 |
| DNA sequencing reveals humans' relationships to other animals, like chimps. |
Like most middle class American children, I first learned
about the tree of life and chain of survival from Disney’s The Lion King. However, the popular film neglects to inform us
about which animals we are most related to and the degree of similarity between
us. One can examine this from a scientific point of view, but a religious
standpoint can also be applied.
In his book The
Language of God, Francis S. Collins, a physician and geneticist from
Virginia, explored the formerly invisible connection between science and
religion through his study of the human genome. He concluded that these studies
allowed him to understand “God’s instruction book.”
Collins’ diagram of the tree of life uses brackets to show
how different animals, including humans, are connected, but also uses the
length of the line to show how different the animals are. A longer line
represents a more significant difference.
Finding very short lines between the humans, chimpanzees
and orangutans was not surprising to this Rafiki fan, but realizing that our
next closest relatives are rabbits, guinea pigs and porcupines came as a shock.
Collins is able to make this connection because human DNA
sequences are most closely related to the chimpanzee’s. DNA sequencing is the
process in which a scientist maps the sequence of nucleotides, or DNA molecules
that make up a DNA strand.
These sequences begin to differ more with the rabbit, and
even more with the elephant and more so still with the tenrec, the
hedgehog-resembling mammal of Madagascar. Studies showing similarities in
anatomy support these findings.
Collins asserts that the ability to see these connections
between species allows scientists to understand the language of God. He
acknowledges that this relationship to faith is up for debate, but the concrete
DNA findings prove our connection to other animals, even if The Lion King’s tree of life failed to
inform me of my relationship with the llama.
I really enjoyed the connection you made to the The Lion King in this post and I can also see that this book made you think like I did. There was so much scientific information and it offered so much other information in it like the different views of Christianity and science combined. Do you think Collins philisophical views of this book were interesting like I did? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteI also enjoyed your Lion King reference, one of my personal Disney favorites. It seems as though we both read this book for our review. If you are comfortable discussing religion, do you mind me asking if Collins' story was beneficial to you in understanding where you stand on the issue? Or did he leave you with more questions than answers, as he did for me?
ReplyDeleteKendall, I definitely did draw parallels to philosophy while reading! I don't know if you're familiar with the philosopher John Searle, but he studied the connection between humans and machines. He ran experiments, particularly his most famous Chinese Room experiment, where he attempted to prove that machines cannot think on their own while the public was debating that they could. I saw this connection because Searle's critics said that humans are just the most complex machines, so other machines would eventually be able to think. However, I agree with Searle. The human genome leads us to believe that we are machines, just made up of the perfect parts. Collins' connection to faith, though, solidified my belief that we are still made in God's image. We are not just machines; we are made with a divine likeness.
ReplyDeleteNina, I'm definitely comfortable discussing religion. I'm a Catholic, and I think I was left with more answers in contrast to you. However, I'm not sure I opened my mind up enough like Collins wanted us to. He began with the disclaimer that this book would challenge our beliefs and even make us uncomfortable. I, though, ended with the same notions because I read each of Collins' examples with my preconceived conclusions in mind. For example, when he talked about the Big Bang, I was still thinking about all of the critiques that claim that a divine creator was still needed. The questions I formed from reading were more about the particulars of the science because I didn't understand it all thoroughly, rather than questions about the main theological and philosophical ideas in the reading.
Interesting! How long and how far out do Collins' tree of life brackets go out to? Did he just stop with what species humans are relative to, or did he try and start with the minute forms of life and work his way up?
ReplyDeleteI feel that scientists such as Collins are an important voice because they prove that science and faith are compatible. I liked how you chose an example that most people have exposure to, The Lion King, to illustrate the importance of science in filling in the gaps of our understanding that popular media fails to provide. I was wondering how important faith was to you, and whether you experienced tension between scientific principles and your personal religious views.
ReplyDeleteAmaya, Collins' tree brackets focused on a morrow narrow scope. He didn't name all animals, but rather started where the tenrec is at the top and the humans, along with our closest relatives, are at the bottom. I believe this was effective in illustrating his point because it allowed readers to focus on how diverse relations are even at this small scope. It also allowed us to look closely at our relatives and find out that we are indeed somewhat closely connected to animals we may not have considered before, like the porcupine.
ReplyDeleteHana, as I described in my comment earlier, religion is very important to me. I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school for nine years and was very involved in my youth ministry program during high school. I still attend mass and Bible study here. Because my beliefs have been strengthened over the years, I didn't find myself doubting them after reading this book. However, I don't think I opened myself up in the way Collins challenged us at the beginning. I still found myself rejecting scientific theories or skimming over heavy science portions. I did, though, connect my affiliations to scientific findings in ways I never had before.