DNA as evidence

History is not merely an event but only an interpretation about an event. All the evidence that we present—be it textual, scriptural, archaeological, epigraphic and even DNA are mere interpretations of an event and not absolute truth about the event.

But among all other evidence, DNA is always in a slippery ground compared to other evidence. Because, it is also part of its dna—as the genes always take various mutations not allowing anyone to arrive at any definite conclusion.

As a lay person, one example comes to my mind. When science has so advanced that we can launch to discover Mars and even to study Sun, still the invention of a vaccine to cancer is evading all. Because of the continued mutation of genes which manages to adapt to all kinds of challenges to eradicate it. Even the treatment given to a cancer patient is no guarantee that it won’t continue to spread. This being the present reality, any theory based on DNA with added information from archaeology, epigraphic, textual evidence is not going to prove an authentic historical event.

One way it is good as more and more research and articles will continue to come, giving fodder to some people who like such intellectual ENTERTAINMENT.

As a digression I also want to bring a dead matter, still few want to keep alive—Ram [or Modi] Temple at ayodhya. Several papers and discussions about the temple by several [Dravidian] politicians centred on the ‘demolition’ of Babri Masjid. Whereas the fact is that a place is called ‘masjit’ where namaz is continuously performed. The structure also should have minars. Leaving the archaeological evidence which was disputed by both sides based on the INTERPRETATION of the existence of a temple structure under the demolished ‘structure’, there is strong textual evidence that too left by Muslims themselves about it. Even Aaurangzeep in his Alam Nama [autobiography like Akbar Nama] mentions that he sent his troops to fight against the Hindu kings who constantly resisted the construction of a complete Masit which was carried by so many Hindu kings in the past from the time of Babar himself. Apart from this there is so much other textual evidence from Islamic sources but I am not going to give them even in the footnotes.

So, in spite of undisputed historical textual evidence, still the dispute about Ram Mandir is refuse to die down, at least in Tamilnadu, where now DMK leaders again and again say that they have no problem in construction a temple for Ram but demolition of a Masjit is not acceptable to them. Whereas the disputed structure, in fact never was a Masjid but merely a building. The land records even before British time mentions the site as ‘Janmastha Majist’—janmastha = birth place. But whose birth place. Whose birth place? Babar’s or some other deities? There is no point in saying the same document mentions another word ‘Masjit’ which means that it was also a Masjid. Some structures gain some name, in the course of history. So this structure also gained that name. Even several Hindu temples that are in ruin where no puja is taking place are still called temples. The same with that disputed structure.

The reason for me to exhume this dead topic is to show that irrespective of strong undisputed textual evidence that too from Islamic sources while a recent event still remains subjected to various kinds of INTERPRETATIONS, what to say about DNA which evades anyone’s guess.

So, my view on Tony Joseph is that though he has written a wonderful book [Early Indians: The Story of our Ancestors and Where we came from’ New Delhi, Juggernaut Books, 2018] which I enjoyed very much, he only added some extra masala to the already existed cousin about the debate on ‘Aryan Migration’ which was discussed by various scholars in the past two hundred years. If I remember correctly someone even published a separate book on the bibliography on Aryan Migration Debate. This being the fact, what to say about the books and articles that continue to pour.

Comparative to all other historical evidence to INTERPRET history, DNA is a more unreliable one according to my unscientific lay man’s perspective.

7-2-2024

Ranjit Rana; Ahalya Bai, Jayaraj Kanwar Maharani with a woman force, constantly fought against to prevent the construction of a masjid. During British time one influential Muslim leader in Ayodhya Amir Ali and Hindu saint Ram Charan Das, in 1858 almost reached an agreement to hand over the dispute site to Hindus. But the British again used divide and rule and spoiled this agreement and hanged them both not agreeing with the agreement in a Tamarind tree filing case against them. Then that tree became a stie of worship. Then one Sukla tried to erect a statue for both of them. But the British conducted a fake trial and hanged him also in the same tree and later cut the tree.—Watch Prof. Srinivasan’s presentation in Youtube: https://www.facebook.com/share/r/xdvuP8huBEwidJrN/?mibextid=D5vuiz

DNA question

DNA sequencing has become routine, but the roles of individual genes can be hard to be pin.Credit: Peter Menzel/SPL

How Life Works: A User’s Guide to the New Biology Philip Ball Pan Macmillan (2024)

For too long, scientists have been content in espousing the lazy metaphor of living systems operating simply like machines, says science writer Philip Ball in How Life Works. Yet, it’s important to be open about the complexity of biology — including what we don’t know — because public understanding affects policy, health care and trust in science. “So long as we insist that cells are computers and genes are their code,” writes Ball, life might as well be “sprinkled with invisible magic”. But, reality “is far more interesting and wonderful”, as he explains in this must-read user’s guide for biologists and non-biologists alike.

When the human genome was sequenced in 2001, many thought that it would prove to be an ‘instruction manual’ for life. But the genome turned out to be no blueprint. In fact, most genes don’t have a pre-set function that can be determined from their DNA sequence.

Instead, genes’ activity — whether they are expressed or not, for instance, or the length of protein that they encode — depends on myriad external factors, from the diet to the environment in which the organism develops. And each trait can be influenced by many genes. For example, mutations in almost 300 genes have been identified as indicating a risk that a person will develop schizophrenia.

A tour of the evolution of minds

It’s therefore a huge oversimplification, notes Ball, to say that genes cause this trait or that disease. The reality is that organisms are extremely robust, and a particular function can often be performed even when key genes are removed. For instance, although the HCN4 gene encodes a protein that acts as the heart’s primary pacemaker, the heart retains its rhythm even if the gene is mutated1.

Another metaphor that Ball criticizes is that of a protein with a fixed shape binding to its target being similar to how a key fits into a lock. Many proteins, he points out, have disordered domains — sections whose shape is not fixed, but changes constantly.

This “fuzziness and imprecision” is not sloppy design, but an essential feature of protein interactions. Being disordered makes proteins “versatile communicators”, able to respond rapidly to changes in the cell, binding to different partners and transmitting different signals depending on the circumstance. For example, the protein aconitase can switch from metabolizing sugar to promoting iron intake to red blood cells when iron is scarce. Almost 70% of protein domains might be disordered.

Classic views of evolution should also be questioned. Evolution is often regarded as “a slow affair of letting random mutations change one amino acid for another and seeing what effect it produces”. But in fact, proteins are typically made up of several sections called modules — reshuffling, duplicating and tinkering with these modules is a common way to produce a useful new protein.

DNA alone cannot reveal how life works.Credit: Philippe Plailly/SPL

Later in the book, Ball grapples with the philosophical question of what makes an organism alive. Agency — the ability of an organism to bring about change to itself or its environment to achieve a goal — is the author’s central focus. Such agency, he argues, is attributable to whole organisms, not just to their genomes. Genes, proteins and processes such as evolution don’t have goals, but a person certainly does. So, too, do plants and bacteria, on more-simple levels — a bacterium might avoid some stimuli and be drawn to others, for instance. Dethroning the genome in this way contests the current standard thinking about biology, and I think that such a challenge is sorely needed.

Neuroscience needs some new ideas

Ball is not alone in calling for a drastic rethink of how scientists discuss biology. There has been a flurry of publications in this vein in the past year, written by me and others2^–4. All outline reasons to redefine what genes do. All highlight the physiological processes by which organisms control their genomes. And all argue that agency and purpose are definitive characteristics of life that have been overlooked in conventional, gene-centric views of biology.

This burst of activity represents a frustrated thought that “it is time to become impatient with the old view”, as Ball says. Genetics alone cannot help us to understand and treat many of the diseases that cause the biggest health-care burdens, such as schizophrenia, cardiovascular diseases and cancer. These conditions are physiological at their core, the author points out — despite having genetic components, they are nonetheless caused by cellular processes going awry. Those holistic processes are what we must understand, if we are to find cures.

Ultimately, Ball concludes that “we are at the beginning of a profound rethinking of how life works”. In my view, beginning is the key word here. Scientists must take care not to substitute an old set of dogmas with a new one. It’s time to stop pretending that, give or take a few bits and pieces, we know how life works. Instead, we must let our ideas evolve as more discoveries are made in the coming decades. Sitting in uncertainty, while working to make those discoveries, will be biology’s great task for the twenty-first century.

Nature 626, 254-255 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00327-x

References