Notion of random evolution. (E O M - 9)

Myth Conception 4: 

(Ref. Book – Excerpts from Spontaneous Evolution, Authors: Bruce H. Lipton and Steve Bhaerman)

As repeatedly propagated by Swami Vijnananand, we have been mentioning in these blogs the role of mind and the importance and inevitability of mind's role for inclusion in the scope of science. Such opinions are echoed by a few scientists and thinkers in the 21^st century. This blog also covers this topic.

Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck born in 1744, for the first time published the theory of evolution in three volumes based on his ten years research. Lamarck’s idea about evolution and nature’s impulse toward perfection gained prominence in France. Lamarck suggested that evolution was the result of organisms acquiring and passing on environment-induced adaptations needed to sustain their survival in ever-changing world.

Unfortunately for Lamarck, his ideas about evolutionary progress being part of the course of nature had social implications. If nature could progress, then it was natural for lower classes of humanity to progress as well. So when the French revolution failed and King Louis XVIII restored the monarchy, Lamarck found himself out of favor with the church and ruling class. For some reasons his academic rival Baron Cuvier purposefully distorted and misquoted Lamarck’s work on evolution. Cuvier’s assessment of Lamarck and his ideas has ever since been (1832) cited as the document that justifies portraying Lamarck as buffoon (joker/ fool).

Ironically more than 175 years after Lamarck’s death (in 1829) science is finding that evolutionary intention may be a lot closer to the truth than Lamarck ever imagined. But between then and now other scientists also managed to push Lamarck and his ideas further into background. The Darwin evolution theory (survival of the fittest) was considered appropriate and acceptable.

The experimental science of genetics was officially launched in 1910. Later Thomas Hunt Morgan and in 1943 researchers Salvador Luria and Max Delbruck appeared to prove once for all that mutation was purely random event. Later up to 1988 many experiments confirming these findings led science to adapt the assumption that all mutations were random events.

Based upon these observations science adapted the seemingly iron-clad tenet: when mutation occur they are purely random and unpredictable events and have nothing to do with any need the organism might have at present or in the future.

Because evolution appeared to be driven solely by mutations, science concluded that randomly drawn evolution has no purpose. The idea fit wel with the scientific materialism’s belief in purely materialistic Universe and helped shift the focus from intentional creation to merely “throw of genetic dice.” A human being is just another among the “accidental tourist” who materialized in the biosphere through random act of heredity.

However in 1988, promonant geneticist John Cairns challanged sciences's established belief in random evolution.Cairns novel research on " The Origin of Mutants" was published in the presigious British journal Nature.

Cairns referred to this newly discovered mechanism as directed mutation. But the concept of environmental stimuli feeding back into an organism and direct a rewritting of genetic information was strongy disliked by the dogma of the conventional science.

Both Nature and the Amrican journal Science publised editorials raging against Cairn's findings. This was a clear indication that the white-coated prists of scientific materialism were ready to burn Cairns at the stake.

Over the next decade other researchers replicated Cairn's results. As a result, leading genetic researchers softened directed mutation to adaptive mutation and the relegated to beneficial mutation.

Cairn's work and subsequent studies introduced the realities that organism not only adapts to an environment but that they intentionally change their genetics to enhance the adaptation of future generation. In other words, science is coming to realize that evolution is not simply an accident as per Darwinian theory but a coordinated Lamarckian dance between an organism and its environment, a dynamic process in which organisms can continueously adapt to stressful circmstances.

In a way, evolution is a random process but the randomness seems to have a purposeful destnation.

We shall later see the views expressed by Swami Vijnananand when he guided to the young seekers of Manashakti Ashram in 1990 on the direction of the research needed to find the truth behind the process of evolution. But here one may take a note that Mind's role in evolution has to be considered as "pure materialistic attitude" is not acceptable to the conventional scientists too!

Vijay R. Joshi.

Genetic control of life (E O M - 8)

MYTH PERCEPTION THREE

(Ref. Book – Excerpts from Spontaneous Evolution, Authors: Bruce H. Lipton and Steve Bhaerman)

As repeatedly propagated by Swami Vijnananand, we have been mentioning in these blogs the role of mind, the importance and inevitability of mind's role for inclusion in the scope of science. Such opinions are echoed by a few scientists and thinkers in the 21^st century. Next blog to follow aso cover this topics.

When Darwin put forth his heredity-based theory of evolution, the premise that traits were passed from parent to child made perfect practical sense to anyone who bred animals, like beget like.

Because the Newton view at the time emphasized the primacy of matter, it was seemingly assured that the secret of life would be encoded within the body’s own molecule.

Shortly after the turn of 19^th century, American geneticist and embryologist Thomas Hunt Morgan deduced that genetic factor that control heredity traits are arranged along the chromosome in a precise linear order. Further chemical analysis revealed that chromosomes are compresses of proteins and Deoxyribo Nucleic Acid (DNA). However the question as to whether the genetic key was the protein or the DNA remained until 1944 when Oswald Avery, Colin Mac Leod, and Maclyn McCarty (researchers from Rockefeller) determined empirically that DNA was the molecule that determined heredity traits. While this study was the first to distinguish DNA as the heredity-controlling molecule, it did not offer any insight into how DNA accomplished this feat.

In 1953, Watson and Crick changed the course of human history when their article was published in the British scientific journal ‘Nature’. Based on the nature of DNA coding mechanism, they posited (postulated) the concept known as ‘central dogma of molecular biology’. This is also referred to as ‘the primacy of DNA’. Central dogma mapped the flow of information in most biological systems being one directional: from DNA to RNA to protein.

Even before Watson and Crick were born, science had concluded that an assembly of physical molecules controls life. The only unanswered question was: “which molecule would it be”? When Watson and Crick reported their DNA results, the decision was a slam dunk (a task in which the success is deemed a certainty): DNA molecules control life.

Amazingly, biologists immediately adopted this central dogma hypothesis even though its validity was never assessed. But was this DNA primacy really true?

The key implication in this is: heredity information only flows in one direction, from DNA to RNA to Protein and never goes to the opposite direction. Which means protein cannot influence the structure and activity of the DNA code.

Here is the problem: the body that experiences life is made out of protein; because proteins cannot send information of life’s experience back to DNA, then environmental information cannot change genetic destiny. This means that genetic information is disconnected from the environment.

Genetic determination is the belief that genes control all of our traits-physical, behavioral, and emotional. Simply it is the belief that our fates are locked in our genes and because we cannot change our genes, we are truly, so they say, victims of our heredity.

However as the time went on, new discoveries undermined the surety of that belief. In the late 1960s, University of Wisconsin geneticist Howard Temin put forward his research publication which suggested that RNA information could flow backward and alter the host cell’s DNA code. Though Temin findings were not accepted initially, he ultimately shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology. Temin’s work broke the backbone of Crick’s central dogma by proving that hereditary information flows in both directions. The hereditary changes can be made by design or environmental influence and not only by accidental mutation as had been presumed.

By 1990, as reported by Duke University biologist H. Frederik Nijhout, genes are not ‘self-emergent’ and cannot ‘turn themselves on and off’. Genes are just like books. They don’t read themselves. Then who is responsible for reading genes? In Nijhout’s words: “When a gene product is needed a signal from its environment activates the expression of that gene”. Simply put ‘environmental signal controls gene activity’.

Epigenetics:

Biomedical sciences are being philosophically transformed by the new science of Epigenetic control. It describes how gene activity and cellular expressions are ultimately regulated by information from the external field or influence rather than by the internal matter of DNA.

Though this truth that genes do not control their own activity, was established more than 20 years back, basic science books, media, and especially the pharmaceutical industry continue to resist the movement away from the central dogma. They, thus perpetuate the layperson’s view that genes control their lives.

Mainstream media continues to focus on the concept that genes are controlling our lives. Every day new articles claim that gene has been found to control this trait or that trait. The concept of genetic determinism is so (deep and full of resonance) with the prevailing basal paradigm (basic pattern) that even irrefutable scientific proof cannot dislodge it.

Mind and Epigenetics:

The science of epigenetics recognizes that the environment, not the DNA in nucleus, determines the action of the cell. Information from the environment is translated into biological responses via the action of cell membrane, which acts as the cell’s skin as well as its brain. The description of the cell membrane is same as computer chip. The cell as well as the computer; both are programmable. And the programmer is always outside the mechanism. Who can be the biological programmer? Who or what is the genius behind the genes? The genius behind the genes is none other than our own minds, our own thoughts and beliefs.

The process of Nature and Nurture is what shapes human mind through thoughts and beliefs. The role of the mind assumes significant importance not only in personal health but more important holistic health. To make this role of mind more suitable, the scientific study of the mind and proper training to the mind should be the priority.

Here again we see that the new research in the initial years of the 21^st century support the views Swami Vijnananand mentioned while he wrote about the evolution and the role of mind in his books published in 1960s.

Vijay R. Joshi.

SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST (E O M - 7)

MYTH PERCEPTION 2

(Ref. Book – Excerpts from Spontaneous Evolution, Authors: Bruce H. Lipton and Steve Bhaerman)

As repeatedly propagated by Swami Vijnananand, we have been mentioning in these blogs the role of mind and the importance and inevitability of mind's role for inclusion in the scope of science. Such opinions are echoed by a few scientists and thinkers in the 21^st century. Next few blogs to follow cover these topics.

In fact, the first paper on evolution was published by French biologist Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck in 1989, the year Darwin was born. And phrases that we have attributed to Darwinism-the laws of jungle and survival of the fittest-were also well-established before Charles Darwin’s birth.

Robert Malthus was an economic philosopher. Malthus championed a pessimistic position in regards to world affairs. He set out not only to prove that the glass was half empty but also it would soon be ¾ empty, then 7/8 empty and on and on. His 1798 essay on principle of population formed the theoretical basis of Darwin’s theory. The whole Malthusian notion that evolution is driven by a bloody and brutal battle for survival has actually has no scientific merit.

Charles Lyell was the most distinguished and influential scientist in the world at that time and for good reasons. His book ‘Principle of Geology’ published in 3 volumes in 1830-33, established the science of geology and, in doing so, undermined the church’s Biblical interpretation of creation. This book, which provided the basis to Darwin for his evolution theory, contained four chapters dedicated to the Lamarck’s theory. To Lyell, evolution of the biosphere was a perfect complement to the evolution of the physical planet. The views of Lyell and Lamarck had deep influence on Darwin’s theory which he has acknowledged when he published the second edition of his ‘Journal of Researches’ in 1845.

In June 1858, Alfred Russel Walace, an English naturalist, sent Darwin a copy of manuscript titled ‘On the Tendencies of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type’ along with a letter requesting that Darwin review the material and, if he found it of merit, pass it on to Lyell. This manuscript was Wallace’s theory of evolution. It was brief, elegant, academic, extremely well-written and would have qualified Wallace as the “founder of evolution theory”, a title now attributable to Darwin alone. Foreseeing this problem Darwin wrote to Lyell a letter dated June 26, 1858 – “it seems hard on me that I should be thus compelled to lose my priority of many years standing …” Lyell used his status so that Darwin the aristocrat, would get first billing and Wallace, the commoner, would receive the dubious honor of being listed as second contributor.

The Theory of Evolution-officially described as the Darwin-Wallace theory-was formally at the Linnean Society of London on July1, 1858. This incident has had profound reverberations (to reecho or resound) that continue to impact us today.

From our (commoners') perspective, Wallace recognized that evolution was driven by the elimination of the weakest, while Darwin interpreted the same data as to mean that evolution resulted from the will to survive inherent in the fittest.

The difference: In a Wallace world, we would improve in order not to be the weakest, but in a Darwinian world, we struggle to acquire the status of being the best. In other words, had Wallace prevailed, there would be less focus on competition and more on cooperation.

In his later years, Darwin moved away from Academic Darwinism. Rather than emphasizing survival and struggle, Darwin readdressed his attention to focus on the evolution of love, altruism, and the genetic roots of human kindness. In addition Darwin began to credit the Lamarckian concept of the environment as the driving force in evolution. Unfortunately, Darwin’s disciples thought his new ideas were tantamount to sedition, undermining all that Darwinism had come to stand for. Darwinist simply held on to their version of the theory and dismissed Darwin’s later ideas as the consequence of his creeping senility.

Darwin’s evolution theory had unprecedented impact in the journey of humanity. Later in a meeting debate held at Oxford University in June, 1860, the dominance of the church was over powered by Science with the acceptance of Darwin’s theory by both the science and public at large. The church was forced to relinquish the torch of knowledge and, with it, control of western civilization’s basal paradigm. The future went under the control of scientific materialism.

In his 1998 article in the prestigious journal ‘Nature’, British scientist Trimothy Lenthon provided important support to the ‘Gaia Hypothesis’ formulated by scientist James Lovelock. Lovelock suggested that Earth, itself is a living entity that uses evolution to regulate its own exceedingly complex metabolism. Lenton described how the Sun has warmed by 25% since life on earth began some 3.8 billions years ago, and, yet, the planet has somehow been able to regulate its climate and buffer that huge temperature differential. Lenton suggested that benefit the system as a whole tend to be reinforced, while those that alter or destabilize the environment in an unfavorable way are restrained.

Lenton concluded that “ If an organism acquires a mutation that causes it to behave in an ‘anti-Gaian’ manner, its spread will be restricted in that it will be at an evolutionary disadvantage. Lenton is suggesting that if we humans don’t find ways to evolve that are more harmonious to the planet, we may find ourselves homeless. Those organisms that best fit the environment by contributing and supporting global harmony get to thrive.

(Here we see Swami Vijnananand's comprehensive rational foresight when he has recommended harmony with the Universe i.e. journey of a human being in the direction of ENTROPY, i.e. SAMATA, which is also reflected in three principles (Trisutri), of YAJNYA).

Journey from single cell life to Human being:

How the trillions of single celled organisms were combined to become a human?

Initially, in the early stage of evolution, all the cells in colonial organisms were carried out the same functions. However there came a time when the number of cells that comprised an organism became so large that it was no longer advantageous for all cells to do the same thing. Then individual cells in the community took on specialized jobs to support the survival of the whole organism. This division of work is termed as ‘process of differentiation’ in Biology.

The formation of multi cellular organism was, in a sense, a quantum leap in the course of evolution on this planet. The evolution has advanced further and we might be tempted to think that human organism represents the fully tweaked (fine-tuned) evolutionary endpoint. But actually the human is at the beginning of next and higher level of evolution, the emergent multi-human super organism known as ‘Humanity’.

Perhaps the most important message offered by both quantum physics and field experiments is that everything is related. The new biological imperative for humankind necessarily involves the understanding that we are all in this world together and ‘survival of the fittest’ must now give way to ‘thrival of the fittingest’. That means we must adjust human activity to that which will cause entire system to thrive. Like the single-cell organism that utilizes environmental awareness in order to emerge into more complex and efficient organism, human society must adapt a new paradigm of social and economic relationship. This means maximum expression for the individual and maximum benefit for the whole. Only the seemingly impossible reconciliation of these misconceived opposites can create the emergent human that spiritual teachers tell us is our destiny.

Note: The human consciousness (mind energy) is a part of universal consciousness (field). The journey of the universal energy is to the state of entropy where the motion shall cease to exist. The human mind must also follow this path of entropy by the proper use of the FREE WILL. This would be the way of survival with the highest. This achievement would be possible through symbiosis. That would possibly be the highest stage of mind-evolution.

Vijay R. Joshi.