Thoughts on “chemical bias” – the problem of the chemical interpretation of cellular activity and life in general

Here’s a thought I had:

I have always questioned DNA and other aspects of cellular activity.   I have a hard time believing that cellular activity, and life in general, is all based on chemicals and chemical reactions.  I have always felt that there is more to cellular activity than chemistry and DNA.

I tend to feel that there is a bias toward a chemical interpretation.  The reason for the tendency to chemical interpretation is no doubt because they are using chemistry as the primary means of their inquiry.  In other words, the use of chemistry as the primary way to look at cellular activity has, of course, created a bias to a chemical point of view.  What else would you expect?  The problem with this is that its like looking at things through a pair of, say, blue shaded glasses.  Sure, you can see things but its all bluish . . . everything has a bluish tint.  Even though you can make out shapes and images you are missing something . . . other colors.  The same thing happens with cellular activity.  Everything is looked at through “chemical shaded” glasses which, of course, makes everything appear to be “chemical” in orientation.  Some things can be seen, of course, but something is always missing.  More than likely, this something is something science (especially chemistry) can’t measure.  As a result, the chemical interpretation is only a partial picture of what’s going on.

Many of these question came up as I was looking at embryology (I actually wrote a previous article involving similar things called “Thoughts on the growth of tissues in embryology“).  I became fascinated with how cellular tissue grew and developed.  The more I looked at it the more unconvinced I became that it was DNA and chemicals causing this.  I agree that they are involved but I think there’s a bit more to it than that.  To me, DNA is comparable to finding the fossilized bones of dinosaurs.  Sure, it tells you about them but a lot is left out.

In addition, some things are hard to believe.  For example, I find it hard to believe that the RNA just “happens” to find all the chemicals it needs just floating around the nucleus as it moves along the DNA to create specific types of chemicals for all the myriad growth and differentiation that takes place in embryology.  Then the chemical must float around the nucleus, find its way out of the nucleus wall into the cell and find its way out of the cell well.  Then it has to find its way through all the other cells to find the right cell in which it will initiate a chemical reaction, and so on.  All this just happens to take place in such an ordered fashion that growth, for example, just happens to be symmetrical with even growth throughout the embryo.  That sounds too unbelievable to me.  And this is all controlled by DNA???  But we must remember, there is no ‘master DNA’ which means that none of this is controlled by a central source but each cell is working independently.  What’s causing a unity in their functioning . . . the chemicals floating around in the cells that unite them all?  I find that hard to believe.  There has to be more to it.

Some time ago, I had written of this same point of view from another angle.  I spoke of something which I called ‘life gravity’ (“Thoughts on biology and the nature of “life” – the ‘life gravity’”  and “More thoughts on the ‘life gravity’“).  To be frank, this is a word that came to me as I wrote the first article.  It is really a word the reflects the idea that there is ‘more’ to things than we think.  It primarily speaks of the idea that there is something else that seems to “move” life, another “force”, “energy”, or “gravity” that makes life go in a specific direction.

I still believe that there is something “more” that is going on than chemistry and DNA.  I think “chemical bias” has, in a sense, deceived many people into thinking that this is all that matters.  Right now chemistry gives a lot of “answers” which gives the illusion that it explains all.  But it is only one means to discovery.  I think there is so much more than any of us realizes to all this . . . more than chemistry can answer.

Copyright by Mike Michelsen


This entry was posted in Science and technology and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s