Anthropology,
DNA, sex, mitochondria, and the creation of culture.
This essay is written and arranged on the basis of three
particular interests within the discipline of anthropology. Although some
scientific analysis has been used the issues discussed may not fit directly
into the categories as given; so, the reader is asked to acknowledge the
generalisation of the topics offered and thus accept the generalities of the
following article which enters into the disciplines of evolutionism and
creationism.
The article is based on Sex, Gender and Culture;
and they will be lightly discussed so as to offer a view that may not have been
offered in the past. The aim is to impart to the reader one and perhaps two
original theories that will clarify what it means to be human. These points are
in parallel opposition to the stand taken by Richard Dawkins; with all due
respect rendered to him. Of course, the first thing that comes to mind is sex,
but that is our second sub-topic, the first sub-topic is gender and
gender-dimorphism.
GENDER
The issue of gender and in
particular gender-dimorphism is one that perhaps holds only a small relevance
within the arena of evolution. For it can be seen everywhere today classic
examples of dimorphism between peoples irrespective of their gender or culture.
Of particular importance is the dimorphic vastness of a great number of people
who do little or no physical activity whatsoever, yet have the physique of a sumo-wrestler
or someone similar. This shows that dimorphism plays no part in the survival of
the human species whatsoever. However, of particular morphic interest to the
science of anthropology is the passage from Quadra-pedal to Bi-pedal dimorphism
in the hominine.
The development of early
hominines into bi-pedal creatures is believed to have taken place for several
reasons. One of which is the need to get the brain into a cooler atmospheric
zone. Many studies have taken place, searching for the reason for bi-pedalism.
One such study was carried out by Pete Wheeler of England. His work was done
with a camera and a light and thus an assumption was reached with regard to the
equation of body temperature, cranial temperature and the stand on bi-pedalism.
However, another study involving years of fieldwork in arid regions leads to a
vastly different conclusion than that arrived at by Wheeler. The study shows
that bi-pedal evolution could not have occurred as a result of Lucy and her
cousins of the Pleistocene epoch wanting to have lunch on the arid African
Savannah, especially if the need to cool the brain was any part of the event.
It is a fallacious statement
to suggest that the anatomically modern head is cooler than that of the
primate, and it would draw heated refutation. Another reasoning that Wheeler
cites is that we are the only relatively hairless bi-pedal cousin of the
primate. He has failed to mention our supposed distant cousins that are the pig
species. These creatures are relatively hairless, fat and hot (especially the
pink ones), yet they remain quadrupedal.
Whatever the reason, bipedal locomotion requires a substantial
amount of hormonal activity, according to Spuller, so this should entail a
substantial amount of copulation.
SEX
It has been suggested that at the moment of conception; or shortly
thereafter, an alteration to the genetic code may have taken place via the
Human Mitochondria cell. A study of the Human Mitochondria shows that these
cells are energy converters; they synthesize metabolised products and convert
them into energy for use by the body.
The Human Mitochondria has
its own complete D.N.A, (it is described as mt.DNA). This indicates that the
mtDNA is functional on its own and therefore requires no external supervisory
involvement from Nuclear DNA. All of the gene coding that is required to make a
Human Mitochondria is found in the membrane of this cell; as the cell divides
it replicates all genetic coding of itself into the membrane of the new cell.
These cells are identical copies of each other. Interestingly, it is possible
to see the site where the cell division has taken place. The fact that this
cell self-replicates perpetually without external DNA instruction explains why
it is hereditary in only one gender. It does not need Bi-Genderous DNA to
construct itself.
The genome of mtDNA has four
distinct Nucleotides. Each one of these is coded to accept tRNA molecules.
Twenty-two tRNAs are used for the synthesis of proteins. Standard
codon/anticodon rules are relaxed specifically to aid the Mitochondria in
efficient energy production. What happens is that any one of the tRNAs links
with any of the Sixty-four codon/anticodons. These in turn seek out their prey:
proteins, which are converted to energy. This equates to an efficiency ratio of
(14x116)xA. (Where (A) is the available proteins.)
Therefore, this entails that
the Human mtDNA is able to derive and synthesize energy from various products
efficiently. And not just from the one source. Which suits the human
metabolism, and diet just nicely. As mtDNA is a hereditary cell passed along on
the female line, this metabolic action ensures that any foetus (present or
potential) is not deprived of the necessary specific energy requirements for
cell development during, and beyond; the foetal stage of development. Any
alteration or disruption of energy may cause damage to; or loss of, cells
relying on this energy supply, which in turn may lead to dis-ease, deformity or
death of all cells. These cells play no real part in reproduction, nor indeed
do they carry out any alteration in D.N.A function during conception.
For hormonal reasons
constant sexual activity would have ensured a constant genetic transfer,
guaranteeing two things: one, the population must have grown and two; it
increased from the same replicator passed on from the previous generation.
CULTURE
Species divergence could not have occurred because for this to be
successful all members of the now altered generation would have to be
permanently excommunicated from the parental group, clan or community before
sexual maturity. This would then guarantee the new genetically diverse beings
the ability to perpetuate their own specific lineage. But this genetic
diversion would not have been detectable by Australopithecus, Homo-Habilus or
even Cro-Magnon; so their offspring could only have remained at home within the
existing gene pool, vulnerable to all the vices of sex, gender and culture.
‘Species diversion’ theory
dictates that with the passing of time there would be a genetic incompatibility
for the purposes of reproduction (between any groups that are separated); the
outcast dimorphically challenged beings would not be able to reproduce with the
neighbours. Yet millions of years have passed and we are able to copulate with
any neighbour near or far (within reason), which shows that there has been no
significant genetic diversion since the beginning of manhood. The genetic code
is intact. This code; it is said, leads to a common ancestor for all living
things, perhaps a bacteria, or a yeast or something. This ancestor, of course;
lived millions and millions of years ago. However this is not so; it is not a
fact.
This genetic code; the
component that is common to all species, is in fact used to make use of the
elements of the earth; that is to say, to form an eco-species from the clay of
the earth. After all, that is what the homo-sapien is made of, elements and
proteins and minerals. In fact, quite a lot of the eco-species use these
materials. That is because these chemicals are all that is available here on
earth. If we were on another planet then the genetic coding would be different;
an alternative genome, created in order to assemble the products of that planet
into a viable eco-species that lives and perpetuates there; deriving life from
its surroundings and environment. This means that the Genetic code is not
shared by living creatures by reason of ancestry, but rather it show’s that the
code is simply used for assemblage of inert earthly materials in order to
create a mobile eco-species. It is shared because it is the only code that can
create an eco-species with the earthly products and elements that are
available.
So, as a conclusion it seems as though evolution does not really
hold any firm ground as far as ‘proof of origin of species’ is concerned and
while anthropology takes a more general stand within the areas of sex, gender
and culture, evolutionists try to engage exact science. The arguments and
scientific analyses however are quite sound and can give excellent imaginative
evidence for the issues as they are contended. Creationism is on equal footing
with evolution in that it also is unable to substantially prove Human origin;
but it too uses sound scientific methods to substantiate a myriad of analyses
and claims in the support of creationism.
However, where the two disciplines diverge is in the arena of
entity, soul and morality. For, as the seemingly confused Dawkins suggests, the
universe is effectively just electrons and selfish genes. Meaningless
tragedy and intentional evil do occur. However, we do have cultural paradigms
and judicial paradigms in place to help with these tragedies. Evolution has no
answer for paradigms of disaster or injustice; it merely engages sociological
nonchalant irresponsibility of the type seen in (Moore). Other disciplines
offer separated identities of self, with paradigms to match. These paradigms,
if intellectually understood and grasped, offer solutions to problems that
evolution can only enslave. They give opportunity for a solution to the age-old
problem of ‘Human intent’, which has on many an auspicious occasion been
characterised to fit into the categories of sex, gender and culture.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ALBERTS, Bruce.
Molecular Biology Of The
Cell.
Second Edn.
DAWKINS, Richard. River Out Of Eden.
London: Orion Books.
FOLGER, T., in Haviland,
W,A.
Human Evolution And Prehistory.
HAVILAND,W,A.
Human Evolution And Prehistory.
MOORE, Clive., in Burgmann,
Verity., and Jenny Lee. A Most Valuable
Acquisition