What is Life? Apples and Oranges - All Other Things Being Equal

In this YouTube podcast edition, Dr. Orville Weyrich, Jr NMD PhD and host Mike Farrell discuss topics including:

1. Listener Question: What is Life? How are Cells the Same but Different? [5:40]
2. What is Truth: Apples and Oranges - All Other Things Being Equal [33:20]
3. What Dr. Weyrich does at his Office [46:00]

The following discussion is taken in part from my PowerPoint presentations that I taught to my undergraduate microbiology students at Maricopa Community College district and Grand Canyon University.

What Is Life?

"A living thing ... has an organized structure, can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, adapt, and maintain homeostasis. [Living things] include any animal, plant, fungus, protist, bacterium, or archaeon on Earth." [philosophy-question.com]

Where Do Living Things Come From?

Aristotle (Greek philosopher, 350 BC) proposed the "Theory of Spontaneous Generation," which says that "Living organisms can originate from inanimate objects. E.g. dust creates fleas, maggots arise from rotting meat, and bread or wheat left in a dark corner produces mice" [study.com]

Louis Pasteur (French biologist, microbiologist and chemist, 1822-1895): His scientific experiments disproved the theory of spontaneous generation. Instead, he proposed the Theory of Biogenesis, which says that "Life creates life." However, this begs the question of how did life first originate? Where did the first living organism come from?.

What Are Cells?

"A cell is defined as the smallest, basic unit of life that is responsible for all of life's processes. Cells are the structural, functional, and biological units of all living beings. A cell can replicate itself independently. Hence, they are known as the building blocks of life. [byjus.com]

Rudolf Virchow (Prussian [German] physician, anthropologist, pathologist, 1821-1902): proposed Cell Theory, which states that "All cells come from cells." However, this begs the question of how did cells first originate? Where did the first cell come from?.

How Are All Cells the Same?

All known cells on Earth have a cell membrane which encloses DNA. This includes all living things from bacteria to humans.

Specifically, the DNA in each cell contains all the instructions (genetic code) for making a copy of the cell (also called replication).

As I said, all cells have the ability to replicate themselves. That means that all cells have the ability to make a copy of their DNA.

What is most striking is that all living cells share a common genetic code. You and I share the same basic genetic code as the simplest cells, which are bacteria.

This genetic code consists of 64 possible different three-letter "words" formed from all permutations (arrangements) of the "alphabet" of A, C, G, T, e.g. words "AAA", ACA, AGA, ATA, ACC, etc. all the way to "TTT."

Each of these 64 possible three-letter words represents one of 20 different amino acids, or else a period (full stop).

In all known life forms on Earth, from the simplest bacteria to the most complex humans, the same genetic code is used to represent the same amino acids. These amino acids are joined together in long chains to create proteins.

In all known life-forms on Earth, the DNA consists of a linear sequence of three-letter words that form the blue-print for making all the different proteins found in each cell of the life-form. These proteins include enzymes that carry out the many different biochemical processes in each cell.

All living cells contain a way to translate their DNA into proteins.

What is even more remarkable is that overall biochemical processes of all living cells are similar, and performed by enzymes that have similar (but not exactly the same) proteins.

In conclusion, all living cells in all known species, from bacteria to humans, appear to share the same basic design, which includes a way to copy their DNA to make new cells, and the ability to translate their DNA into protein.

How Are Cells of Different Species Different?

While all cells contain DNA, which is copied (replicated) to create new cells belonging to the same species, different species have distinctly different organizations of their DNA. For example, bacteria generally have a single large circular strand of DNA plus multiple short circular strands of DNA called plasmids.

On the other hand, humans have 46 non-circular strands of DNA called chromosomes, plus a single circular strand of DNA inside the mitochondria contained in human cells (excluding sperm cells). Mitochondria are critically important to conversion of fats and carbohydrates into energy, and the detoxification of environmental toxins.

Roundworms have 2 chromosomes, chimpanzee have 48 chromosomes, and hermit crab have 254 chromosomes.

In the plant world, the fern (botanical name = Ophioglossum reticulatum) has 1260 chromosomes, plus a circular strand of DNA contained inside their mitochondria, and a different circular strand of DNA contained inside their chloroplasts. Chloroplasts are critically important to conversion of sunlight into energy in plants.

Of course, each species has somewhat different DNA, which distinguishes each species from other species, but in the big picture, similar enzymes are coded that implement similar biochemical processes for all known living cells.

How Are Cells of Different Children from the Same Parents Different?

The general rules of heredity were first derived by Gregor Mendel (an Austrian monk, 1822-1884) while studying pea plants. [byjus.com]

Normally, humans get 23 chromosomes randomly chosen from their father's 46 chromosomes, and 23 chromosomes randomly chosen from their mother's 46 chromosomes, plus one circular strand of circular DNA from their mother's mitochondria.

Mathematically speaking, therefore each child has 2 to the power 23 (approximately 8 million) different possible combinations of chromosomes from their parents. Therefore, it is highly unlikely (except for the rare case of "congenital twins" that arise from splitting of a single fertilized egg) that siblings will have the same overall characteristics. Some features may "favor" the father, while other features may "favor" the mother, depending on which of the father's chromosomes and which of the mother's chromosomes were randomly chosen at conception.

Genetic Accidents (Errors in Reproduction)

Normally, each human child gets one of each of 23 different chromosomes from its mother, and 23 different chromosomes from its father, which results in a total of 46 chromosomes.

But very rarely, a human child may have more or fewer than 46 chromosomes, due to an accident in forming either the egg or the sperm.

Thus, a child may have 47 chromosomes if a reproductive accident takes two chromosomes from either the mother or father, producing:

• an XXY sex chromosome pattern, which is called Kleinfelter syndrome,
• an XYY sex chromosome pattern, which is called Jacob's syndrome,
• an XXX sex chromosome pattern, which is called triple X syndrome,
• three copies of chromosome 21, which is called Down syndrome or trisomy 21,
• three copies of chromosome 18, which is called Edwards syndrome or trisomy 18,
• three copies of chromosome 13, which is called Patau syndrome or trisomy 13.

On the other hand, a child may have 45 chromosomes if a reproductive accident fails to take a chromosome from either the mother or father, producing:

• an X sex chromosome pattern (sometimes written X0), which is called Turner syndrome.

NIH

All of these genetic accidents result in imbalances of the amount of various proteins produced in the child, which manifest as various observable syndromes. Various trisomies result in the over-production of some proteins, whereas monosomies result in the underproduction of some proteins. In all cases, the child appears to deviate from the norm in certain characteristic ways. Many other similar genetic accidents are not compatible with life, and result in fetal death before childbirth, often early in gestation.

There is a readily available blood test called a "karyotype" that can identify whether a person has one of the above genetic accidents.

There are many other kinds of genetic accidents that are outside my ability to diagnose; however I am familiar with the mechanisms of these accidents, since I have done artificial intelligence research at the University of Georgia (Athens) with computer modelling of these processes (genetic algorithms or genetic programming), and I have published papers on the subject in conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

How Are Cells of the Same Person Different?

We talk of muscle cells, brain cells (neurons), red blood cells, white blood cells, etc. that all people have. Generally speaking, all cells in a person's body contain the same DNA, half of which came from their mother and half of which came from their father.

But what makes muscle cells different from, for example, brain cells? The answer is that although both these kinds of cells contain the same DNA, different parts of each cell's DNA has been "turned on or off," in a process that is called "differentiation," which occurs mainly during fetal development or gestation.

This is a form of "epigenetics" that I have discussed in previous shows, in which different parts of the DNA are enabled (expressed) or suppressed (disabled), in other words turned on or off, based on the cellular environment during fetal development. This means that muscle cells produce different proteins than brain cells, and therefore have different features that support different activities in the body.

At this point, science does not understand all the factors that control cellular differentation during fetal development, but we do know that biochemical processes called "acetylation" and "methylation" are important in this process.

While science does not understand how cellular differentiation is controlled during gestation, the Psalm of David 139 verses 13-14 declares that "[God] formed my inward parts; [God] knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise [God], for I am fearfully and wonderfully made." [biblehub.com] At present, this appears to be as good of an explanation of of how cellular differentiation occurs during gestation as any explanation offered by science.

Cellular Evolution

It is well known that damage to DNA from events such as cosmic rays can occur, which then changes the DNA of child cells that are replicated from the damaged cells. In effect, the cells that result from damaged DNA are different, and are called "mutants." Most mutant cells are dysfunctional and are either unviable, or at a competitive disadvantage for further reproduction compared to their un-mutated peer cells. Most mutants therefore do not successfully reproduce, and "die off."

But occasionally, a mutant is "improved" in its ability to live in its current environment, compared with it's un-mutated peers. This is called a "competitive advantage" which allows the mutant form to prosper compared to its un-mutated peers, and over time overrun and replace its un-mutated peers. This is the basis of Darwin's theory of evolution, which is a cornerstone of secular "science" as taught in government-controlled schools in the USA.

The only problem with this theory is that it requires as its foundation the prior existence of cells containing DNA that are capable of reproduction.

Secular "science" has never demonstrated that nonliving inorganic matter can spontaneously combine to form a living cell. Although Aristotle did propose the Theory of Spontaneous Generation in 350 BC, this idea was debunked by Louis Pasteur circa 1895, who proposed instead the Theory of Biogenesis, which says that "Life creates life." Furthermore, Rudolf Virchow circa 1902 proposed Cell Theory, which states that "All cells come from cells."

Both the theories of Biogenesis and Cell Theory are well established scientific principles today, and the Theory of Spontaneous Generation has no scientific support. But Darwin's "Theory of Evolution" requires the prior existence of some form of life capable of reproducing itself and undergoing random mutations.

Note added 5/22/2023: A recent scientific paper further questions Darwin's theory of evolution, by pointing out that in order to "evolve" a new functional "feature," many separate "mutation events" are required in many different genes. These intermediate mutations, which occur at different random times, do not benefit the "evolving" organism until their confluence creates the functional new feature, such as an eye. Meanwhile, each of the individual mutations is not expected to create a more "fit" intermediate species (think "missing link"), because such non-functional mutations reduce the fittness of the intermediate species, either by disrupting existing functionality or or by adding "genetic baggage" that requires additional cellular energy to reproduce during cell replication [Brown and Hullender] Neo-Darwinism must Mutate to survive

An important aspect of the scientific method is that when comparing the effect of a "treatment" between two different groups or events, the only difference between the two groups should be the treatment variable. In order to have any meaningful discussion of the effect caused by a difference in treatment, all other relevant aspects of the two groups must be the same.

In common language, "you can't compare apples to oranges." In more scientific language, "all other things must be equal."

For a hypothetical example, you cannot meaningfully compare the effect of a vaccine on, for example, a group of young African-Americans and a group of old Asian-Americans. That is because there are TWO different characteristics that are changing: age and genetic make-up. If the young African-Americans have a better response to the vaccine than the old Asian-Americans, is that because young people have a better response than old people, or because African-Americans have a better response than Asian-Americans?

In this example, you could look at age as a factor, "all other things being equal." In other words, you could meaningfully compare the response of young African-Americans compared to old African-Americans. Or you could compare the response of young Asian-Americans versus old Asian-Americans.

Or you could look at genetic make-up as a factor, "all other things being equal." In other words, you could meaningfully compare the response of 20-year old African-Americans versus 20-year old Asian-Americans. But you would also want to make other possibly relevant factors equal between the two groups being compared, such as socioeconomic status, BMI (body mass index), average blood-sugar levels (diabetes status), etc.

These other factors "mess up" the scientific value of a study are called "confounding factors." When considering any scientific or statistical comparison, you should always look for possibly significant confounding factors, and find a way to control them so that "all other things are equal."

If you do not keep all of these other confounding factors that affect health equal in the study groups, then any difference between the two groups cannot be interpreted to be caused by age, genetic make-up, socioeconomic status, BMI, or diabetes status. All that could be determined for certain is that there appears to be some difference between the study groups, but we don't know what that difference can be caused by. More study is required to get a scientifically valid conclusion of possible cause and effect.

The take-home message is that when reading or listening to news reports that indicate a disparity of results between different "identity" groups (for example male versus female, Black versus White, etc.), always consider what the likely confounding factors might be, and look to see if the study that is being reported actually considered and controlled these confounding factors.

Example of Success "Equity"

For another example, when considering measures of success in life, it is clear that when confounding factors are ignored, Whites outperform Blacks. But why? The political left insists that the only possible explanation is that Whites are racists who oppress Blacks.

However, there are some serious confounding factors that need to be controlled for before arriving at such a conclusion.

For example, it is well-known that growing up in a two-parent family increases a child's chance for success. This is true when looking at White families and also when looking at Black families. It is also well-documented that the percentage of two-parent families is higher among White-Americans than it is among Black-American families. This means that single- versus two-parent family status is an important confounding factor which if not controlled for renders the comparison of success by race illogical and invalid.

In this example of comparing success based on race, other significant confounding factors can be proposed as well, such as educational level achieved, marriage status, etc. Without considering and controlling for these confounding factors, all that can be determined for certain is that there appears to be some difference between the study groups, but we don't know what that difference is caused by. More study is required to get a scientifically valid conclusion of possible cause and effect (what we call a diagnosis in medicine).

If we don't have an accurate diagnosis for the cause of this disparity, we cannot formulate an appropriate corrective treatment. Treating the wrong diagnosis can fail to achieve a cure, and even cause further harm. This is true both in medicine and in politics.

So where are the studies of so-called "race equity" that identify and control for the obvious confounding factors? How do we know whether racism is a factor if we have not addressed the obvious confounding factors? What if the primary causes of the racial disparity were due to confounding factors such as those discussed above? If that were actually the case, then the solution would be to promote intact two-parent family units, educational excellence, etc, rather than to blame racism and therefore pit one race against another.

Global Climate Change Example

Similar considerations apply to other major public policy concerns, such as the so-called "global climate change". The political left insists that the only possible explanation for global climate change is that it is caused by carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels and farting cows. But there are significant confounding factors, such as variations in solar output, the "heat island" effect in cities paved with concrete and asphalt, etc. Again, in the absence of an accurate diagnosis of the cause of apparent global climate change, no appropriate corrective treatment can be considered. Treating the wrong diagnosis can fail to achieve a cure, and even cause further harm.

•  >   
  Understanding Logic
•  >   
  The Scientific Method

This edition of Doctor's Housecall aired live on KMOG radio FM103.3 and AM1420 in Payson, AZ between 5pm and 6pm MST (Arizona Time) on March 15, 2022. Dr. Weyrich offers a free 15 minute consultation at +1 (888) 391-0414 to discuss any comments or questions you might have about this broadcast (subject to schedule availability).