I Bet You’ve Never Heard of This Diverse Idea About Life
It has to do with diversity — diversity is more diverse than you think
Here’s what one excellent communicator had to say on one of the platforms we share:
Diversity is being invited to the party. We only invite people to our home that we see as worthy and similar…
Equity is having an accessibility ramp to the door. Not everyone can walk up the steps or through the door. Saying that anyone can come to your island but not provide a boat is disingenuous…
Inclusion is being asked to dance or being offered refreshments or being asked to help clean up.
Simplicity was the highlight of his powerful message.
Endorsed by many, the idea of, diversity, equity, and inclusion has gained popularity. It’s more popular than diversity itself.
Anyone can tell you they are different and contribute their uniqueness to the party.
Everybody wants an accessibility ramp to the door.
Everybody wants to be included in one group or another. To dance, to drink, or to help clean up.
I am not here to talk about equity and inclusion. I’m here to talk about diversity. Diversity is more diverse than you might think.
In particular, it turns to a different story when we zoom into microscopic life.
When it comes to diversity, we often focus on the large and exclude the small
Not all biologists consider viruses to be living organisms.
Viruses, however, have never missed a single feature in any textbook of microbiology.
Their diversity could be the single thing that makes them stand out.
As I said, diversity is more diverse than you might think.
I’ll start at the lowest tier known in biology, the genes, then scale upward. Let’s look at one of the fairly accepted ideas for now.
Heredity.
For years I was concerned with this idea — but decided to branch away from it.
The gene has gotten very many interpretations. You probably have your own.
According to some:
- A gene is a stretch of DNA that archives coded information for making organisms.
- Others claim that a gene is anything in a living organism capable of replication.
Genes can replicate. So can chromosomes during mitosis. Chromosomes have a trait similar to that of genes in this sense.
The first argument tries to blend experimental biology with evolutionary biology. These experiments validate where and how ideas fit in this category.
However, critics have mentioned the ability of information to get replicated can exist outside genes.
The second argument looks forced, like the Bed of Procrustes. It’s an attempt to fit several distinct components in one bed of an idea even if we have to chop off its legs.
I may be guilty of this too in my theory. But like every idea, if backed with some reason, it can be acceptable.
Regardless of where you stand, one thing that can be arguably accepted is that the gene is a fundamental unit of heredity.
Heredity is an offspring’s traits that match that of the parent.
If you have dark skin, and your child or parent has dark skin, it is a hereditary trait.
The processes which ensure these traits are passed down from parent to offspring are known as inheritance systems.
Say you have discovered your parent had Sickle Cell disease. You, on the other hand, have the trait. Even though you have not gotten the full-blown disease, the inheritance system responsible for this hereditary trait is the genes.
Thus, one of the inheritance systems is genes.
This example shows a difference between heredity, which focuses on traits and inheritance systems, which focus on mechanisms.
Other inheritance systems underscore the message of this article, diversity, but I shall not dwell on them. We can still drive the point home using genes.
Genetic inheritance makes this obvious assumption
One of the biggest assumptions in genetic inheritance is the environment.
You need a stable environment to objectively conclude that it is the gene that orchestrated the entire play.
If it constantly changes, it is difficult to attribute a trait to a gene.
It’s the same case in business. My decision to buy a loaf of bread might influence the shopkeeper to get more bread tomorrow. But I might travel in the evening.
The logic to get more bread is sound. The assumption is I will come back tomorrow.
The same case applies to genes. Environmental influences can affect the genetic outcomes of any developing entity.
While the idea is sound in theory, practically, organisms and environments shape each other.
It is the first aspect of diversity.
A business cannot be separated from its business environment. An organism, population, or species cannot be separated from its environment.
Environmental history further turns irrelevant if we do not consider the impact the organism has had on it.
Bees pollinate and make hives. Termites make mounds. Ants make ant hills. Trees influence the climate. Industries influence temperatures, and man makes these industries. Cars affect the environment and humans drive cars.
Over 500 million years ago, some organisms influenced the oxygen and carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
Right now, the level is around 0.03 or 0.04%. It was magnitudes higher over half a billion years ago.
You would have to be insanely bribed to claim an organism does not influence its environment and vice versa. Even then, the bribe, which is someone in your environment, would have influenced you to change your decision.
Bribes confirm the influence of the environment on humans and by extension, organisms.
A new crop of scientists are considering a new theory that incorporates these aspects into evolution. It is called the extended evolutionary synthesis.
Even at the level of theories, it also becomes clear that diversity is more diverse than you might think.
Institutions tend to narrow the spectrum of diversity by avoiding the small aspects
In institutions, the levels of diversity featured are often based on gender, sex, race, country, or continent of origin.
Maybe they are preferred because they can make calculations using these parameters. It is easier for you to do the math, draw the graph, and say your institution includes a diverse set of individuals.
Ergo, diversity, equity and inclusion.
It’s not bad. It’s a noble cause. The cultural differences make life and experiences richer.
But from the single viewpoint of genes and their environment, the core message is that diversity is more diverse than you think.
And there are other viewpoints worth considering.
E. O. Wilson made sure I knew about this when he wrote his book
He was one of the scientists whom I revered, but sadly, passed on before we got to interact.
His ideas were profound but very contrarian. A powerful combination.
E. O. Wilson discussed the diversity of life from the small organisms to the very large. In his book, he does not mention viruses. Neither are they included in the index section.
He, however, divides diversity into three levels.
- genetic level
- species-level
- ecological level
In this way, he factors the role of the environment as well as the genes and the organisms that constitute the different types of species.
It is laudable.
Now, because ecological systems can’t be modeled perfectly, it turns out we can hardly capture the extent of diversity.
My point, yet again, is diversity is more diverse than we think.
And here’s my small, probable contribution to the diversity puzzle
I talk of diversity from a probability spectrum.
It’s easier because the probability is extensive. Between 0 and 1 lies an infinite world of fractions. And probability is expressed in fractions.
Thus my theory captures, mathematically, the full extent of diversity, but at an abstract level. It’s difficult to wrap our heads around infinity. Worse still, its difficult to imagine an infinite world exists between 0 and 1, but it does.
Diversity, in all its extent, can therefore be captured between 0 and 1.
To describe a core element of the theory, I used the existence spectrum in the simplest way I know how. I then use static probabilities to drive the point home.
But even more, I assure the reader that there is no such thing as a static probability. It is always shifting. For this reason, we can have diverse organisms solely through the perspective of dynamic probability.
Once you get it, probability does wonders.
It’s seen in the organism’s attempts at avoiding death. Death is a proxy to where an organism lies within the probability spectrum of 0 and 1.
Because probability is dynamic, it also means the theory factors the organism’s environment, how organisms shape it, and vice versa.
For clarity, it shows how the environment and the organism are intertwined in the same way the head and tails of a coin are connected.
I also stress the importance of existence. Bold existence.
You have your own probability of existence as do I. They can never be the same. You only need an existence spectrum to see this.
What’s more, you only need existence, because existence in itself, creates the spectrum.
Somewhere in there, you might have gotten confused. I hope to simplify my point as I gradually learn to communicate through writing.
And what is my point in all this?
Diversity is more diverse than we think.
So you can bet I’ll have more to talk about. And I can also bet you’ve never thought of diversity of life from the perspective of probability.
In the meantime, we can soak in this while reverting to the one article that will elaborate more about the theory of Organismal Selection.
Subscribe to the lightest newsletter on the Internet for a one-four-all & all-four-one weekly feed, because all you need is one alternative view, only one, to edge you closer to extreme value creation, but I give you four.
