We have Nothing in Common

You and I have nothing in common (lucky you!). You’re tall, I’m short; you’re thin, I’m more robust; nothing’s going to make your brown eyes blue or turn me into a natural blond.

It’s obvious: Mutt and Jeff, Laurel and Hardy, Bonnie and Clyde. People are different. In fact, every person is unique, and usually in evident ways. One fly in this ointment: Science disagrees. How surprising to see scientists disputing the obvious! Never seen that before, have you? 

But Science doubles down! According to the illuminati, we are not even 1% different from each other; in fact, on average we differ from one another by just 1 part in 1,000 – that freckle on your left cheek, for example. So are you and I crazy or is this the fake science we’ve heard so much about? 

Neither! As usual, we are talking about 2 different things. You and I are talking about our phenomes, our physical traits. Scientists are talking about our genomes, the code embodied in the DNA molecules that make us what (not who) we are. Phenomenally, you and I are nothing alike; genetically, we’re almost twins, 99.9% interchangeable. How can this be?

Non-linearity! A single human organism results from the coordinated expression of up to 25,000 genes. While many genetic variations are inconsequential, others cascade across the entire organism. Genetics is chaotic; genes are like butterflies in Borneo. Take cover! 

Part of the genius of evolution is how well it prepares us for the future – our personal futures, the collective future of our species and perhaps even the future of the entire biosphere. 

Consider that of our 20,000 to 25,000 coding genes, only about half are being expressed in any one organism at any one time. Another 35% to 40% are expressed at some point in the life of the organism…just not now. But that leaves 10% to 15% of your coding genes unexpressed over your lifetime…even if you live to be as old and crusty as me. That’s 2,500 coding genes; are they just joyriding?

If so, why have them? Is Mother Nature, heaven forbid, inefficient, even wasteful? Not necessarily. These 2,500 genes, though normally never expressed, are nonetheless available for expression. They are like the alternate members of a jury or football players on a pro team’s ‘taxi squad’. 

They remain in potentia for the life of the organism. They are available for expression should circumstances (e.g. environmental changes) warrant. Unexpressed genes are part of what gives us the physiological resources we need to adapt to new circumstances; they offer our species multiple pathways forward as it evolves. In essence, they have ‘pre-evolved’; they are ready if and when we need them.

Did your Hall of Fame quarterback just go down? What to do? You could recruit a rookie out of high school, train him and finally start him, several seasons from now…or you could pull a back-up off your bench or call one up from your taxi squad. 

I am reminded of a favorite Bible quote: “We are created in Christ Jesus to do good works which God has prepared for us in advance that we should walk in them.” (Eph. 2:10) 

In this analogy, our phenome consists of the specific good works we do, while the genome consists of all the good works God prepared for us to choose from. God does not dictate; rather he clears multiple paths through the chaotic underbrush. We decide which paths to follow, if any; our 2,500 unexpressed cells are there if and when we need them. 

Across all Kingdoms (prokaryotes as well as eukaryotes), the quantity of genes per species varies tremendously but not always in the ways you might guess. While the human genome consists of up to 25,000 coding (i.e. protein producing) genes, many species of bacteria have fewer than 1,000. On the other hand, the genome of some ferns includes up to 50,000 genes. 

If there is a Pyramid of Life, arranged according to the size of a species’ genome, we must bow before the ‘lowly’ fern, Empress of the Biosphere. Imagine that! A fern is your Higher Power! 

These genomic differences are eye-catching; but there is something much more important afoot here: Whether a species requires 1,000 genes or 50,000 genes to adapt and survive, those genes are divided into the same three categories: currently expressed, expressed but not currently, never expressed. 

While the precise ratios vary from species to species, a certain general pattern is conserved: genes currently expressed constitute the largest part of the genome (40% to 70%), followed by currently unexpressed genes, followed by their never expressed genetic understudies (5% to 20%). 

With no experimental evidence and no theory to support it, we are tempted to speculate that evolution is coaxing all species toward a certain common mean: 54%, 30%, 16%, i.e. the terms of the cubic polynomial: X + X² + X³ = 1. 

What’s so astounding? If true, it means that the evolution is  acting in itself; evolution itself evolving. The same process of variation and selection that operates at the species level operates on the level of the biosphere. Mark Zuckerberg would call this, Metalution. 

Natural selection has apparently settled on an optimum balance of stability, growth, and flexibility across the biosphere, from bacteria, to fungi, to humans (and other vertebrates), and to plants (including the glorious fern). This suggests that cybernetics (systems theory) is substructural to biology itself. 

This phenomenon is also non-exclusively consistent with the current consensus that life per se emerged only once in the 4 billion year history of Planet Earth. While it is, I suppose, possible that life synthesized multiple times with each germline converging to produce the present spectrum of life forms, it is highly improbable.

So while you and I don’t seem to have much in common, we both share a lot with the lowly fern. So to paraphrase the old chestnut, “Be kind to your friends in the forest, for a fern may be somebody’s father.”

Keep the conversation going.

1. Click here to comment on this TWS.

2. To subscribe (at no cost) to TWS and ATM, follow this link.

3. We encourage new articles and reprints from freelance writers; click here to view out Writers’ Specs.