Imagine a world in which everything
constantly adjusts, realigns and harmonizes itself with all its contents. As a perceptive network, such a world
continuously intercommunicates, and in accordance with continuous change,
congruously adjusts itself on all levels while growing in complexity and
intelligence. If we knew we lived in such a world, wouldn’t our ambition be to progress
our knowledge and understanding, and therefore live more principled lives, in
accordance with such consonance and intelligence?
In
recent years, and also thanks to significant advances in technology, scientists
are able to enter the cellular and molecular worlds on levels previously undreamt-of.
Likewise, our understanding in physics, chemistry, and of the universe has taken
giant leaps. In this new setting, now entering a post-reductionist era, focus
has ambitiously turned to how these
atoms and molecules that make up our world and us interconnect and communicate. Much
research is now dedicated to discovering how different signals and
intercellular pathways behave and increase in complexity as they interact. Scientists and medical practitioners are starting to understand the
cellular world as a pliable network of interconnected links recruiting proteins
and chemical methods for communication, with disease occurring when these connections
break down. Besides the enormous future medical benefits of such renewed focus,
this understanding is also shedding new light on our evolutionary origins.
Research
scientists are finding considerable evidence that the development of principled
communication networks amongst cells is part of the overall process of a
perceptive evolution. All cells have some means of reacting to a signal or
signals coming from neighbouring cells, other parts of the body, and the
external environment. For this, they have evolved numerous methods and
receptors cascading in techniques to ‘talk’ to each other, constantly adjusting
their genetic material to changing environments in this evolving web of life. Fine-tuned cell-to-cell communications guarantee concord
among many different cell types. Evolutionary biologists, and biologists in
general, have come to understand that the ability of cells to interconnect with
each other and their environments through chemical signals was crucial for the
evolution of primitive cells into multicellular organisms. Current evolutionary
biology and medical science now base their foundations on this concept of
intercellular communication.
During the evolutionary
process, numerous signalling methods have slowly progressed and advanced in multicellular
organisms to ensure smooth communication and contact between internal and
external environments. From unicellular organisms up to complex bodies, all
living elements must communicate with the surrounding world to exist as part of
a complex, interconnected living system — being alive means being perceptive
and interconnected. To signal each other, all living elements, from single
cellular organisms up, use innovative methods to conduct extracellular
molecules for such molecule-mediated cell-to-cell interactions.
In higher mammals
(and us), four principle signalling methods are recognized as orchestrating and
harmonizing molecules into performing complex functions in a composite network.
Defined in basic biology today as neuronal, endocrine, juxtacrine, and
paracrine, these signals help turn individualized chaos into a concordant flow
of interconnected events in order to be perceptive to constantly changing
environments.
The endocrine (or
hormone) and neuronal signals, besides being a direct means of distant
signalling to internal systems, also have a cascade of indirect effects on all
cells in the body. External signals are relayed by nerves and neurons (nerve
cells) to stimulate cells and molecules to relay messages to remote cells. All
cells have various membrane reception methods, some unchanged and traced back
to ancient unicellular ancestors. With neuronal
signalling, external factors like stress, anger, or falling in love can affect
a network of extracellular molecules to, in turn, stimulate release of proteins
acting as messengers, triggering responses in numerous receptive cells all over
the body. Various hormones
(also proteins) are released by different glands and travel throughout the body
via blood vessels to further stimulate receptive cells as another form of
distant communication— we all have some idea of the impact of hormones on
social interaction. This so-called endocrine
signalling can also indirectly interact with external factors via neuronal
input. The important and complex effect of external stimuli and how they
interact to affect cells as an interconnected concern is a promising field of
research. One thing is clearly coming from all levels: it[T1] is enormously more interdependent,
perceptive, interconnected and communicative, both internally and externally, with
more complex social implications and principled obligations than previously
thought.
Proteins are also employed for more localized
signalling, called juxtacrine
signalling. Here, cells can react with receptor proteins of adjacent responsive
cells. With this form of communication, the inducer does not diffuse from the cell producing it. Instead, it instructs
surface proteins via messenger RNA to communicate with neighbours. In this
instance, an extracellular protein on one cell is conducted by its DNA to bind
to its receptor on the adjacent cell. It can also recruit proteins released by
other cells to communicate messages. A signal can also be transmitted directly
from the cytoplasm of one cell through small conduits into the cytoplasm of an
adjacent cell—'neighbour chat’. Even here, we now witness how new proteins may
occasionally originate due to minor changes in the genome of one of the inducing cells to adjust to a change,
affecting its local neighbourhood as an interconnected concern. Although
acting locally, [T2] outcomes are also affected and interconnected to
hormones and neuronal input.
Producing their own internal
(intracytoplasmic) signalling molecules to communicate with their neighbours, referred
to as paracrine signalling, internal
mechanisms give these paracrine cells the ability to relay messages that
directly affect their neighbours. The binding of a specific protein molecule to
a cell-wall receptor starts a series of molecular transformations, called
signal transduction, which relay the signal through the cell. These
receptors transduce the signal from the cell membrane to the internal membrane
surface where it activates protein messengers. These messengers trigger a
cascade of chemical reactions inside the cell, often involving the addition of
a very basic element like a phosphate group. This is the signal that passes
through the cytoplasm and into the nucleus, where DNA is harboured. In the
decisive step of this signal transduction, DNA-binding proteins in the cell
nucleus then attach to regulatory sequences and start DNA replication, or
transcription of a messenger RNA, to produce new proteins in response to specific
signals received. In a system carrying age-old wisdom, in consonance with
persistently evolving environments, these proteins in turn communicate ‘little perceptions’
to surrounding cells, affecting goal directed functions, like making a muscle contract
or trigger a memory. Intercommunicating on all
levels, internally, externally, and transgenerationally, and as a network in
unison and perceptive to change, it constantly evolves and grows in its own
complexity
DNA is now the commonly
accepted blueprint for all life on Earth. More pliable and perceptive than
previously thought, it constantly adjusts to input and change. Interconnected
and principled from within and as a part of a concordant network, it operates
in harmony with its changing surroundings. All cells also have the potential to
come up with ‘novel perceptions’ with only minor adjustments in the genome or
the transcription process. While this often causes disease, at times such a
stir may also be better suited to adjust to changes in this progression of life,
such as in the example of a bacterium developing resistance to a specific
antibiotic by producing a new enzyme (protein), or a single strand of enveloped
DNA we call a virus causing so much suffering until the immune system
establishes a status quo. Another more recently discovered example is seen in alterations in what geneticists refer to
as the CCR5 gene. This alteration, stretching
back to bubonic plaque days, and produced by immune cells called macrophages, was
recently found to offer a level of protection against the spread of HIV.
Searching for accord, this gene offers transgenerational support in the body of
patients that inherited its century old wisdom.
We are only
beginning to see how evolution is an interconnected, active, perceptive and ongoing communication-process
stretching transgenerationally on all levels. Centred around molecular arrangements
with DNA as the ultimate conductor, in a network of ancestral ideas, it remains
perceptive and responsive to establish consonance while adjusting to continuous
change. Carried from generation to generation, it persistently strives to find
accord in this ongoing change, with survival a necessary tool rather than a
narrowly set end-goal to benefit solipsistic survivors, as previously
misunderstood.
The immune
system is another example of such an age-old collaboration. One familiar instance
is the vital symbiosis between our gut flora and us – we cannot survive if we
destroy this ancient bond. The current estimate,
made by Dr. Martin J. Blaser at the New York University School of Medicine, is
that humans have 10 trillion human cells and about 100 trillion bacterial cells.
We coexist in harmony with our immune systems, and, should we destroy these
bacteria completely, we die. Even with only some bacteria affected, we get sick
– dermatitis of the skin and inflammatory bowel disease of the gut. It
is not in the scope of this book to discuss the immune system and all its
diseases, but suffice it to say, for purposes here, it, too, strives for
creating harmonious interaction in respect to age-old principles connecting
internal and external changes. It is becoming clear that life is not a mere
primitive battle to survive but an evolving intelligence aimed at consonance
and progressive complexity.
The immune
system also has a memory – both a short term and long-term one. The vaccination
process is an example of this. Toll receptors act as recognition methods to
prevent the immune system from attacking our commensal gut flora, and if things
go wrong on this level, we get sick. Inflammatory bowel disease (a form of
colitis) is an example of this miscommunication, often triggered by environmental
factors. There is an expansive and growing list of such errors in communication
between local or systemic cells and/or their co-inhabitants (microbiome) on all
levels, causing infirmity such as allergies, autoimmune diseases, and cancer.
It does not seem surprising, if we think of the complexity of our recently
created environments and novel diets, that allergies and cancers are on the
increase in both humans and our heavily inbred pets. Albeit at times useful or
even lifesaving, these chemicals we so commonly surround ourselves with are
subtly moulding a rather befuddled genome.
If we consider
the dreaded cancer cells, they also progress in response to
errors in local interactions and we can now see cancer as a communication
breakdown between cells. Cancer cells, as descendants of
healthy ones, are products of disjointed responses to interconnected concerns.
They thrive and proliferate because they narrowly exploit and break established
rules of communication (ethic) set by their ancestors and peers. Such miscommunication
allows them to find comfortable neighbourhoods in which to metastasise and
summon a blood supply for their self-indulgent needs. It is when these cells
disarm their immune-system relatives and turn off the communication and act
independently in isolation that they become cancerous. In what can only be
interpreted as a lack of acumen or desperation, they break down communication
links with other cells and disconnect from united demands. With such a
solipsistic approach, they become malignant and systematically eventually
destroy the body they exploit. This can also be seen as evolution at play in an
attempt to respond to the overwhelming new chemical environments we have
created. Either way, a better understanding of this communication and a re-establishing of harmony is what holds
the future potential to regulate the growth of these cancer cells — sadly,
currently further chemical
destruction (chemotherapy) is our defence. We have much to learn from this
intracellular world, both as a society and in the future direction our
healthcare systems will take.
Research
scientists now also see enormous therapeutic potential in improved
understanding of this communication network. With growing understanding of
these interconnections and communications, new options are recognized. Rather
than crudely killing these cancer cells with a flow of more harmful chemicals
or radiation, re-establishing consonance through re-establishing connections
appears more promising. We now have a future option and potential to control
cancer by more specifically disrupting these segregated networks,
re-establishing normal interconnections, and directing select components of our
immune systems to help in the battle against these greedy little breakaways. We
have much to learn from these cancer cells, and simultaneously, perhaps, we can
soon conduct our own DNA and immune system, through nanotechnology or other
means, to help reduce much of the current suffering still caused by this
dreaded disease, perhaps in response to our own environmental exploitation and
greed.
One of the most dramatic events
science has unraveled recently is how DNA is much more flexible and responsive
in the living cell than previously thought. We have come a long way from the
famous DNA helix as revealed to the world by Watson and Crick in 1953.
Immediately following this life-changing
discovery came a reductionist era, where a set DNA was regarded as a fixed
blueprint for mechanically creating life. It was only with the marriage of
genetics and molecular biology that scientists started deciphering the
molecular reactions inside the cells and a new threshold was again reached.
With new technologies developed to map the gene, it became apparent how all
living things overlap and share large parts of their genes with pooled
interests. Suddenly, amazing things came to light, as, in one example, it
became apparent that the same gene linked to human speech is also found in
birds. It was revealed, along with other data, how the meaning of signals to
cells and organisms depends on which cell in which organism receives it. The
essential role of the gene is now inarguably established, as is evolution in
science, but the DNA helix is now appearing less appropriate as the
all-important set blueprint for life.
There are also large chunks of the genome containing surplus, or previously
referred to as ‘junk,’ DNA. With this non-coding DNA making up almost 98% of
the human genome, it is reasonable to suggest that evolution is much too smart
and perceptive to have no greater purpose for this yet unexplored entity and
its enormous opportunity to adjust to change.
With more and more biologists now seeing repetitive
elements as genomic potential, it appears that these transposable elements are
not junk after all. Instead, they opportunistically interact with the
surrounding genomic environment and increase the ability of the organism to
evolve by serving as hubs and a reserve for potential genetic recombination while
giving new and important signals for regulating gene expression. As scientists
are only beginning to understand the vast potential of a previously much
constrained DNA, we can now welcome in an era of new possibility. We have to confront the
alternative concept of an interactive,
‘perceptive’ evolution, interconnected on all levels, perceptively adjusting to
joint concerns. This also comes with unexpected and progressive new moral
demands.
Now leaving the reductionist phase
and slowly emerging into a post-technocratic era, our rapidly evolving
epistemology will inevitably have to confront how to adapt itself as a principled, interconnected, and
progressive perceptive network, in unison. An ethic in which self-serving
short-term needs in a historic battle to survive was paramount now appears as
vacuous and barbaric, and will no longer suffice to explain this evolving
complexity we are all part of.[T4]
In a publication of a journal in
genetics, Mobile DNA, 2010, 1:4. Jan
25, 2010. Doi: 10.1186/1759-8753-1-4, James A, Shapiro aptly summarized this
new era in biology as follows:
‘This 21st century scenario assumes a major role for
the kind of cellular sensitivities and genomic
responses emphasized by McClintock in her 1984 Nobel Prize address. Such a cognitive component is absent from conventional
evolutionary theory because 19th and 20th century evolutionists were not
sufficiently knowledgeable about cellular response and control networks. This
21st century view of evolution establishes a reasonable connection between ecological
changes, cell and organism responses, widespread genome restructuring, and the
rapid emergence of adaptive inventions. It also answers the objections to
conventional theory raised by intelligent design advocates, because evolution
by natural genetic engineering has the capacity to generate complex novelties. In other words, our best defense against anti-science obscurantism comes from the study
of mobile DNA because that is the subject that has most significantly
transformed evolution from natural history into a vibrant empirical
science.’ (Italics added by the author
here).
Evolution
of our cognition.
