Friday, May 6, 2016

Darwin had a mother

 
I want to pay homage, not only to my mother who passed years ago but to the mother of my children.  I want to do so in a very peculiar way.  When each of our 10 children was born there were differences in the pregnancy and surprises at birth.  We choose not to be informed of the sex of the children, rather relishing the surprise at birth for the child my wife cared for during gestation. 

My humility is enhanced each time I delve into the pain, the joy, the surprise and the ultimate unknown as the responsibility of a new life is placed in our hands.  We all know the mechanics of life but rarely do we discuss the foundational principles that allow life to flourish, in all its diversity. It is for this that I give thanks.  My wife and mothers around the world have suffered the trials of birth just so they can be mothers. 

Being a mother for most woman is a profoundly spiritual and holy experience.  The connection of body and soul, between a mother and child transcend explanation.  There is more than just the physical manifestation of nature and the resulting birth; there is a union of cells, a commonality of genetics and a spiritual blending of one life with another through the ultimate amalgamation of life, in all its diversity.  There must needs be a foundational process that ensures that union and assures the success of life through the process of acceptance and opportunity.

How do we explain the severity of diversity within the universal commonality of our shared genetic similarity?  From the lowly Tree Spine Starfish to one of the greatest minds in over a thousand years, Albert Einstein, (my opinion) the similarities of our related genome motivate our thoughts to conclude a singular source of creation and the subsequent evolution of all life.  How do we justify the diversity within our own families when the commonality of resources is known and somewhat quantifiable? 

There are theories that propose a standard of creation similar to the needed standard instituted ions ago to ensure structural integrity (stay with me), a learned process perhaps, but a process of universal adaptation that ensures protection for all that is built and constructed by man, presupposing natural areas of learned skill beyond those derived solely by man.

The variety of building styles and uses is not as extensive as the genome of humanity but it provides a healthy insight into the ultimate need for a foundational process of creation.  The variety of building styles throughout history, at least the successful ones all have the commonalty of a foundation, the essential aspect of that success being a workable and duplicable foundation. 

There are raised foundations, slabs; stem walls, pylons, etc…Each can be viewed as an essential pinion for constructing the usable portions of any building or habitat.  Failure to adhere to these basic principles negates any process of building and will ultimately ensure its rapid demise. The foundational approach to life is just as essential as our need to create a balance in our lives and generally we learn quite early that without some foundation the tendrils of our experiences either move toward establishing a more permanent foundation or they slowly and inexorably destroy the connectedness of  the cement that acts as a foundational material, leaving our structures weak and susceptible to the elements and invariably weaken our personal resolve toward greater and substantial life events.

3.2 billion, that's how many base pairs—or sets of genetic "letters"—make up the human genome. In order to list all those letters, a person would have to type 60 words per minute, 8 hours a day, for about 50 years! However, humans are by no means the species with the most base pairs. The marbled lungfish (Protopterus aethiopicus) has about 133 billion of them in its genome.  Comparing these genetic pairs has become a very lucrative process and an essential part of our ultimate understanding of who and what we are as humans and in comparing our DNA with those of other living things. 

Scouring the Web, here is what I have found so far.   This was taken from: 
(http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25335-Percentage-of-genetic-similarity-between-humans-and-animals)

- Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated. 
- Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. 
- Cows (Bos taurus) are 80% genetically similar to humans. 
- 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans, 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome, 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans.
- The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans.
- About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene. 

Another resource to consider is: HomoloGene.

The fact of association by similarity is well documented and has been used for decades to support the evolutionary process, considering the unity of our shared genes as a symbol of a common ancestry.  But when compared to the analogy of a foundation the alternate theory of association is only a result of using a pre-determined process of creation rather than the happenstance of a multi-millennial process of evolving from a single cellular creature to the most complex creatures of today.  The water flea just so happens to be the most complex yet discovered with 25% more genes than humans. I guess size does not matter, at least in this case.

The theory of evolution is a formidable philosophy with scientific evidence being amassed in droves and with the support of thousands of scientist and supported by the overall mainstream of education that promotes the process as originally outlined by Darwin.  Almost without opposition, most believe in some aspects of evolution with many theologians siding in part behind the juggernaut of a God driven creation using evolution as His medium of delivery.

As humans we have often generated processes based on replication to ensure continuity.  That continuity saves time and resources and ensures stability in the processes that can be duplicated.  The gaming industry relies heavily on platform design to create the foundational process to lighten the load of creativity by utilizing pre-set programming to establish a matrix of possibilities.  Many of the most popular games use the same foundational programs.  Gamers very seldom know the difference in the creative process and only enjoy the external aspects of the game but like a foundation of any kind the beauty of the finished product is enhances and supported by that essential foundation.  Mostly unseen the structural necessity is essential if the product is to last and to eventually sell. 

Evolutionary theory studies the effects of change from one species to another and relies upon those innate similarities to enhance its viability and continues to rely upon the premise that from a single cell and billions of years the plethora of life now exists.  Would we look at a building as an evolutionary change from one house or building to the next just because their foundational processes agree?  Or would we see commonality and association of life from a singular bag of cement and some nearby trees?

As you’ve probably already guessed I am not a geneticist, nor am I a scientist but when we’re looking at the process of creation over billions and billions of years I doubt many would be qualified to view the reality of what happened and how life actually got started.

I am a religious believer, hence the spiritual bent and the need to discuss the possibility of an alternate avenue of thinking that includes the creation of man and in this case the joy of motherhood with life in general from the planned process of a foundational network of standards that in the least guides the genome into their specific purposes.  Modifications of life do occur and will continue to take place within the programs foundational guidelines, allowing life to improve and to adapt or evolve in order to enhance our collective experience.

All life reproduces and those standards of reproduction can either be seen as a result of a common genome and the evolutionary process or the foundational principles that allow life to flourish.  Since man tends to move toward organized processes in all that we do the assumption, at least for me, is that we inherited that design and promote the practice as it was used to create our life and all life. 

The question can be asked, is the drive of mothers to have children simply a “natural” result of evolution or a planned process of procreation?  Evolution may suggest that the need for mothers is nothing more than a billion year old process to ensure life continuity but the overall process of life in general demands more than just a singular drive to procreate.  Mothers are an essential part of the foundational fabric that was designed to ensure a connection between both mother and child and mother and the creator.

The process of creation can be seen most acutely with the mother and child relationship.   In all aspects of life when the passage of genetic material is complete and the consequent life has been instituted the process should be considered as a planned and not haphazard or by chance.  The foundational process was established and continues to build upon itself with the unimaginable opportunities that all life has in store.


Happy Mother Day….