn't until we see the formation of life (plants and animals) that we can argue for indeterminism. And it is indeterminism that we want to focus on. For the sake of argument, we will assume a compatibilistic Universe. A thorough debate on compatibilism is possible, but that will not be covered here.
Indeterminism in this context can be separated into two parts: the randomness that is possible from the initial seeding (for example, random mutation in genes), and the ability for an "agent" to choose it's result seemingly regardless of what has happened before or what the rules would dictate. The former part is pretty straight forwarded. It is the fundamental to the classic evolution that we have all come to know. The later, on the other hand, deals with something more self-reflexive and perhaps lesser known to the masses. It doesn't seem like many people think that certain choices they make can in fact affect the evolutionary process of the entire human race.
It may not be the case that indeterminism and life are synonymously related. The definition for what is life (and what is alive) may be prescribed differently. For example, is bacteria alive? By the current definition of biological life, is respires, it consumes, it reproduces and it reacts; yes, bacteria is alive. But is bacteria indeterministic? If it is the case that bacteria can choose to go left or to go right, then it would be, but from our current observations, it appears that bacteria are rather deterministic and actions are based exactly on the input provided by the environment. The bacteria has a set of survival rules (or instincts) it is following and these are as such deterministic rules. The bacteria's internal state becomes hungry, so it begins to find and consume food. A human being is indeterministic because when a human's internal state becomes hungry, the human can choose to ignore the biological reactions happening within the body or can choose to address them. (Again, it is possible to continue the debate on indeterminism, but that will not be done here.)
Let us now focus entirely on the objects in the Universe which have the quality of life AND indeterminism. I won't bother to try and identify all living things into this category so long as it is acceptable that human beings are both living and indeterministic. The concept of Directed Evolution that I am about to describe would undoubtedly apply to all living things that are indeterministic, but the point we will take home is how it applies to us, human beings.
Directed Evolution, not to be confused with the practice of protein engineering, is what I've identified as the next "challenge" that an object may face if it has already proven itself to the Universe in prior challenges. To reiterate, the observed result from the beginning of the Big Bang til now is that everything is trying to become more complex. Each level of complexity presents new challenges. As for objects that fit the classification as being both alive and indeterministic, the challenge then becomes that of Directed Evolution. They must now prove that their ability to be indeterministic meets the criteria of survivability. And not only survivability, but perhaps the propensity for all things to become increasingly complex.
The classic rules and challenges either no longer apply or are only marginally existent at each level of progression. Once Directed Evolution is reached, typical rules such as survival of the fittest only marginally apply. They have the ability to take those members of the group who are least fit and promote them to a relatively equal standing to all the other members of the group. In the early stages of Directed Evolution, this becomes a very good thing. It allows members of the group to survive where in the case of a completely different group, one which is not capable of Directed Evolution, those weakest members would die. As it should be obvious, Directed Evolution circumvents the original process of natural selection by which genes are "tested" and then either discarded or preserved within a group's gene pool.
The next factor that we want to throw into the mix is intelligence and the ability to create technology. Directed Evolution is largely advantageous before the advent of intelligence and technology. After these things come around, it becomes more of a challenge and more of a test. The test to prove if a particular group is worth keeping in the Universe. As members of the group are promoted to equivalence with others of the group, they survive and begin to procreate. In terms of genes, this allows for the potential of genetic corruption from the perspective of natural selection. In the case of modern humanity, the gene pool becomes saturated with the genes for diabetes, astigmatism, obesity, and so on. This is part of the challenge, because if we preserve the wrong genes and they become totally prevalent in our group, it could serve to eradicate humanity. We must be careful with this thought process. We would be foolish and short-sighted to jump on the eugenics bandwagon, as there is much more to understand.
When it becomes viable for a group to mitigate any problems that are being preserved by Directed Evolution, then it should be the case that those members of the group are preserved. It is a balancing act of the greater strength of the group versus the challenge we are presented with. Generally, a group becomes stronger with more members. In the case of modern humanity, it is apparent that myopia (nearsightedness)
and hyperopia (farsightedness) are genetic conditions. A family lineage of myopic individuals will generally continue to procreate myopic offspring. Light refraction has been known as early as the 8th century BC by the Egyptian people and since the 13th century AD, we have adequately been able to mitigate the problems associated with myopia and hyperopia. As we continue to progress with our intelligence and technology, we will continue to improve our mitigation efforts not just in areas we've already been accomplished in, but in the areas we have yet to mitigate.
Radical eugenicists would make the argument that just because we have technology to mitigate a problem, it does not mean we should preserve these individuals. By preserving these individuals, the gene pool still becomes saturated and more individuals are born with the condition. This causes a wide-spread reliance on the specific technology to mitigate the problem. The rebuttal I offer is that of a humanitarian perspective, the point that a group becomes stronger when it is able to retain more members. In terms of myopic and hyperopic human beings, some of the most influential people in the last century were either myopic or hyperopic. Without these members of our group, we would be radically behind in our overall progress.
With all that said, where does that leave those members of the group who we currently are unable to mitigate? This is a difficult question due to the ethics and social justices we have come to value. On the one hand, we must recognize what we are doing as Directed Evolution and that it is in fact a test of our survivability. On the other hand, we value life, we value other members of our group as good humanitarians should. While the answer is not here, the unveiling of our test is. Directed Evolution is our current challenge and test and we will either succeed or fail.
Ultimately, it makes little difference to the Universe which happens, because if we fail, the Universe will simply try again. As a matter of fact, the Universe has never placed it's eggs in one basket. It would be very egocentric for us to believe we're the Universe' number one. Even looking at only the Earth and the lifeforms on it. All of them are examples of different attempts at the increased complexity in the Universe. Beyond Earth, we can only imagine even more.
References
Scientist and Sociobiologist Ed Wilson
But does evolution start and end there? We accept that life and evolution have this inherent relation to each other, but we typically don't carry the idea any further. By taking a more general look at the idea of evolution and then looking at the Universe at large, it is possible to abstract similar recognizable patterns. It is currently believed, as part of the Big Bang Theory, that in the early days of the Universe, matter and energy exploded from a central point, out into all directions. As time passed, the expansion began to slow allowing for these atomic particles to begin collecting. Eventually, more time had passed, allowing these atoms to form molecules. From these molecules we begin to see larger, more complex objects in the Universe. To me, this sounds very much like the early stages of evolution. A single cell organism, over time, develops into a muti-cell organism. As time continues to pass, the multi-cell organism develops into larger and more complex lifeforms such as plants and animals. The formation of matter follows a handful of rules such as the forces acting on it (gravity, electromagnetism, etc.), atomic structure, availability of different atoms, and so on. While the notion of random mutation may not exist in terms of matter, each molecule that is formed is in a way "tested" for viability.
In each process, be it the formation of complex matter or complex life, there are certain rules which are followed. The rules are different for each process, but one thing remains the same; once constructed, the result of both are then tested by the Universe against the criteria of viability and survival. It may sound odd that a carbon atom is tested for "survival", but it really isn't much of a stretch at all. If the carbon atom proves that it is a viable and a stable atom in the Universe, it will continue to exist, and thus survive. It will survive and attempt to find it's place in the Universe. In the specific case of carbon, it will most likely bind itself to other carbon atoms creating a larger, more complex object. An example of an atom that would not survive in the Universe would be most of the "artificially" created atoms that we've discovered in labs or only know theoretically. Atomic decay is one challenge each atom faces. There are many atoms which have a relatively higher rate of decay, and thus, they exist in lesser volume in the Universe. Similarly, organisms which repeatedly fail the test of survival will exist in lesser volume in the Universe. If the failure is significant enough, the organism (or atomic element) will cease to exist at all. And of course, just as bacteria and animals are tested for survival, so both are molecules and the objects they form. After all, the underlying self-evidency is that the most complex animal is still made up of atoms.
The observed by-product of this random formation/mutation has resulted in the most astounding objects. From planets to stars and everything in between. But all the while, these processes at work have been in whole, deterministic. It isn't until we see the formation of life (plants and animals) that we can argue for indeterminism. And it is indeterminism that we want to focus on. For the sake of argument, we will assume a compatibilistic Universe. A thorough debate on compatibilism is possible, but that will not be covered here.
Indeterminism in this context can be separated into two parts: the randomness that is possible from the initial seeding (for example, random mutation in genes), and the ability for an "agent" to choose it's result seemingly regardless of what has happened before or what the rules would dictate. The former part is pretty straight forwarded. It is the fundamental to the classic evolution that we have all come to know. The later, on the other hand, deals with something more self-reflexive and perhaps lesser known to the masses. It doesn't seem like many people think that certain choices they make can in fact affect the evolutionary process of the entire human race.
It may not be the case that indeterminism and life are synonymously related. The definition for what is life (and what is alive) may be prescribed differently. For example, is bacteria alive? By the current definition of biological life, is respires, it consumes, it reproduces and it reacts; yes, bacteria is alive. But is bacteria indeterministic? If it is the case that bacteria can choose to go left or to go right, then it would be, but from our current observations, it appears that bacteria are rather deterministic and actions are based exactly on the input provided by the environment. The bacteria has a set of survival rules (or instincts) it is following and these are as such deterministic rules. The bacteria's internal state becomes hungry, so it begins to find and consume food. A human being is indeterministic because when a human's internal state becomes hungry, the human can choose to ignore the biological reactions happening within the body or can choose to address them. (Again, it is possible to continue the debate on indeterminism, but that will not be done here.)
Let us now focus entirely on the objects in the Universe which have the quality of life AND indeterminism. I won't bother to try and identify all living things into this category so long as it is acceptable that human beings are both living and indeterministic. The concept of Directed Evolution that I am about to describe would undoubtedly apply to all living things that are indeterministic, but the point we will take home is how it applies to us, human beings.
Directed Evolution, not to be confused with the practice of protein engineering, is what I've identified as the next "challenge" that an object may face if it has already proven itself to the Universe in prior challenges. To reiterate, the observed result from the beginning of the Big Bang til now is that everything is trying to become more complex. Each level of complexity presents new challenges. As for objects that fit the classification as being both alive and indeterministic, the challenge then becomes that of Directed Evolution. They must now prove that their ability to be indeterministic meets the criteria of survivability. And not only survivability, but perhaps the propensity for all things to become increasingly complex.
The classic rules and challenges either no longer apply or are only marginally existent at each level of progression. Once Directed Evolution is reached, typical rules such as survival of the fittest only marginally apply. They have the ability to take those members of the group who are least fit and promote them to a relatively equal standing to all the other members of the group. In the early stages of Directed Evolution, this becomes a very good thing. It allows members of the group to survive where in the case of a completely different group, one which is not capable of Directed Evolution, those weakest members would die. As it should be obvious, Directed Evolution circumvents the original process of natural selection by which genes are "tested" and then either discarded or preserved within a group's gene pool.
The next factor that we want to throw into the mix is intelligence and the ability to create technology. Directed Evolution is largely advantageous before the advent of intelligence and technology. After these things come around, it becomes more of a challenge and more of a test. The test to prove if a particular group is worth keeping in the Universe. As members of the group are promoted to equivalence with others of the group, they survive and begin to procreate. In terms of genes, this allows for the potential of genetic corruption from the perspective of natural selection. In the case of modern humanity, the gene pool becomes saturated with the genes for diabetes, astigmatism, obesity, and so on. This is part of the challenge, because if we preserve the wrong genes and they become totally prevalent in our group, it could serve to eradicate humanity. We must be careful with this thought process. We would be foolish and short-sighted to jump on the eugenics bandwagon, as there is much more to understand.
When it becomes viable for a group to mitigate any problems that are being preserved by Directed Evolution, then it should be the case that those members of the group are preserved. It is a balancing act of the greater strength of the group versus the challenge we are presented with. Generally, a group becomes stronger with more members. In the case of modern humanity, it is apparent that myopia (nearsightedness)
and hyperopia (farsightedness) are genetic conditions. A family lineage of myopic individuals will generally continue to procreate myopic offspring. Light refraction has been known as early as the 8th century BC by the Egyptian people and since the 13th century AD, we have adequately been able to mitigate the problems associated with myopia and hyperopia. As we continue to progress with our intelligence and technology, we will continue to improve our mitigation efforts not just in areas we've already been accomplished in, but in the areas we have yet to mitigate.
Radical eugenicists would make the argument that just because we have technology to mitigate a problem, it does not mean we should preserve these individuals. By preserving these individuals, the gene pool still becomes saturated and more individuals are born with the condition. This causes a wide-spread reliance on the specific technology to mitigate the problem. The rebuttal I offer is that of a humanitarian perspective, the point that a group becomes stronger when it is able to retain more members. In terms of myopic and hyperopic human beings, some of the most influential people in the last century were either myopic or hyperopic. Without these members of our group, we would be radically behind in our overall progress.
With all that said, where does that leave those members of the group who we currently are unable to mitigate? This is a difficult question due to the ethics and social justices we have come to value. On the one hand, we must recognize what we are doing as Directed Evolution and that it is in fact a test of our survivability. On the other hand, we value life, we value other members of our group as good humanitarians should. While the answer is not here, the unveiling of our test is. Directed Evolution is our current challenge and test and we will either succeed or fail.
Ultimately, it makes little difference to the Universe which happens, because if we fail, the Universe will simply try again. As a matter of fact, the Universe has never placed it's eggs in one basket. It would be very egocentric for us to believe we're the Universe' number one. Even looking at only the Earth and the lifeforms on it. All of them are examples of different attempts at the increased complexity in the Universe. Beyond Earth, we can only imagine even more.
References
Scientist and Sociobiologist Ed Wilson
Labels: Directed Evolution, Eugenics, Evolution, Humanitarianism, Natural Selection
posted by ARF at 12:10 PM
1 Comments:
Absolutely with you it agree. In it something is also to me it seems it is very excellent idea. Completely with you I will agree.
Post a Comment
<< Home