Ties That Bind

There would I find a settled rest,
while others go and come;
no more a stranger or a guest,
but like a child at home.

-Psalm 23, para. Isaac Watts (1674-1748)

Is it strange  that someone with almost no religious training has several biblical passages memorized?  Maybe not, since many of the old songs and musical arrangements that we learned in chamber choir were based on religious texts or ideas. This particular excerpt is from the end of an arrangement that we sang my senior year of high school.  While I don't recall most of the song, this part of the piece always stuck out as memorable.  Rather than any sort of divine, otherworldly experience, heaven is expressed in warmth and comfort of coming home.  The sense of truly belonging somewhere, seen through the innocent, unjaded eyes of a child.  As depictions of heaven go, this is definitely one of my favorites.

Even though I am a "grown up" now, I still love the thought of going home and being surrounded by my family.  I miss my parents and siblings and I am excited to be flying home for the holidays.  Most places you visit, you usually the need to be on your best behavior, to be entertaining and engaging.  But home is a place where you can just be.  Family sees you at your best and your worst and they still love you.  You don't always agree on things or even like each other, but the bonds of family endure.

DNA.  Deoxyribonucleic acid.  Lots of time little nucleic acids bonded together into a double stranded helical pattern.  Replicating over and over to produce the blueprint for each structure in the body.  It is almost incomprehensible to think that humans share 99.5% of their DNA with chimpanzees, and yet each human has a unique DNA profile that can be distinguished from all other humans.  DNA is both individualizing and encompassing, as is separates (distinguishes) the individual human from their contemporaries while simultaneously connecting humans to all other living organisms on earth.  In this image, a little girl returns home with the skeletal remains of her sister.  Unbreakable invisible bonds of DNA link the girl to what is left of her sister's bones, even though the recognizable features of flesh have been obliterated by decomposition.

DNA offers a powerful tool for identifying individuals and identifying those who we are closest to genetically.  In this case, the little girl is reunited with the remains of her relative combining the shared experiences and memories of family members with the shared genetic inheritance.  In this way, the siblings are able to return home together.

No more a stranger or a guest.

A War for Hearts and Minds?

Human evolution fascinates me.  The lack of acceptance of evolutionary theory in regards to human development astounds and horrifies me.

I designed this piece to express what I thought was a clear view on evolution.  Basically, the image depicts the evolutionary lineage leading to Homo sapiens, starting with Au. afarensis at the bottom.  Au. boisei is the skull that is placed off to the left and represents an off shoot of the hominin lineage that branches away from the human lineage on a different evolutionary trajectory, eventually becoming extinct.  The skulls that continue up the torso are Homo erectus, followed by archaic Homo sapiens, then Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.  In this depiction, Neanderthals are considered to be a subspecies of Homo sapiens, rather than a separate species, which is still a hotly debated topic amongst paleoanthropologists.

Originally, many were convinced that Neanderthals and humans were biologically distinct species that did not interbreed due to the lack of admixture in mitochondrial DNA sequences of modern humans.  But more recent studies comparing nuclear DNA mixture, suggest the possibility that admixture may have indeed been occurring as modern humans and neanderthals appear to have genetic overlap.

The hand in the upper left corner of the picture is holding an apple, which the girl is reaching for.  In my original interpretation the girl represents modern humans, and evolutionary lineage of hominins is indelibly imprinted fundamental structure of her existence and physical morphology.  The hand represents an unknown omnipotent deity, extending the "fruit of knowledge," although the gesture can be seen as a taunt since there is no way for the girl to actually reach the information.

After finishing the design I quickly, and a bit glibly or maybe snarkily wrote up this description of the piece:

"even with all the evidence supporting an evolutionary path of human origins, the search for supernatural explanations continues with answers danging, forever, just out of reach (2011/Sept. 12)"


It has been several months since I finished the piece and since then I have had found myself re-evaluating my initial description of the work and even the very thought process behind it.  While I still agree with my original plan for the girl depicting human evolution, the relationship between the girl and the hand has bothered me.  Rather than depicting a negative view of God, the hand could instead be culture as a whole including a human drive to understand existence in terms of a divine presence, or even another human passing cultural knowledge on to the next generation.  While some cultural learning may be incorrect or illogical, the adaptation of culture is uniquely human.  


Since most of my training is in biology I sometimes forget the importance of recognizing the importance of culture as an adaptation for humans.  It is easy to criticize what we don't fully understand.  Rather than invoking the imagery of a war between evolution and religion, this piece can simultaneously represent the dual forces of cultural knowledge and biological adaptation that contribute to the modern understanding of the species Homo sapiens sapiens.  If I were asked to describe the piece today I think I would choose this description instead:


"anthropology: a multi-faceted approach to understanding and connecting hearts, minds and morphological origins (2011/Nov. 28)"

Giraffefish and Other Nonsense

I love this painting.  It was made by one of my best friends, and it has inspired several debates about the nature of the universe and the existence of unknown or impossible creatures (such as a giraffe fish).  During one of these debates I found myself arguing the position that even though there is no tangible proof that giraffe fish exist, the possibility of their existence should not be ruled out on that basis alone.  My friend on the other hand, argued that since there is no proof of the existence of giraffe fish, it is foolish to even consider the possibility of the existence of such a creature.  While I was focused on the immensity of the ocean and the likelihood that there are numerous undiscovered species potentially living on our planet, my friend was debating the larger social question of the existence of God.  

Yes, in this case the fictitious character of the giraffe fish plays God.  

I suppose this issue brings up and interesting difference between atheism and agnosticism.  My friend is an atheist, or at least when we were discussing this topic several years ago she was. (I think she may have joined my agnostic/ indecisive worldview at this point, but that is an entirely different discussion.)  She had made up her mind that God did not exist and chastised me for being gullible/ naive enough to entertain the possibility of any form of supernatural deity.  In response I would argue that her strong belief in atheism is equally problematic since the main evidence she uses to argue against the existence of the divine is the failure of religion to prove its existence.

I consider myself agnostic.  I honestly have no idea whether or not there are supernatural forces existing in the world.  Sometimes I find this problematic.  While I have no evidence that there is any type of deity influencing the universe, I have equally little evidence to prove that one does not exist.  In this case, atheists and religious groups alike are basing their views on a belief system, or faith, as neither can provide evidence to substantiate their claims.  One key phrase that I have heard repeatedly in my studies or biology and anthropology is the adage "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."  This phrase basically sums up my reasons for being agnostic.  The lack of evidence from either side prevents an adequate basis for drawing an informed conclusion on the topic.  While the fundamental inconsistencies in accepted modern religions lead me to reject any specific doctrine, I realize that humans created religions and humans are fallible.  Yet, it is possible that a deity beyond human comprehension exists.  Until I can gather further evidence on god's existence or lack there of, I have chosen to accept the unknowability or the universe and remain my indecisive self.

Today I was thinking about whether it would be possible for a giraffe fish to evolve through the process of natural selection.  I realize "fish" is probably and inappropriate term to use, as I expect that the proposed organism would be a mammal, but technically all tetrapods are evolutionary descendants of fish.  More on that another time.

Anyway, upon considering the potential advantages and disadvantages of giraffe features in an aquatic environment the prospects aren't great.  First of all, the elongated thin neck of a giraffe would not be streamlined or effective in an aquatic environment, especially given a more massive torso.  Secondly, the general consensus in the scientific field is that marine mammals evolved from a wolf-like ancestor that returned to an aquatic environment.  Thus, an aquatic giraffe would probably represent a parallel evolutionary trajectory of an herbivorous quadruped that returned to the water and adapted to the conditions by developing fins (ect.). While parallelism are common in mammalian evolutionary history, my friend had a point when she noted that an aquatic giraffe-like creature would probably have difficulty remaining unnoticed by humans since it would need to breath oxygen, and would need to be fairly large to maintain mammalian metabolic functions in an aquatic environment.  

That being said, I challenge anyone to completely disprove the possibility of the existence of a giraffe fish.