This week, I came across a Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) series about recipients of the Lasker-Koshland Special Achievement Award in Medical Science. My understanding is that this award in medicine often (not always) is a precursor to getting a Nobel Prize.
One of the recipients was Lucy Shapiro PhD. In the issue of JAMA, she wrote an essay about her research. I get JAMA delivered to me weekly, so I read the article in its entirety. Most but not all of this specific article can be found online without a subscription here.
Dr. Shapiro has done amazing work. A great review of her work (written by her) can be found via open access at a link in the Annual Review of Genetics. One of her most important works was published in Science in 2000. Her research showed that in a bacterial species (Caulobacter crescentus) often used as a model for binary fission (or cell replication), activation of genes occurred in a temporal manner similar to a “hardwired circuit.” In other words, these bacteria always had a large number of genes that always worked in the same way to get bacteria to divide. In the case of C. crescentus, the work of replication used 15% of its genome that always worked the same way with every replication event. Interestingly, a protein called CtrA (or “Cell-cycle transcription regulator A”) was uniquely involved in initiating the genetic cycle.
Image of C. crescentus (from Nature Reviews)
Thus, these same genes (about 500 in total) were used every time in cell replication. The same protein (CtrA) was used every time to activate these same genes.
Image from Molecular Cell
As someone who enjoys writing about process theology and open & relational theology, I can see some subjective narratives about existence here. I might be seeing some the life cycle of C. crescentus as a teleological metaphor of God’s participation in the world.
C. crescentus cell cycle (from Virginia Tech University)
What do I mean? I think there are two aspects to consider.
First, there is the element of time. Process philosophy and its theological cousins consisting of process theology and open & relational theology state that time is an essential part of existence. Per this on-line article written by John Cobb, “God’s efficacy in the world, requires that God be actual, like the actual occasions. But because God relates to all actual occasions through time, God cannot be momentary as they are. Instead, God is the one actual entity who is everlasting.” Elsewhere in the article, he writes, “Process thought points to the flow of experience through time. This can be identified as the psyche or soul, or even as the person.”
In order to accept any ideas surrounding process philosophy / process theology / open & relational theology, one has to accept the absolute importance of time. Time indicates change. Every entity is in time and has the ability to change. God is present in time and aware of this change.
Second, this change may have limits. In my book, A Theology of the Microbiome (SacraSage Press), I state that time and change are ubiquitous throughout nature. However, this change could have limits.
A thought experiment: Let us suppose theologically that God desires novelty or creativity or change throughout time at all levels of nature. Let us also suppose that God’s desire is based on a type of divine love consiting of God wanting change to occur freely at all levels of nature without God’s interference. God desires novelty, but God also desires nature to freely make changes. Nature may change at certain levels of existence at a point in time. Nature may not change at certain levels of existence at a point in time. The continual Divine desire for continuation of change occurs in real time.
In my book, I invent a term that I call “lim Δ” of a limit (lim) to change (Δ). I state the following:
“Importantly, God desiring freedom and creativity for all entities in nature is also associated with nature freely putting limits on potential creativity (lim Δ). All such creativity in nature and the universe can include God’s co-creative aspect while still being naturalistic in character.”
God desires nature to have the capacity to change which includes the freedom to not change.
An electron has mass, charge, and spin that essentially never changes. One could argue that lim Δ is quite strong in the setting of the electron.
In my discussion of Dr. Shapiro’s work above, the genes involved in the replication of Caulobacter crescentus essentially do not change. Also, CtrA always is the driving force of turning on the replicative genes. Of course, these genes will and have changed through time via evolutionary forces, but the change seems to be very slow. Again, one could argue that lim Δ is quite strong in the setting of binary fission in C. crescentus but not as strong as what occurs with the electron’s inherent properties.
When considering God’s desire for change / novelty / creativity, there are a few theolgical questions to ask.
Does lim Δ become less of an effect as entities get larger? I am not so sure. For example, a sun’s “life” cycle is very dependent on the type of sun which is based on the known laws of physics. Galactic rotation seems a pretty universal aspect of galaxies as well based on physical laws.
Does lim Δ exert less of an effect in the setting of biologic molecules or organisms compared to non-organic molecules?
Does lim Δ exert less of an effect in the setting of larger organisms or organisms with more advanced neurological systems? Does a human being has less lim Δ restriction compared to a bacterium or a mouse? Does the Pando tree clone in Utah (the largest living organism on Earth) have less or more lim Δ compared to a human being?
The Pando (image from the U.S. Forest Service)
If life exists elsewhere, does that life have less, more, or an equal amount of lim Δ compared to life on our planet? Does so-called “advanced life” have the same lim Δ as H. sapiens? A potentially good resource to consider such ideas has been published by Dr. Andrew Davis in the journal, Zygon.
Does lim Δ have some association with logic?
I have no current answers, but the work of Dr. Shapiro brings up some fascinating philsophical and theological ideas to consider. Honestly, I think such ideas extrapolated to free will, physical limitations of the universe, and God’s presence in creativity (or lack thereof…) should lead to much more thought and discussion.
Image made by Gemini Advanced
Phi-The-Sci: Equilateral Musings 