The Dolphin-Human Connection

Dolphin - from Studentsoftheworld.infoI recently visited a site called Mother Earthbeats, where I found a post called Dolphins and Humans .. are we related? which in turn took me to a site called Earthcode run by Paula Peterson, which elaborates on the Dolphin-Human Connection — and what a very interesting connection it is.

In a nutshell, Paula says there’s mounting evidence that suggests we are more closely related to dolphins than we are to apes — that humans, dolphins and apes evolved from a common ancestor. You need to read the whole page to fully appreciate why she thinks this is so, but if it turns out that it’s true, doesn’t it make their continued slaughter a double-edged crime against nature? It’s been very obvious to us for a long time that they’re extremely intelligent creatures, and that fact alone should have been enough to make us stop the killing of all cetaceans years ago; now the evidence is pointing to them being our close cousins. Makes my soul shudder to think about what we’re doing to them.

Dolphin Animation - images from Dolphin Care UKMy further research into the matter took me to Dolphin Care UK, a site set up by Chris Lowes, a sub aqua diver from Hull in East Yorkshire. He’s horrified by the continued killing of the dolphins that inhabit the waters around Britain and has set up his site to monitor the situation and to try to do something about it. No fewer than twenty-eight species of cetaceans have been recorded around Britain’s coasts — fully one quarter of the UK mammal fauna — including Bottlenose Dolphin, Common Dolphin, Risso Dolphin, Atlantic White Sided Dolphin, White Beaked Dolphin, Striped Dolphin, Orca, and Harbour Porpoise.

(These images are from the Dolphin Care UK site, but the animation, and the sentiments, are my own creation.)

Chris says: The death of dolphins and porpoises in fishing nets is not only a conservation issue, but also a critical welfare matter. If we do not protect the dolphins now, will there be any left to protect in the future? A tighter control is needed to stop fishing boats from catching dolphins and porpoises in their nets. Dolphin Care UK is dedicated to the understanding of marine life through research, education, conservation and innovation, Dolphin Care UK is a non-profit organization founded in 2002. We all must help to protect our marine mammals and the environment in which they live, and to better understand the role and responsibility humans have in the management of marine mammals in the wild.

Dolphins in Moray Firth, Scotland - from The Scottish Government

Gracile or Robust?

Evolution - from BBC NewsWill your descendants be Eloi or Morlock? Gracile or Robust? Genetically superior upper-class or inferior, dim-witted underclass?

According to evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry, of the London School of Economics, in a report for satellite TV channel Bravo, there may well be just such a sub-division of humanity in about 100,000 years, eerily mirroring H. G. Wells’ vision of the future as told in The Time Machine, written in 1895.

Dr Curry predicts that it will take about 1,000 years for humans to evolve into giants between six and seven feet tall, while our life-spans will increase to 120 years. Our development will peak around the year 3,000 before our dependence on technology causes a decline in around 10,000 years. On the way, we’ll become choosier about our sexual partners, and this will eventually lead to the creation of the two sub-species.

The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative (what he calls “gracile”) and a far cry from the “underclass” humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures (“robust”).

Physical appearance, driven by indicators of health, youth and fertility, will improve, he says, while men will exhibit symmetrical facial features, look athletic, and have squarer jaws, deeper voices and bigger penises. Women, on the other hand, will develop lighter, smooth, hairless skin, large clear eyes, pert breasts, glossy hair, and even features, he adds. Racial differences will be ironed out by interbreeding, producing a uniform race of coffee-coloured people.

However, because of our reliance on technological gadgets designed to meet our every need, we could also come to resemble domesticated animals — important social skills, such as communicating and interacting with others, could be lost, along with emotions such as love, sympathy, trust and respect. We might become less able to care for others, or perform in teams. Physically, we may start to appear more juvenile. Chins could recede as a result of having to chew less on processed food. There could also be health problems caused by reliance on medicine, resulting in weak immune systems. Preventing deaths would also help to preserve the genetic defects that cause cancer.

“While science and technology have the potential to create an ideal habitat for humanity over the next millennium, there is a possibility of a monumental genetic hangover over the subsequent millennia due to an over-reliance on technology reducing our natural capacity to resist disease, or our evolved ability to get along with each other,” said Dr Curry.

Of course, all this assumes the human race will actually last that long. On the current evidence, I should think the jury is still out on that.

Still, evolution does appear to have a few interesting tricks still up its sleeve that might — just might — help us survive. Those tricks could be hiding in our junk.

DNA - from BBC NewsJunk DNA, that is. A BBC News report from 2004 explains how a collection of mystery DNA segments, previously considered to be unimportant “junk” amongst the genome structure, has been causing great interest amongst scientists because they seem to be critical for the survival of many animals. Researchers inspecting the genetic code of rats, mice and humans were surprised to find they shared many identical chunks of this apparently “junk” DNA. The implication is that the “junk” code is so important that even 75 million years of evolution in these mammals couldn’t alter or do away with it.

David Haussler of the University of California, Santa Cruz, US, and his team compared the genome sequences of man, mouse and rat. They found — to their astonishment — that several great stretches of DNA were identical across the three species. The regions largely matched up with chicken, dog and fish sequences, too. (You might, however, be pleased to know that they’re absent from sea squirt and fruit flies.)

But exactly what it’s all there for, what it all does, is a puzzle.

Graham Hancock's Supernatural - from Amazon.co.ukDNA is fascinating, almost magical, stuff. Graham Hancock, in his book Supernatural, writes: A double strand of DNA ten atoms wide and nearly two metres long is coiled up inside every human cell and DNA is found in every cell of every living creature. Within each and every adult human body, there’s about 125 billion miles of submicroscopic strands of DNA folded up within its cells. (Just ponder on that for a moment …)

The traditional viewpoint had it that the really crucial bits were genes, which code for proteins — the “building blocks of life”. A few other sections that regulate gene function were also considered useful. But Hancock reminds us that genes make up only about 3% of our DNA, while the function of the other 97% remains entirely unknown.

Hancock would have been finishing and publishing his book at around the time the scientists were making their new discoveries about the so-called junk DNA, so perhaps “entirely unknown” is no longer precisely correct — but there’s still a huge mystery involved here. Why would the process of evolution leave us today with so much more DNA than we apparently need? Why, indeed, would evolution allow any redundant — “junk” — DNA sequences at all to survive within our makeup, and for so long down the evolutionary line? The process of evolution is very efficient and highly selective: all the important stuff’s kept, the rest being discarded over time. Precious energy isn’t wasted on creating anything that isn’t useful in some way. So this begs the question: what’s it all for? Some of it — the bits the scientists have been teasing out most recently — may be for controlling the activity of indispensable genes and embryo development. But that leaves a humungous amount still to be figured out.

DNA - from lecb.ncifcrf.govHancock’s book posits a radical proposal. Building on the work of others, he offers support for the idea that hidden messages, teachings and revelations were long ago coded into it by ‘clever entities’ … Perhaps our ancestors’ discovery of trance techniques and widespread use of hallucinogens not only shattered five million years of mental rigidity with extraordinary and life-changing experiences, but also gave them access to specific information, recorded billions of years previously in their DNA, deposited there by [Swiss anthropologist Jeremy] Narby’s ‘clever entities’, to await the evolution of creatures that could make use of it. Perhaps this information was packaged by its makers in such a way as to be responsive to, and highly interactive with, the cultural preconceptions of just about any creatures above a certain level of intelligence that evolution might eventually produce. Radical, indeed. But there’s no doubt that something extraordinary happened to our cave-dwelling antecedents around 40,000 years ago, producing the first art and religions, and initiating the whole suite of recognizably modern behaviour.

Perhaps also, eventually, in a distant, unknowable future ten thousand millennia hence, the purpose of this “junk” DNA will be fully revealed in the tall, gracile Eloi, and their cousins, the squat, robust Morlocks.

First, though, we’d better figure out how to save our planet — and ourselves along with it — in the immediate future.

Religion & Consciousness

On a private discussion board to which I subscribe, we’ve been discussing religion. Someone recently asked the members this question: “What do you believe in?” This was my reply:

I’ve just finished reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I thought it was very interesting and worth the time I invested to get through it.

I’m now ordering Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene and Charles Darwin‘s The Origin of Species for a little more light reading!

I’ve always assumed I understood the processes underlying evolution (even though I’ve not read any of the major works explaining it) but I realise now that’s not the case. Since I’ve given the Bible an open-minded read (several times) and have sampled the literature of other religions, it seems only fair now to spend some time to properly acquaint myself with the scientific side of the equation.

Dawkins makes the point that many people misunderstand natural selection as being a theory that involves the vicissitudes of random chance leading to the highly improbable, incredibly complex end results we see all around us in the natural world, giving rise to statements along the lines of “How could something as aerodynamically perfect as the wing of a bird, or as complex as an eye, possibly have evolved by pure chance? Surely these things – and so many others like them – must involve intelligent design?” I’ve been known to utter similar statements myself. It’s only now that I’m beginning to truly understand how nature can fool us.

A deep understanding of Darwinism teaches us to be wary of the easy assumption that design is the only alternative to chance, and teaches us to seek out graded ramps of slowly increasing complexity. Before Darwin, philosophers such as Hume understood that the improbability of life did not mean it had to be designed, but they couldn’t imagine the alternative. After Darwin, we all should feel, deep in our bones, suspicious of the very idea of design. The illusion of design is a trap that has caught us before, and Darwin should have immunized us by raising our consciousness.
- Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Chapter Four

I think there are aspects of ‘spiritual’ truth to be found in all ancient religions. The pursuit of this truth has something to do with the act of endeavouring to raise one’s consciousness to a higher ‘level’, and past masters have shown that it’s possible to achieve this by subjecting one’s body and mind to one or more of several diverse disciplines – meditation, breathing, exercise, dancing, imbibing of certain naturally-occurring flora and fungi … the list is extensive. There are few things in this world that we can truly call our own. Our consciousness is one of them – possibly, in the final analysis, the only one. Who, then, has the right to deny us the freedom to explore and develop our own consciousness in whatever way we see fit?

One of those past masters, G.I. Gurdjieff, taught that in our waking state we like to say we’re ‘fully conscious’ and experiencing the world around us in all its glory when we’re really still asleep and moving through life as though in a dream, in a state of subjective consciousness. We’re buffeted from all sides by circumstances and events to which we can only respond defensively and retroactively. To work on ourselves in an effort to raise our conscious level, to move into a state of higher, objective consciousness where we experience the universe as it really is, is an aim to which we can all aspire.

There do exist enquiring minds, which long for the truth of the heart, seek it, strive to solve the problems set by life, try to penetrate to the essence of things and phenomena and to penetrate into themselves. If a man reasons and thinks soundly, no matter which path he follows in solving these problems, he must inevitably arrive back at himself, and begin with the solution of the problem of what he is himself and what his place is in the world around him.
- G.I. Gurdjieff