Beating The Odds – The Miracle Of DNA

I’ve been going through older documents on my computer trying to find an item I wrote some time ago concerning the nature of the basic drive for survival common to all living organisms.  At that time, I remember suggesting that that drive is programmed into the basic structure of DNA.  My point was that survival is the primary goal of all organisms, including man, and that it is an inherent characteristic of DNA that has evolved at the most elementary stages of life.

The struggle is evident in all living organisms from the simplest plants and animals to the most complex life form yet to evolve, man.  It’s likely that this drive for survival began as simply favorable characteristics of early pre-life molecular species that allowed them to survive a bit longer than most in the hostile conditions existing in the young universe.  Anything in the universe resembling an organized structure is subject to ultimate breakdown and dispersion of component particles.  This is to achieve maximum entropy according to the third law of thermodynamics and everything is destined to eventually meet this fate.  Living things die and decay, mountains are eroded, man made objects crumble and return to dust, stars eventually undergo thermonuclear disintegration and even the universe itself will all, sooner or later, fulfill the third law of thermodynamics.

We can only speculate about what sort of favorable characteristics occurred to endow DNA precursor chemical structures with some rudimentary enhanced survivor ability.   In fact there may have been a succession of such occurrences before one took hold and eventually led to DNA.  We’ll never really know the story of how DNA came about but it’s likely that it took place very slowly over the course of millions of years.  Furthermore, we can only speculate about what further enhancements await this incredible chemistry millions of years in the future.

DNA is truly a miracle in that it has the ability to sidestep the third law of thermodynamics by renewing itself in successive generations.  Individuals die out but the DNA code lives on in the progeny of each generation. The chemistry that led to DNA has, through trial and error, led to this ultimate process of survival.  

Reproduction is not the only mode of survival being directed by DNA.  Rather, survival is, perhaps, the strongest of what we call biologic drives.   Nearly all aspects of human behavior can be traced back to the primary directive of DNA, to enhance survival.  In the case of early man, obtaining food and shelter were essential for his survival.  Today these same needs are expressed in the norms of   essentially all cultures and even can be suggested by behavior falling outside the norms.  For example, people are generally motivated to earn an ample supply of money. This ensures not only adequate food and shelter for the family but also an enhanced quality of life that, in turn, ought to aid in longevity, i.e. enhanced survival as a result of better medical care, regular exercise and better nutrition.  Similarly, unethical, dishonest and outright criminal activities could also have the ultimate goal of enhanced survival in spite of being outside the bounds of accepted behavior.  However, we can also look at lower animals and even plants to observe behaviors, instincts, reproductive patterns and tropisms that favor enhanced survival of the particular individual but, more importantly, the DNA.

Surely by now, you’ve picked up on my thought.  It’s not the individual or any organism that is of prime importance here, it’s the DNA.  DNA is the program (the software) that allows life to exist.  For the physicist, life is defined as a biochemical system that is capable of temporarily maintaining itself in a state of negative entropy.  DNA is the blueprint that brings about construction of such an organism with this capability.  The organism is simply the vehicle that allows the DNA to replicate and be carried forward from one generation to the next.  As individuals, we are slaves to our DNA.  We will follow our DNA’s instructions, care for it throughout our lives and pass it on to continue its life from one generation to the next.  We will die but our DNA lives on.

Understanding this relationship that we all have with our DNA can go a long way in explaining and understanding many aspects of human behavior – an excellent topic for future thoughts.

“King Of The Hill”

Remember that game we played as kids where someone would climb up on a mound of grass or soil and proclaim himself “King of the Hill”?  Thereupon, others would attempt to force him down and replace him with a new “king”.  Little did we realize that the old playground game was actually foreshadowing real life.  In nearly all phases of life, we are competing with others to climb the ladder of success and, if possible, become “top dog”, the “best”, the “champion”, or, you might say, “King of the Hill”.

The contests begin almost as soon as we can take a few steps or maybe just crawl.  Anyone who has had children is well aware of how competitive siblings can become.  In some cases the competition is non productive, but we also witness how this competitive spirit often drives a younger child to get the best of an older brother or sister in some significant way.  When both play a particular sport, the intense determination and desire of the younger child to outdo the older one will often result in the younger child becoming the more successful of the two at that sport.  Young children are constantly competing for the attention of their parents.  One will cling to a parent hoping to shut out the other.  When playing games, they desperately want to win.  When drawing pictures, they request that their art be proclaimed the best.  It’s always amazed me how a young child of no more than two or three can carry out such a high degree of scheming and maneuvering.

The constant striving to become “King of the Hill” continues during the school years among those that have the capability to compete at a high level.  They want to rise to the top of their class or, at least, as high up the ladder of academic or athletic success that they can achieve.  This desire does not end with the school years, as most of us well know.  Competition in the work place and the business world is intense as we strive to become Top Salesman, Department Head, Chief of Surgery, General of the Army, Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player, Golf’s Number One or any one of a number of other titles that mean the same thing “King of the Hill”.

As adults, there is usually increasing compensation or earnings as one climbs higher and higher on the ladder of success.  Those who reach the higher levels of the ladder typically become very wealthy and they often, but not always, symbolize their success via material possessions such as elegant homes, expensive cars or following a glamorous life style of the “rich and famous”.

Now, let’s get serious.  Not many of us will ever approach that level of success and we tend to have ambivalent feelings about the people who do get to the top.  While we may admire and respect them, various negative thoughts often creep into our consciousness as they remind us of our own personal limitations.

This same “King of the Hill” mentality which exerts a driving force on us as individuals also is evident in the competition of all sorts of organizations and groups.  Businesses, sports teams, musical groups, school systems, political parties, etc., etc. all strive to be best in class.  Likewise, cities and towns do their best to be number one in the state or nation.  States work to gain a championship reputation, for example, the number 1 state for raising beef cattle or the state with the most millionaires.  Likewise, nations are constantly struggling to get to the top of the heap in various categories such as standard of living, per capita income, education of its citizens, etc, etc.  In all of these cases, ambivalent attitudes are the norm.

A recurring theme throughout the history of the world is the rise and fall of nations.  Many nations have become “King of the Hill” at various times in history, The Roman Empire, The British Empire, Greece, The Ottoman Empire and France are a few.  During the last century, the United States has climbed to that lofty perch and today, we’re well aware of the extent of ambivalence that we face as the contenders for the next “King of the Hill” lick their chops.

Earlier in this century, the U.S. successfully met various hostile military challenges.  Today, we continue to deal with a different form of violence, terrorism, which has ironically emerged from the sphere of religion.  Although the general concept of religion is to spread love and compassion for one’s fellow man, radical Islam is a vivid reminder that religions are not created by God but rather by man in the name of God.  As such, their expression is subject to the full range of human weaknesses.  The history of religion in the world clearly reveals this.  Early religions have offered human sacrifices to the Gods.  Christians have persecuted people like Galileo for scientific discoveries, have burned others for suspected witchcraft and clerics have molested their parishioners.  Muslims deny women equality to men, brutally put people to death by stoning and, in the case of radical Islam, send their women and children off to die as suicide bombers.  Certainly, it can be claimed that such examples represent only the miniscule undesirable fringe of “religious” activity and that, for the most part, religious expression has done far more good for mankind.  Nevertheless, the events of 9/11/2001 have triggered a series of events in the Middle East that might be considered the greatest challenge our country has ever faced and one that we continue to deal with today.

However, on the horizon, is a challenge that many fear is one that could finally topple the U.S. from our position of “King of the Hill”. Unlike the external challenges that we have been able to deal with, this challenge comes from within.  We are slowly but surely committing economic suicide.  Everyone knows what would happen to a family that spends more money than they could ever repay. Eventually their creditors demand payment and their only choice is bankruptcy.  Our entire national economy is dangerously close to this and the main creditor, licking their chops, is China.  China holds a large share of our debt owed to foreign investors and, no doubt, would call it due if they could put us into national bankruptcy and take possession of much of our country.  Many will scoff at this actually happening but let’s take a look at how close we are to this.

Go to the web site U.S. National Debt clock.  It should be the scariest thing you’ve seen in a long time.  The numbers change so fast, it’s difficult to even grasp what is happening.  I just took a look (9:25 AM, 8/20/10).  At that point in time, our national debt was $13,353,241,480,527 or $43,069 per U.S. citizen.  I can’t imagine everyone in the U.S. being able to pay his or her share, even if the debt were called at this instant.  Even more disturbing is the rate at which our government continues to spend beyond our means, currently to the tune of $1.4 + trillion per year.  Most people have no concept of how much a trillion dollars is but they should understand that each person’s share of the debt is $43,000 and growing.

The irresponsibility of the current bunch in Washington is almost beyond belief.  It seems that politicians will do anything to get votes. The sad truth of the matter is that if China or other foreign investors take us over, those votes will evaporate and another country, perhaps China, will be the new “King of the Hill”.

General Update

The following are brief updates of topics previously discussed in detail.

The War on Terror:

Three years ago I noted that the United States had chosen a strategy that was more offensive than defensive in nature to deal with the worldwide threat of terrorism.  My position at the time was that I favored a more defensive strategy.  In retrospect, our military has achieved a number of successes in eliminating certain terrorist leaders and no major terrorist attacks have succeeded during the period.  However, our defensive measures, as well as a degree of good luck, have also played a significant role in thwarting several planned or attempted attacks.  The question is whether or not our continued military operations in the Middle East will produce a net positive or net negative outcome.  Does our military presence provide impetus for continued recruitment of terrorists?  Indeed, we now seem to be mired down in the Afghanistan conflict while terrorist groups continue to reform and replace fallen leaders.

Al-Queda, the Taliban, Osama bin Ladin and the like remain threats and the source of terrorist recruits in the Middle East seems almost limitless.

We keep hearing that victory in Afghanistan is essential but it’s unclear to me how one would define victory.  If it means driving out the Taliban and installing a democratic government in Afghanistan, have we not already done that once?  I seriously question if such a lasting goal can be achieved in a country ruled for so long by warlords and terrorists.  Is a strong central Afghan government achievable and capable of securing the peace anytime in the foreseeable future?

A Digression:

The situation in Iraq and our need to intervene there was a totally different matter.  Before there was any serious talk about WMDs in Iraq, I was convinced that we were morally obligated to rid that country of Saddam Hussein’s regime.  After hearing first-hand accounts of how Iraqi people were being brutalized, tortured and murdered in his effort to maintain iron-fisted rule, I knew that U.S. intervention was the only hope these people had of escaping the horrors of Saddam.  The many U.N. resolutions were doing no good.  Aside from attacking his neighbors, Saddam used poisonous gas in killing thousands of Kurds in his own country.  He tortured parents in front of their children and murdered many others as evidenced by our discovery of mass graves.  This man was every bit as evil as Adolf Hitler and no one with compassion for human life would want to allow this brutality to continue.  It’s unfortunate that this aspect of Saddam’s reign of terror rather than WMDs was not brought forward as the primary reason for our intervention in Iraq. (see following chronicle of atrocities)

Chronicle of the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein:
Hussein's regime killed, tortured, raped and terrorized the Iraqi people and its neighbors for over two decades.
Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result of Saddam's actions.
Saddam had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered.
1980-88: Iran-Iraq war left 150,000 to 340,000 Iraqis and 450,000 to 730,000 Iranians dead.
1983-1988: Documented chemical attacks by Iraqi regime caused some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths.
1988: Chemical attack on Kurdish village of Halabja killed approximately 5,000 people.
1987-1988: Iraqi regime used chemical agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages.
1990-91: 1,000 Kuwaitis were killed in Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
1991: Bloody suppression of Kurdish and Shi'a uprisings in northern and southern Iraq killed at least 30,000 to 60,000. At least 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.      
2001: Amnesty International report: "Victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings and electric shocks... some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage."
Human Rights Watch: Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds.
Refugees International: "Oppressive government policies have led to the internal displacement of 900,000 Iraqis."
Iraq's 13 million Shiite Muslims, the majority of Iraq's population of approximately 22 million, faced severe restrictions on their religious practice.
FBI: Iraqi government was involved in a plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait.
The Iraqi regime has repeatedly refused visits by human rights monitors.
From 1992 until 2002, Saddam prevented the U.N. Special Rapporteur from visiting Iraq.

(Sources: Office of the White House Press Secretary: Life Under Saddam Hussein: Past Repression and Atrocities by Saddam Hussein's Regime; April 4, 2003, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/iraq/20030404-1.html; "Iraq: Crimes Against Humanity," State Department, May 7, 2002, http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/crimes; "Iraq: U.S. Alleges Role in Bush Death Plot," Facts on File May 20, 1993; http: www.2facts.com; http://www.2facts.com/stories/temp/10882temp1993053677.asp)

This history presents us with a broader question that we must be prepared to address whenever it arises in the future.  What is our moral obligation as the world’s remaining super-power to protect innocent people from being brutalized by truly evil tyrants?  Should we turn a blind eye to such things as the most horrible forms of torture and murder simply because they are taking place in another country or, in the absence of any effective UN, should we intervene when the degree of inhuman brutality reaches such proportions?  I for one feel that we must intervene in order to preserve the best of human nature while helping to rid the world of the worst.

Getting back to the current problem of terrorism, I still feel that defensive measures may prove the best in the long run.  If we seal our borders (also needed to counteract the influx of illegals), closely monitor the activities on non-citizens in the U.S. and convince the Islamic world to police themselves, eliminate fanaticism and renounce terrorism.  Understanding Cultural Relativism, I am somewhat hesitant to express the following but I truly believe that the peace loving Muslims themselves hold the key to solving this problem.  Terrorists, suicide bombers and the like should not be considered martyrs by the Islamic world, but as enemies of Allah.  A growing number of moderate Muslims favor such a transition and, hopefully, a more up-to-date and refined face of Islam will be appreciated by the world.

The Immigration Problem:

As I pointed out in a recent article we need to stop thinking of people who illegally enter our country as some form of immigrants.  Those who immigrate to the U.S. follow a prescribed legal procedure for becoming permanent residents of this country.  Those who crash our borders disregard our laws and are simply criminals.

This criminal activity can and should be stopped.  By not taking decisive action in this regard, our government is failing to perform its primary role of defense.  The reason for not doing this is clear.  The politicians are more interested in votes than in the best interests of the country.  We certainly have the manpower and advanced technology to accomplish this.  It’s ironic that existing federal laws are not being enforced and that enforcement of similar state laws is even being opposed by the federal government.

Climate Change (Global Warming):

Yes the climate is changing.  It has been changing for millions of years and will continue to do so in the future.  The contribution of human activity to this change, if any, has not been established.  There are literally scores of scientists on both sides of this issue.  I’ve published my own assessment of this question and will not rehash it here.  The only update that I will add at this time is that there appears to little chance that human intervention will alter the course of nature in any significant way.

Why Has Our Present Government So Quickly Lost Its Appeal?

In January 2009,  65% of the U.S. population approved of President Obama while only 30% disapproved.  Today, a majority, 51% to 48% disapprove of his job performance.  Additionally, people strongly disapprove of the performance of Congress, 72% to 21%, and only 11% have confidence in Congress.

The following is an item written just after the election of 2008.  At the time I was very concerned that the country had elected a very liberal president and congress with a very liberal super majority.  I felt that this occurred in the wake of a “perfect storm” for the Democrats.  The country was weary of the war in Iraq, the housing market was faltering as a result of the sub-prime mortgage crisis and President-Elect Obama had promised “change”.

The Leopards Spots  11/6/2008

“Now that the 2008 elections are history, the political landscape is taking
shape as I described that it was apt to in my earlier comments on this
subject. Both the executive and legislative branches of government will be
controlled by the Democrats as of January 2009. I have no doubt that
eventually liberal control will extend to the judicial branch as retiring
Supreme Court judges are replaced.

Barack Obama promised change and I have no doubt that this will occur. The
only question concerns the nature and extent of the change. My concern all
along has been that the coming change will take us dramatically to the left
toward socialism. This concern was based on Senator Obama?s past record as
well as his associations with a variety of far-left individuals who, at
least in some cases, could be considered anti-American radicals. However,
if we can believe the campaign rhetoric of Mr. Obama, he gave the
impression that he intended to change his spots and become a far more
moderate President. Time will tell.”

It’s very clear what happened here.  The American public historically has been, and still is, slightly right of center politically.  A significant percentage of the population are neither Democrat nor Republican but consider themselves to be Independent.  In 2008, many Independents were conned by the smooth talking candidate Obama and made to believe that he would strike a new bipartisan tone and “bring us all together”.  This did not happen.  He did not change his spots.  He and Congress have pursued an agenda farther to the left than suites the majority of the population. In so doing, reckless spending has created massive debt that will haunt future generations for years to come. Those conned by Mr. Obama’s campaign rhetoric, especially the Independents, are now disillusioned and are expressing this in the current polls.  The next question is how much of this will be reflected in upcoming elections.  Once again, time will tell.