There is a problem in genetics, supposedly. According to J.C. Sanford in Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, we have well-developed theories for how natural selection takes place, but we cannot account for the rate of entropy that occurs in genes due to mutations. If mutations occured according to entropy, we would expect a chronic degradation of the quality of all life on Earth. Now Sanford is a Young Earth Creationist, i.e., he believes the Earth is 6,000 years old; I am an evolutionist. But he has a great point: how in the world can we account for really old genetic information being preserved?

Now I am no geneticist, but I know a thing or two about creativity. Evolution is just creativity in speciation. Said differently, creativity is evolution in general. Whatever holds true in general for one, i.e., without regard for the medium of information (genes, etc.), will hold true for the other.

Sanford takes the view that no new genetic information can be produced—and we should therefore believe the Bible is 7,000 years old and Noah died at 900 some-odd-years-old. I don’t think that’s quite right. It dawned on me this evening, while sitting on the tile kitchen floor looking up and across at the bottom of the pan of ground turkey and minced onion my roommate was preparing, that there is an analogue between cultural forms and genes. Cultural forms degrade over time, like the loss of tightly knit communities as our lives become more segmented, more atomic. Yet it is possible, though difficult, to “resurrect,” as it were, old cultural forms by finding them buried in books, in small pockets of society, in stories, in our collective imagination. We can reimagine old functions in new ways, we can look to nature for wisdom, or we can even rediscover old behaviors through our own inner intuition without outside guidance. It is possible to reverse the cultural entropy by either (1) rediscovering old forms that have been lost and are now readily desired again, and reintegrating them by distributing them en masse, or (2) by reverse engineering old forms through the absence of a needed function. Thus, I conclude that new genetic information can be produced, mutation can be reversed. What follows is my own proposition, based loosely on evidence and mostly on inference.

In case (1), population stresses incite a statistically significant desire to prefer mating with those who have not lost those old forms, or to reactivate gene expressions that have been deactivated over generations. The psyche identifies biological needs and facilitates sexual selection toward individuals who have those needs met, by way of their genes being successful. The urgency of a need determines how swiftly the selective pressures force a genetic bottleneck. A similar process can happen in an individual with a deactivated gene expression. A need is identified, and by looking to others who follow a particular lifestyle that maintains that gene expression and mirroring them, those health-promoting genes can be reactivated.

In case (2), a mutated gene leads to the loss of an important function. That function is understood by a lack, by destruction in the organism. The cells can sense areas within the membrane that are repeatedly damaged. So can your mind with the whole body. Except in the case of easy fixes, it is not uncommon that what happens with something broken is not that the process is fixed for good but that another process or another gene is repurposed to fill that lack, however imperfectly. (Think jerry-rigging your broken car coolant line with duct tape and often refilling the antifreeze instead of just getting your radiator lines fixed. No, I haven’t done this before…) But what if like how you can modify how you walk so you stop stubbing your toe over and over, your cells could reinvent genes that are associated with the damage production? This reinvention would look like experimentation. First, the cell would find the gene that is activated causing the damage. Then, the cell would try mutating the base pairs in different combinations to see if it fixes the problem. It’s like tinkering on your car to see what makes things better or worse. It is a cellular imagination of sorts. Then, when it finds the fix, all better! And if this is a mutation shared across cells in a tissue, perhaps it could communicate the fix to its neighbors or even send a signal to the gametes. That sounds harder though.

(Addendum, 4/8/2020)
Judging from the law of cultural regeneration, I suspect another mechanism for the rejuvenation of degraded genetic information relates to dependencies between genes. It is well known many genes are responsible for regulating other genes; further, that many genes have multiple functions under various circumstances; even further, that methyl tags allow for a selective and circumstantially-dependent expression of genes. Presumably, these properties of genetic information would allow for the fixing of mutations by “looking back through the catalogues of citations” to find what gene was not allowing other genes to be properly expressed, as determined by a missing function. However, a problem I did not address in writing this piece yesterday was that mutations in somatic cells (body cells) are not drivers of generational genetic entropy. Only sexual cells with mutations are heritable, and, moreover, somatic cells are already known to possess mechanisms for the repair of broken nucleotide chains. Nevertheless, my insight is still sound: the relationship between cultural patterns and genetic patterns is quite compelling, and answers in the genetic domain may be discoverable by investigating their more outward analogues in culture. My primary interest is in expanding the set of possible explanations for the apparent lack of total genetic depravity. It may be that, as sexuality is not the essence of the human will to live but the most visible expression thereof (contra Freud), the modification of haploid cell DNA may be reflective of something that happens on the whole body. If this trend extrapolates, then we should expect that as somatic cells repair their DNA, sexual cells also repair their DNA; they would be happening in tandem. Furthermore, as sexuality can serve as a leverage point in deep personal transformation, as perhaps the most pivotal behavior for behavior modification, it may be that somatic cell DNA repair can be coordinated through the repair of sexual cells. The gametes, coordinated through the various transport systems of the body and further coordinated through the central nervous system, may serve as a hub for the repair of genetic information. Perhaps when many body cells find a problem in their DNA, i.e., they have a mutation that is universal to the body rather than one that is local to their own mitotic processes, can (somehow) signal the body’s gamete cells to either (i) sexually select mates with better genes, (ii) use the erotic will to seek lifestyles that lead to an epigenetic relaxtion of an unexpressed gene capable of repairing that body-wide mutation, or (iii) share the correct (or better) form for the nucleotides as found at the cellular level and is subsequently applied to the haploid cells (although this only means the offspring will inherit the fix).
(End of addendum)

Of course, this is speculation. I don’t have evidence for this. I’m just digging into a faith in the scaling of creative phenomena. Perhaps someone can use this insight and go test it.

To deny that life can repair itself is to believe that the physical world is inherently evil, not worth living or appreciating apart from a promise of another world where everything is perfect. It is unfortunately thus easier for many to dream than to change. It is no wonder so many Young Earthers are strongly Protestant. The belief in a young world with genes that only decay fits with a hesitance to enact the good (as Protestants tend to avoid action out of a fear of working their way to God). Moral efforts in the world are analogous to genetic negentropy. To avoid moral effort because it is not believed that there is a natural means of spiritual rejuvination is consistent with believing that genes only decay and the world is only 6,000 years old. Protestants tend to stay on the crucifixion side of Jesus, even though the process of holy death allows for natural means of ressurection. As Christ died for sinners to gain eternal life, I suspect suffering can allow for the renewal of genes across populations through induced selective behaviors, the change in activation of gene expressions, and the possible reverse engineering of degraded or lost genes. Suffering and a corresponding sense of need provide the means for a genetic wisdom to produce a resurrection (or reinnovation) of genetic information.


April 7, 2020
San Luis Obispo