Suffering From Back Ache?

This may not come as relief to those who suffer from chronic back pain, slip disc, herniated disc, etc., but at least you know who to blame. (When you are in pain, it is good to curse someone).
So here goes ...
The human spine, for example, is a lousy solution to the problem of supporting the load in an upright, two-legged creature. It would have made a lot more sense to distribute our weight across four equal cross-braced columns. Instead, all our weight is borne by a single column, putting enormous stress on the spine. We managed to survive upright (freeing out hands), but the cost for many people is agonizing back pain. We are struck with this barely adequate solution not because it is the best possible way to support the weight of a biped, but because the spine's structure evolved from that of four-legged creatures, and standing up poorly is (for creatures like us, who use tools) better than not standing up at all.

So you know who to blame.
Evolution!

And no. I have no idea if Gary Marcus, the author of this delightful little book called Kluge, suffers from back pain.

Enrich the gene pool

This is dangerous territory.

First, because I am no sociologist or biologist. So, what I type out is pure conjecture.

Second, in today's India, anything goes in the name of jingoism. With low tolerance at rock bottom for any idea that is remotely anti-Indian-culture, there is a danger of this post being labelled anti-India. And then there are instances of bloggers being sent notices to withdraw entries and being sued for libel (which actually goes to show that blogs are becoming more and more powerful.)

But here goes nevertheless ...

A rich gene pool comes only when in a given territory the best mate. In the non-human animal world "best" is generally defined as the fittest that is likely to survive. In lions this is taken to an extreme. The victorious lion kills lion cubs sired by the defeated lion. On death of her cubs the lioness becomes receptive again and this ensures that the gene pool is enriched by the strongest lion's gene. Cruel it might seem but terribly effective.

This works in the plant world too. Take fruit bearing trees. Only the trees that survive to flower get pollinated.

A biologist may be able to able to give numerous examples supporting the above facts.

Now let us turn to human beings. (I am now stepping into domain that I have no deep knowledge of). Humans have postponed death. Marvels of medical science ensures that both the strong and the weak reach maturity. Raw existence in nature would ensure the survival of the fittest. But "fittest" among human is no longer means the strongest. Among humans, it is perhaps no longer the survival of the fittest individual. Rather it is the survival of the strongest group. And this means the entire humanity, in a way. (The marvels of medical science is accessible, more or less, to all humans). Survival of the fittest group is found among non-humans also. Like Chimpanzees. But such groups have an Alpha male. Mating rights in non-human groups reside with the Alpha male. With humans mating right resides with all.

Fortunately among humans, in many societies the female has the right to decide. (Before, I go ahead, please note that among non-human animals too the female decides. And she generally chooses to mate with the strongest). In such societies hopefully the female will make a choice based on what could only be defined as "attractiveness factor". The female will choose the best as she sees it fit. So although the human gene pool is not composed of only the "fittest", this choice by the female of the human species may result in a hopefully evolved progeny. (I have simplified the things a bit here. But this is what happens, more or less.) Note that all progeny will be super-humans. Only that the chances of an evolved beings (by a tiny bit; for evolution progresses in series of tiny mutations).

A question comes to mind immediately. Are the fruits of modern medical science actually hindering evolution? A not-so-satisfactory response could be: Relax! Genetic engineering is the solution. (Genetic engineering is not as 'non-natural' as it seems. After all natural selection put evolved brain in early humans in the first place. So the logic goes as follows: Natural Selection => Human Brain => Genetic Engineering => Evolution).

To go forward with my thesis (:-)) we will assume selection by human females works wonderfully.

We finally come to India and other such countries where female does not choose her mate. Before, I hear howl of protest from the ladies who are reading this blog, I hasten to add that even today in India a majority of marriages are arranged by family. Some choose. But the majority don't.

The idea behind arranged marriage is obvious: that the best gene pool resides in good families. And so since ages there are arranged marriages in India. Whether the assumption of good family = good genes holds good, I do not know? But seems to me that by depriving the Indian female of their choice of selecting their husband - for generations - may have left the Indian gene pool a little depleted. Arranged marriages may actually be a benign form of selective (but unnatural) breeding.

So the solution to a future-is-bright India may actually lie in liberating Indian female from the clutches of arranged marriage. No?

Now, if some social scientist (is that an oxymoron?) comes forward and refutes my arguments by reeling of data, it would be great. As I type this I wonder if the Industrial Revolution in England and Renaissance in Europe started when arranged marriages (yes, Europe too had arranged marriages for a very long time) gave way to marriage by choice.

Picture courtesy: Sri Vatsa

Calling professional games programmers

I would have done one good turn if in some not so distant future a professional programmer of the gaming world reads this blog and responds to Richard Dawkins's call. I do not believe many gaming programmers would have read The Blind Watchmaker. So, if you are that chosen one read on and figure out if this interest you ...

Read it even if you are not into gaming. This makes for a good reading.

To simulate natural selection in an interesting way in the computer ... we should concentrate ... upon simulating non-random deaths. Biomorphs [computer generated animal-like graphics following a defined logic of 'evolution'] should interact, in the computer, with a simulation of hostile environment. Something about their shape should determine whether or not they survive in that environment. Ideally, the hostile environment should include other evolving biomorphs: 'predators', 'prey', 'parasites' 'competitors'. The particular shape of a prey biomorph should determine its vulnerability to being caught, for example, by particular shapes of predator biomorphs. Such criteria of vulnerability should not be built in by the programmer. They should emerge in the same way as the shape themselves emerge. Evolution in the computer would then really take off.

If anybody is clever enough to do it, it would be the programmers who develop those noisy and vulgar arcade games - Space Invaders' derivatives. ... But these programs are small-fry compared to the program that would be written to simulate an emerging arms race between predators and prey, embedded in a complete, counterfeit ecosystem. ... If there is a professional programmer out there who feels like collaborating on the challenge, I should like to hear from him or her.

So, are you up to the challenge? Or has this already been done?

Picture courtesy: Davide Guglielmo

Defending Darwin

Most of us claim that we understand Darwin's theory. Many amongst us understand it so well that they are ready with their arguments against it. The fact remains that most of us do not have the slightest idea beyond what is very superficially taught in schools.

It is with this background that I never picked up any book that was remotely connected to evolution. I thought I understood the concept of evolution and, in my mind, any book on evolution would be variation of what is shown on National Geographic or Discovery Channel. Until now that is.

(I am not taking into account the one other occasion where I was forced to read Survival Of the Sickest (see here) though I am glad I did.)

The book in my hand right now is The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. It is of 1986 vintage (reissued in 2006 - so perhaps it is not that old).

In his 2006 preface, Dawkins says:

Aside from some vague nonsense about 'monkeys', they simply did not know what Darwinism was.

In his 1986 preface he says:

It is almost as if the human brain were specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism, and to find it hard to believe. Take, for instance, the issue of 'chance', often dramatized as blind chance. The great majority of people that attack Darwinism leap with almost unseemly eagerness to the mistaken idea that there is nothing other than random chance in it. ... One of my tasks will be to destroy this eagerly believed myth that Darwinism is a theory of 'chance'.

I think I am going to enjoy this book.

Picture courtesy: Carsten Issels

Are We Programmed To Die?

I read this delightful little book called Survival Of The Sickest by Dr. Sharon Moalem a few weeks ago (I have blogged on survival ... here and here.)

I fall back on this book yet again to continue with my latest obsession with death (here and here).

Ok! Question time ...

Why would you do something really stupid that will result in death in the long run?
Why do people resort to excessive drinking or substance abuse when they know that this will result in a painful death later?

Answer: Perhaps, to forget the pain of the moment.

This is hardly a trade off. You give up your future for the present. Really stupid right?

Surprise! Surprise! Turns out that your body does this all the time or rather evolution does this all the time.

We are diabetic because evolution chose diabetes over painful instant death if our blood were to freeze in cold weather - the sugar in the blood reduces the freezing temperature. (You really need to read the book if you want to understand this!)

Coming back to the original question.

The cells in our body are programmed to divide and grow only about 50-60 times. After that kaput! The cell dies. If the cell had no limit to reproduce we would not age nor die. Why would evolution choose such an end?

The answer: to prevent cancer.

What is cancer?

It is an uncontrolled growth of cells.

If the cell had no limit of reproduction, cancer would spread at the slightest pretext, as there would be nothing to prevent it from doing so (there are other inbuilt prevention mechanism but a limit to endless growth is the final defence against cancer.)

So yes we are programmed to die but it is for our own good. What a weird concept!

Note: The picture used belongs to Joachim Bär (See gallery)

Survival Of The Sickest

This book came to me by accident. The India Today Book Club had sent me an editor's collection and I hated it when I first saw it. Ok! I am interested in evolution and I thought I knew all about the germ theory. I thought it was just another book that had a clever title. I mean what kind of book could Survival Of The Sickest be. I very reluctantly turned the pages. And I was hooked.

The chapter on interaction of environment, evolution and diabetes itself is worth the price of whole book.

We all worry about Cholesterol. Have you ever asked yourself why do we have cholesterol in the first pace? Why on earth should an organism build cholesterol in the first place. Doesn't make evolutionary sense, does it? I have started taking a walk in the afternoon sun with sun-glasses after I read the chapter "cholesterol also rises." So what is the connection between sunglasses and cholesterol. You need to read the book for that.

I won't be surprised if Dr. Sharon Moalem, the author of this book, goes on to win the Nobel Prize for Medicine for his work on Alzheimer's. You can then claim that you discovered him before the Nobel Committee.

Note: The photograph used belongs to Jhon Casso. Please go here to see more such photographs.