DNA and destiny

DNA and destiny are about as far removed as can be.



Destiny is the escapist tendency in India, that has been foisted upon the poor

unfortunates of yore by the tyrannical rulers of yore - that whatever will be,

will be (Que sera sera in French - NOT, for heaven's sake' K sera sera). I

believe that rulers (oppressors) needed to have something by which they could

slowly rigidify the caste system - and the means by which they could do so was

by entrenching themselves, making birth the only criteria by which your caste

was determined (instead of occupation - which is how it used to be a long, long

time ago), and giving the lower castes a means by which to dream on and hope

that in a later life they could get 'promoted' into the higher castes. They were

told that their present caste was their destiny (variously known, or subtly

redefined, as karma) and that it was because of sins in their past lives that

they were suffering in their present ones - and if they continued to commit

sins, there was no way out of their present conditions and bondage.



(I am sure there will be howls of protest at my explanations above - but, as I

said, these are MY views and MY interpretations. Hinduism has never denied any

individual the right to interpret or reinterpret it).



DNA, on the other hand, is something shaped by pure chance. It is the

combination of about half of the father's and half of the mother's genome, that

ensures that neither side can claim that the offspring is 100% from its side. Of

course, asexual reproduction, such as what occurs AFTER the egg is fertilised,

or when an amoeba reproduces by division and present-day cloning processes - all

ensure that there is NO additional variety introduced into the species. Well -

almost no additional variety . There is always the random mutation that happens

and introduces items like the 'Mule' (Foundation series by Asimov - anyone?) and

the stray cosmic ray that interferes with the reproductive process.



Why is it that there is only a male/female combination tha is needed to

reproduce? No idea. Why not have 3 parents? No idea. Probably (and this is pure

speculation on my part) because the combinations were tried and the two parent

requirement was the simplest that allowed for variety. And having more parents

required either too much cooperation among the multiple parents or required too

much waiting on the part of the offspring being fertilised to complete the

process. I can only imagine two ways that a 3-parent society would work - One of

the parents would have to be the bearer - and hence the female. The other two

would have to be the m1 and m2 (male 1 and 2). Wither m1, m2 and f1 need to

cooperate at the right time for all three or m1 and f1 need to cooperate - and

the partially fertilised egg needs to wait for m2 to come by and cooperate - on

the whole way too many ways in which the probability of the offspring not being

born.



The DNA is allowed to express itself in the individual in various ways. The most

obvious one is the XY chromosome combination v/s the XX chromosome combination

causing the person to be either male or female respectively. Other expressions

have been found and documented - scores of them in fact. It is now possible to

predict some rare cancers based on the existence or absence of some genes. But

before you say that a person is 'destined' to do something because it is in

his/her genes - wait! Recently there was a hue and cry about some gene that made

a male predisposed to being a violent person. This was done by studying some

known violent offenders and finding that an overwhelming number of them had this

gene. Much discussion ensued on whether such individuals should be tagged from

birth in some way - especially when it was a 'proven fact' that they would

become violent. Later, the research was extended to other males too - ones that

had never shown such tendencies. Surprise! The gene was present among many of

the lay public as well - and these individuals would have been tagged if the

earlier knee-jerk reaction had been followed-through on.



Later, after much meta analysis (analysis of various analyses) the researchers

came to the conclusion that it was a combination of the gene and the atmosphere

in which the child was brought up that let the violent tendencies be expressed.

Specifically, if the child with the 'violence' gene was neglected or abused as a

child, then the gene expressed itself - other children that received lots of

loving care and hugs and kisses, lived normal non-violent lives.



So much for DNA and destiny.