Paradox: Darwin vs. Hippocrates

A paradox has been tugging at my mind these past months. It's all rather vague and abstract, but I'll try to present it nonetheless. It goes something like this.

Life on this earth has been driven by natural selection. Every organism alive today is only here because it, and it's many ancestors, have made it through nature's brutal selective hand. They are the ones most capable of breeding and surviving in the specific environment that they inhabit. If an organism carries a gene which makes them weak or feeble, they will die. They will not spread that gene. That's the point. That's natural selection. But more so, that species as a whole is better off with the weak individual dying. It keeps harmful genes out of the gene pool.

And such is the world of Darwin.

But we humans are odd. We defy Darwin's world - we defy nature itself. Our technology and medicine allows weakness and disease to survive. Our health industry allows weak and sick individuals to survive, reproduce, and nurture offspring - a possibility nearly impossible to every other species on this planet. We have been able to overcome natural selection. Its heavy hand no longer controls our fate. Our doctors, drugs and scientists do that now.

And I confess, I am one of those who wants to take on nature. I do, after all, want to become a Physician. It would be my sworn duty to heal others. This is my dream.

This is the world of Hippocrates.

What would Darwin and Hippocrates have to say to one another? Are physicians in some way harming humankind? Doctors are bound to do good and no harm - that is their oath. Every human life is precious. Every human life is equal. Every condition will receive the full treatment available. Pharmaceutical companies labour long and hard at designing and producing drugs. They do it for the dollar, but intentions aside, patients receive treatment. However, the unintentional consequence of health care is that bad genes might make it through, they might get passed on.

And herein lies my paradox. In defying natural selection--the very branch upon which the human species stands--are we only making our species weaker? By fighting against the weeding hand of nature, are we only doing more harm in the long run?

I for one know, if I ever make it into medicine, I would do good and no harm.

Besides, I've always had a thing for the Greeks.

Background Noise

The human body is an amazing machine. Take the nervous system for example. The nervous system is our lifeline to the world we inhabit. It is constantly communicating within us - very often in ways we are not even conscious of. Our nervous system is also incredibly dynamic. Our sensory system--which provides us our sense of taste and touch, light and sound--is hardly static. Long enough exposure to a given stimulus causes many sensory systems in our body to undergo what is called 'receptor adaptation'. Our senses adapt to the information our body is constantly receiving in order to tune our senses onto the differences. When it comes to survival, it is often those differences, those changes in the environment, that are must critical to be aware of.

But I wonder, can we not undergo the same process mentally? Our minds are bombarded with loads of information: emotions, desires, fears, doubts. If our bodies tune out the background noise in order to be more sensitive to our surroundings, is it not equally valid to tune out the background noise in our minds?

The world is a shitty place for many people. Thousands die of simple, curable diseases every day; children starve, women are sold into sexual slavery, fathers fight and die for the greed of others. The information age has brought hell into our family rooms, onto our computer screens. Those of us living in our comfort are swamped daily by the barrage of pain the rest of the world experiences. It can get overbearing, it has for me.

If I decide to shut it out, and try to live my life, will I let the human race down? More importantly, will I let God down? The pain and the guilt--nothing more than the luck of being born in the right place at the right time--tears my soul apart sometimes. I don't want to turn a blind eye to the world, but at the same time I don't want to be disabled by it.

Perhaps I should take a page out of evolution's playbook.

Natural Selection and Mating

Imagine if you will two Dingdongs: Dingdong A and Dingdong B. What species of animal a Dingdong is is irrelevant (mostly because I just pulled it out of thin air). Dingdong A and Dingdong B are completely identical in all ways except for one: Dingdong A is feisty when it comes to partnering and mating, whereas Dingdong B is indifferent. Both Dingdong A and Dingdong B have the same machinery for producing offspring; however, Dingdong A has a drive to find a mate, while Dingdong B will do it only if the opportunity arises.

Assume that the children of both Dingdong A and Dingdong B have an equal probability of growing to sexual maturity - who do you think will produce more children?

I would venture to say Dingdong A. Dingdong A will "beat out Dingdong B to potential mates. So while Dingdong B sits around and takes a mate when he/she can, Dingdong A is out and about actively seeking a mate.

So now let's say that we start with a population of 50% Dingdong A and 50% Dingdong B. What will happen to this population? Over generations, it will slowly shift to become Dingdong A heavy and Dingdong B light. Who knows, maybe Dingdong B will disappear. It isn't that Nature "desired" one over the other, or one was intrinsically better than the other. Random chance has given us two characteristics: feisty and non-feisty. Over time, one characteristic is better able at producing descendants than another. More descendants, more evolutionary success, more of your genes out in the gene pool.

This hypothetical example shows that an animal with a drive to attain a mate is going to be selected for over against an animal without a drive to attain a mate.

What's the point?

Well, twofold. First, it shows how evolution could work in simple, observable terms. Second, it shows a possible reason why we humans actually desire a partner and a mate. It just may be a parting gift from one of our ancestors.

Statistics show that Kevin is crazy

There is something very wrong with me. Something very, horribly, wrong. I cannot understand it. I don't even think I know who I am anymore.

I actually like statistics.

What is wrong with me?!?

I have tried to figure out why I'm actually enjoying learning about statistical tests - goodness of fit, normal, ANOVA. Oh me oh my!

Perhaps it's because statistics is in large part trying to understand the unknown. How to go from what we do know, and applying it to what we don't know - going from sample to population. I might just be so pissed off at not 'knowing' anything that probabilistic-knowledge seems pretty appealing to me. All my learning has driven out certainty and truth. What is certain? What is true? What is true in the realm of religion, or ethics? Who can answer such questions? But with statistics, we can come to some probabilistic answer: it seems like this is the case - 5% chance we're wrong. I must admit, that's not too shabby.

Or maybe it's because for once I really look forward to using what I learn in one class (statistics) in another class (animal physiology lab). I haven't had such direct applicability for a long time. It is refreshing, to say the least.

I may never know why I like statistics. I have a feeling it's just a phase, like so many other intellectual phases that have come and gone.

It will all be over in a week, no doubt.

Keep Your Mouth Shut

I'm sitting in Scarfe, trying to translate a letter written by the Roman Emperor Claudius - tough shit, believe me.

Beside me two asian ladies are having a conversation.

It's about creation and evolution.

The one girl is telling the other that Darwin became a Christian later on in life, and he repented and regretted having ever made the theory of evolution.

I'm sorry lady, but that is pure bullshit.
Darwin never converted later in life.
Darwin never regretted his theory of evolution.

I bet one of the girls has had evangelism training. She's got her Bible with her. She's pumping out the Gospel of John. She's got all the lines: "can you see air? can you see radio waves? can you see an invisible God?" She even has evangelistic tracts. Yep - she's definitely had the evangelism training.

You want to tell people about Jesus? Be my guest; he's an important dude. The story of his life changes people's lives to this very day. And walking in his Way is a choice I myself have made for my own life. But, please, don't spread hearsay and false stories to try and convert people. If Jesus is worth anything, he can attract people on his own merits. He doesn't need people to lie for him.

But, alas, I keep my mouth shut.

-Kev

P.S. Why do people bother? Evolution is a damn good theory. It makes sense of a LOT of data that we have (geological, biological, etc...). It does exactly what a theory is meant to do: explain the data. And it does this much more gracefully than Creationist attempts, with much less conjecture. I smell another post?