As a prelude to Part XXXVIII I am making a disclaimer that, first of all, I am not a COVID-19 expert, nor do I pretend to be.  I am more of a reporter with a science background (especially in the field of biology with 41 years of teaching junior high, high school, and college). I also would like to address another issue at this time.  In an earlier essay I made an opinion statement in which I said that I was becoming more and more convinced that the COVID virus was a product of artificial selection rather than the result of natural selection.  I have read one article that suggests that that is not true but only one. Apparently not too much has been written on that subject.  Having said that, I still leave the possibility of man-made open and I am aware of the idea that the virus is thought to have first appeared in bats.

Why certain COVID patients die

Continuing on with the topic of coronavirus (since there really is only one other hot topic (the U. S. election in which I will not get embroiled), I would like to address the topic of why some people are asymptomatic, some become only mildly sick, and others die.  0bviously, genetics plays a part somehow, someway. Advancing age, certain predisposed conditions (i.e. diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity, etc…)are factors.  Ten percent of nearly 1,000 COVID-19 people who developed life threatening pneumonia had antibodies that disable interferons, important immune system proteins.  In a study done recently these antibodies called autoantibodies which attack the immune system itself were absent in 663 patients that were asymptomatic or had  only mild symptoms and only four, of 1,227 healthy people had the autoantibodies. In a separate study done by the same group an additional 3.5% of critically ill patients had mutations in genes that control the interferons involved in fighting viruses and there are between 500-600 such genes-in our genome.  Interferons alarm and activate other virus fighting genes. One researcher compared interferon both to an alarm system and sprinkler system.  Yet interferons somehow are suppressed in some people with coronavirus. Interferons are especially important in fighting viruses new to the body. (Szabo,) Personal experience proved the effectiveness of interferon a few years ago. Patients didn’t make autoantibodies in response to the virus; instead they apparently already had them but were dormant until infected with COVID-19.

COVID-19 and- Blood Vessels

As scientists have learned more about the virus they have zoomed in on the vascular system, the vast network of arteries, capillaries, and veins. In the relatively short period of time it’s been around, they have found that it warps the thin single slayer of endothelial cells (endothelium) located on the inside of blood vessels’ inner lining). In a study headed by William Li, a vascular biologist, the team compared lung tissue of people who died of COVID-19 to those who died of influenza. The lung tissue of those who died of coronavirus had nine times as many blood clots as those of the flu victims. And those in the first group exhibited severe endothelial injury.
The strange part is that the virus shreds the tiny cells from the inside out thus blocking the vessels and forming clots. Chief among the functions of the endothelium is the prevention of blood clots because of their ultra-smooth surface. . They also help to regulate blood pressure and help fend off germs. The virus enters cells via a specific receptor called the ACE2 on the cell membrane but just how it actually harms the cell (the mechanism) is not yet understood. It may attack the endothelial cells directly or begin somewhere else and the endothelium suffers collateral damage along the way as the immune system reacts and maybe sometimes overreacts. Like interferon discussed above, the endothelium alerts the body to impending danger. Ironically the very structures and processes that-normally protect us can turn against us.  According to Li, the common denominator in COVID-19 patients is endothelial dysfunction. The body gets a double whammy resulting from the- system’s runaway nature resulting in extensive inflammation in the bloodstream. As the inflammation spreads, a condition known as endothealitis, blood clots all over the body, can form starving tissues and organs from oxygen. Endothelial damage also causes elevated levels of von Willebrand protein (blood clotting factor IX). Interesting enough for years I thought I was deficient in factor IX (I even wrote a paper on it for a graduate genetics class) until newer tests revealed a deficiency in factor XI resulting in hemophilia C, a somatic recessive condition. Back to the COVID-19 patients; those suffering from blood clots are now put on aspirin. (Stone)

Why some infected individuals don’t get sick

 It has become extremely important to learn why some people test positive but never show any symptoms and feel fine. No one knows how many people have been infected by them. No other known virus seems to vary so much in its degree of severity even within a single family. It appears that a person’s immune system as much as anything helps to determine the severity and that means that one’s genetics plays a big part. In a study conducted in the San Francisco area involving 3ooo participants who were invited to be tested whether sick or not, 53 % of those who were positive had no symptoms.  Some reports suggest that the antibody response to the virus in asymptomatic people is weaker than in people with severe symptoms which is contrary to earlier assumptions. Perhaps other parts of the immune system such as T-cells (type of white blood cell) that functions in the immune system.  Lymphocytes are also known as leucocytes (Krieger).

COVID-19 Treatment

        A high official at a local regional hospital says that treatment of coronavirus has evolved since the pandemic began last winter. One of the biggest changes is that clinicians now use a breathing tube as a last resort. Now they use a high flow oxygen therapy which reduces the need for ventilation and intubation, which wasn’t the right method. Another major change was the availability of the antiviral drug Rendesivir which is very effective. The FDA has approved the use of the monoclonal antibody bamlanivimab. The monoclonal antibodies soak up the virus so it can’t do what it does. Another breakthrough was the realization that not everyone needs the same treatment. Going back to the ventilators once it became known that this was not a disease just of the lungs the need for ventilators was not so great. The disease can affect many organs including the heart and brain. The use of steroids is a fifth treatment change (Watson). Not really a change in treatment strategy is the fact that hospitals are better stocked for personal protection but that is nullified by a staffing shortage and I would add, based our recent local and national news, doctor, nurse, and other health provider burnout.

The vaccines

Most everyone now is aware that the early vaccines use mRNA technology but just what is mRNA? From essay IX (organic molecules), we learned that like DNA. (deoxyribonucleic acid), RNA, ribonucleic acid is composed of nucleotides that in turn are comprised of a phosphate and sugar backbone with a nitrogenous base (adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine in DNA) and the base uracil in place of thymine of DNA in RNA . Unlike DNA, RNA is single stranded and has one more oxygen atom. During protein synthesis, DNA splits down the middle with each half serving as a template for manufacturing a complementary strand of mRNA (m stands for messenger). This takes place in the nucleus and is called transcription. Next during translation mRNA serves us a template to attach to free floating tRNA (transfer RNA) in the cytoplasm. Each tRNA segment contains an amino acid; tRNA molecules arrive at a ribosome (rRNA) where they join to form a polypeptide and when long enough-a protein; mRNA was first discovered in the late 1960’s but was not fully understood until the 1990’s.

The vaccine produced by Pfizer-BioN Tech and also Moderna uses a nanoparticle delivery method to contain and protect the mRNA segment. It has a lipid component. (Fats which are water insoluble. are examples of a lipid).  Incidentally, nano refers to one thousand millionth (10^-9). (Reuter’s staff)

According to Dr. Dan Anderson, professor of chemical engineering and health sciences at MIT, the method took years of research,

. The encapsulated mRNA package can travel through the bloodstream and reach target cells and enter cells of organs that filter blood.-liver, spleen, bone marrow, and kidneys. It enters cells by endocytosis (McManus) which refers to a process in which substances cross the cellular membrane to enter a cell. Depending on the type and size of the substance it may called phagocytosis (large particles i.e. how amebas ingest food particles), pinocytosis “cell drinking” when liquids  enter a cell, and receptor mediated endocytosis which is a form of pinocytosis. (Mader)

The mRNA contains a genetic code to give our cells instructions to make a harmless piece of the “spike protein” to stimulate our immune system to make antibodies against the spike protein. Once the mRNA instructions are inside the immune cells, cells use them to make the protein piece, Then the cells break down (degrade) the mRNA in 15-30 minutes. Our immune system recognizes the protein and produces antibodies to protect us. “The speed is a reflection of years of work that went before” Dr. Fauci told a news conference. Billions of company and government funding helped to speed up the process. It starts with a snippet of genetic code that carries instructions for making proteins. Pick the right protein to target and the body turns into a mini vaccine factory. Fifteen years ago Dr. Drew Weissman’s lab at the University of Pennsylvania figured out how to let a lab grown RNA segment slip undetected into cells.  Other researchers added a fat coating to help it enters cells and start producing the right protein. (For a more complete summary of protein synthesis see essay IX). In the meantime, a group of researchers headed by Dr. Barney at the NIH figured out the right target in the immune system. Surface proteins (receptor sites) have a certain shape and thus the nanoparticle has to match that shape. Choose the wrong isomer (my term) (alternate shape) and the molecule can’t enter the cell (Neergard).

A word about science and how it progresses.  A favorite movie of mine “Day One” about the Manhattan Project (development of the atomic bomb) illustrates how science worked very well.  In the movie General Groves, obviously a military man was put in charge of the entire project. In his first meeting with the core group of scientists he encountered them sitting around kicking some ideas around.  He sternly rebuked them for not working and wasting time on such an important endeavor.  When they tried to tell him that is the way science works, he insisted they work in the military way.  My point is that science works in slow uneven spurts not in linear fashion. Seth Borenstein in an Associated Press article a few months ago points that out in the search for a COVID-19 vaccine.  He says that “While the world wants flashy quick fixes for everything, especially massive threats like coronavirus and global warming . . . remind us that in science, slow and steady pays off.  Science builds upon previous work with thinkers ‘standing on the shoulders of giants’ as Isaac Newton put it , and it starts with basic research aimed at understanding a problem before fixing it. Nobels usually reward, years or decades after a discovery, because it can take that long to realize the implications. Slow and steady success in science has made researchers hopeful in the fight against the pandemic.    The coronavirus was sequenced in a matter of weeks, testing became available quickly, and vaccines that would normally take years may be developed in a year or less, and It’s all been built on the back of basic science advances  that have been developed in the past three decades.” (Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences) As an example, gene sequencing and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) which allows for multiple copying of precise DNA segments won the 1993 Nobel in chemistry. (Borenstein)

Hope for the World (we’re back to science and religion)

Post Script

It has come to my attention that social media contains a lot of misinformation, false information, and in some cases outright lies and no, I’m not so naive to think this is something new or relative just to COVID-19. Let me address a couple things. For example consider the following:

Fact check: 2020 has been more deadly in the US compared with recent years

The chart, with a title “USA Deaths By Year,” has a column for the year, the number of deaths reported that year by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the total U.S. population each year, and the death rate calculated from number of deaths. It says the average death rate is 0.8%, though from 2017 to 2019 the death rate is listed as 0.9%. 

According to the chart — which lists the CDC, Census data and USA TODAY as sources at the bottom — in 2020 there have been 2,533,214 deaths, a population of 330,619,870, and a death rate of 0.8%. The information is dated Nov. 22.

The U.S deaths numbers from 2009 to 2018 were released by the CDC, and a USA TODAY article does list the total number of deaths and the U.S. population through 2018. The death rate is correct as listed for those years.

However, the 2019 and 2020 data is less clear. The CDC has not released official numbers for either. Provisionally it has said 2,855,000 Americans died in 2019, which does not match the chart’s total of 2,794,146. Data provided by John Hopkins Medical Center (Landeck)

ALSO

Chart comparing 2020 US death toll with previous years is flawed, uses incomplete data

Posts on social media are attempting to downplay the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic using a chart that shows that the 2020 U.S. death toll hasn’t changed much from previous years.

The chart, titled “US deaths per year,” displays figures comparing deaths in the country for the last five years, ranging from just over 2.7 million in 2015 to 2.9 million in 2019. It says the toll for 2020, as of Nov. 16, is “2,487,350.” Some versions also include a whole-year projection of 2,818,527.

“People died before Covid. Amazingly the death rate hasn’t changed. How can that be with such a deadly virus????” one user wrote.

But the comparison is flawed for a few reasons. The 2020 statistics cited are not the final figures, and the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention has estimated that hundreds of thousands of excess American deaths are attributed to the virus this year. Lastly, it ignores that COVID-19 has killed over 290,000 Americans to-date, the highest virus death toll in the world. 

The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) 

The numbers listed from 2015 through 2018 are legitimate and come from the CDC. The health agency reported 2,712,630 deaths in the U.S. in 2015, 2,744,248 in 2016, 2,813,503 in 2017, and 2,839,205 in 2018.

While the final numbers for 2019 have not been released, the CDC’s provisional count for the year — 2,855,000 — comes close to the chart’s 2,900,689 figure, though it’s not clear how they reached the number.

The chart’s 2,487,350 figure leading up to the week of Nov. 16, 2020, reflects CDC data, but it’s not a complete depiction of how many Americans died in 2020. 

Not only does the figure not account for the final six weeks of the year, it doesn’t represent the first few weeks, either. The weekly provisional deaths table doesn’t begin until the week ending Feb. 1, 2020. What’s more, these numbers are continuously updated due to reporting lags, which the CDC says can range from one week to eight weeks or more, depending on the jurisdiction and cause of death.

PolitiFact is regarded as one of the most reliable websites on the internet for anything politics and many newspapers and media outlets openly say they check their own facts against it before going to press. Open Secrets follows the money. We all know that money is power in Washington and Open Secrets traces it wherever it can.

For facebook readers,

How much of what you read on Facebook is carefully written and referenced from reliable sources? How trustworthy are their comments and just what are their hidden agendas? Everything I write is referenced (except for the first few essays and my sources are college textbooks) or comes from my prior training/experience as a science teacher. Read some of my past essays and judge for yourself.

Sincerely,

Larry Baumer

References

• Borenstein, S. Date unknown Nobel Prizes and OCID-19:  Slow, basic science may pay off  Rockford Register Star
• Krieger, L. Aug 3, 2020 Why don’t people get sick despite being infected? Rockford Register Star
• Landeck, K. Dec. 24, 2020 USA Today
• Mader, S. 2004 Biology, 8^th edition McGraw /Hill New York, NY
• McManus, R,  Sept. 4, 2020  Anderson Explains Role of Nanoparticles in Vaccines https://nihrecord.nih.gov/2020/09/04/anderson
• Neergard, L. Dec. 8, 2020 Years of research laid groundwork for vaccine  Rockford Register Star
• Putterman, S, Dec. 11, 2020 PolitiFact
• Reuters staff   Dec.5, 2020 Fact check: Lipid nanoparticles in a COVID-19 vaccine are there to transport RNA molecules http://www.reuters.com/article/uk
• Stone, W. Nov. 26, 2020 Is virus a disease of blood vessels Rockford Register Star
• Szabo, L. Nov. 15,2020   Breakthrough finding reveals why certain COID-19 patients die Rockford Register Star
• Watson, A, Nov. 29, 2020 COVID-19 treatment evolves Rockford Register Star

To my past readers, my apologizes for the long period of inactivity, a bevy of late summer and fall activities (mostly outdoor) including tons of yard work, ongoing garage cleaning and organizing, designing, building, and modifying a ramp for our failing dog who requires nearly constant attention, extensive dental work for some of us, and yes, some golf rounds while the weather permits have all contributed to my absence. I probably will not be fortunate to come close to last year’s record of golfing on the third to the last day of the year. Oh, and I still have to trim roses and a huge clematis, service the push mower (I let the experts service the riding mower), and I have yet to completely get the snow blower ready. The big question now is whether we can /should travel for Thanksgiving while COVID is raging again and Illinois is on or near the top of the list of confirmed cases. Thus, the debate in my mind on what to write on next is settled. I will concentrate on:

• the ongoing search and research for faster and more reliable testing methods of detecting COVID -19
• types of tests and what the results mean
• a safe and reliable vaccine (development of)

A viral test tells you if you have a current infection.

• A positive test means you currently have COVID -19. Isolate yourself at home, wash hands often, wear a mask, and social distance. Contact your healthcare provider if your symptoms get worse.
• A negative test only mean you did not have COVID-19 at the time you were tested.
• An antibody test might tell if you had a past infection. Antibody tests check for antibodies in your blood that your immune system produced in response to viral infection. Antibody tests are available through your healthcare providers and laboratories.
• If you test positive you may have antibodies from COVID-19 or a virus from the same family even though you never felt sick. (asymptomatic) Talk to your healthcare provider.
• If you test negative you may not have ever had COVID-19.  Consult your doctor.A viral test tells you if you have a current infection.

Undoubtedly, one of the questions most people ask is, “why does it take so long to get a vaccine for COVID-19” (or any other virus or bacteria for that matter). The diagram above taken from March 18, 2020 edition of the Rockford, IL Register Star is a summary of the overall protocol for vaccine development. First of all, vaccines are given to healthy people (or at least not positive for the disease for which the vaccine is intended). As Dr. David Relman, professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University says “you don’t want to make healthy people sick.” So you want to make sure your vaccine is completely safe. Vaccines prime your immune system to fight a potential disease; they don’t treat or cure it. As we know, viruses can only reproduce inside another host cell. Once inside it travels to the nucleus where it hijacks the cell’s genetic machinery and compels it to make more viruses (see essay XXXII). Once in your body viral reproduction occurs; your immune system produces antibodies (various kinds of white blood cells) in response to the antigens released during viral replication
and the war is on. Think about it, when your doctor suspects an infection, he may order a complete blood count to look for an increase in  white blood cells (wbc) (Fig I & II).
A vaccination may consist of being inoculated with a weakened form of a virus or killed virus particles that tricks your immune system to think it is the “real thing” thereby producing antibodies thus protecting you from the REAl THINGS. Some vaccines protect you for a lifetime but most do not. Thus, you need one or more booster shots. One of the big questions being addressed now is how long will a COVID-19 shot last?
All new vaccines have to be approved by the FDA and licensed before they can be given to the public.  They must first be tested on animals, usually mice, for several factors (Fig. III) before clinical tests can begin on humans. This may take months to years. Currently, several vaccines are in these stages of development. The same article quoted Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health as saying hope for a vaccine could come by year’s end. Also in that article FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn promised that “career scientists, not politicians will decide whether any coronavirus vaccine meets clearly stated standards….” Additionally, Hahn stated that “science will guide our decision. FDA will not permit any pressure from anyone to change that.” As of November 3, 2020 that promise will be a lot easier to enforce as well as a lot of other science guided hopes and dreams.   I recall an interview with a doctor on a Chicago sports radio station in which he said that if vaccine development as well as mask wearing and social distancing were guided by scientific principles and not by politics this pandemic would not reach the depth that it has. How true and that’s all I will say on that subject; otherwise this essay would be a full chapter in a small book.

Potential coronavirus vaccines

One type of vaccine that a few months ago held more promise than today is plasma therapy. Remove red and white blood cells and what’s left is essentially an almost clear liquid, plasma which still contains antibodies that were produced by various types of white blood cells. Patients who recovered from C0VID-19 can and have volunteered to donate their blood plasma to be used in vaccine development while the wbc’s, rbc’s, and platelets are returned to their bodies. However, plasma therapy has had a mixed success in the past. It’s also time consuming, and hard to do on a large scale although other methods can take a long time too. (rrstar)
Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh under the direction of Louis D. Falo Jr. have developed a vaccine that uses laboratory-mode viral protein to build a person’s immunity to the virus. Antibody production in tests in mice were encouraging. Their research is a follow-up to a vaccine they were developing in 2003 for SARS, another COVID virus but was canceled because the virus was contained in July by the World Health Organization (WHO).

The same group developed a vaccine for MIERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, another COVID virus that jumped from animals to humans. Instead of developing a shot in the arm, their vaccine would consist of a patch with 400 tiny needles worn on the arm. Here’s the strange part; the needles each 0. 5 mm long would consist of a sugar and protein patch. The advantage is that the vaccine doesn’t have to be frozen especially when being shipped to other countries. Additionally it would release a highly concentrated, smaller amount of viral protein. Using DNA molecules made in the lab, the vaccine would prevent the viral protein spikes from entering human cells. . Others say it focuses on treating those already sick rather than preventing infections. Dr. Fauci likes the idea of an upper arm injection. However, he added that science should first demonstrate that COVID antibodies currently administered intravenously work. Those in favor of continued development argue that until a vaccine is available, the shots offer the most plausible method of prevention “Convalescent” plasma is already in widespread use and preliminary data deem it safe. The antibodies can be delivered in a drug called immune-globulin, or Ig in either drip form or in a shot.(Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)

According to WHO, as of today (Nov. 25, 2020) these are the numbers for:

Preclinical Phase I Phase II Phase III Approved

164 37 17 6 0

In summary, The last 10 months have seen some of the most tumultuous events in modern history, a pandemic that may become endemic, political, social, and racial unrest, raging forest fires in Western United States, and more. But there’s hope on the horizon. The key to our future lies with us. We make most of our problems and with God’s help we can solve them.

References

Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),Nov. 20, 2020, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), Atlanta

Johnson , M., April 19, 2020, Researches have developed a potential coronavirus vaccine, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel as read in the Rockford Register Star

Rockford Register Star, March 18, 2020, Gannett Co., Inc., Milwaukee,WI

Welse, E & M. Johnson, April 19, 2020, Early COVID-19, patients try experimental plasma therapy, USA Today as read in the Rockford Register Star,

Since Gregor Mendel and Charles Darwin were contemporaries and both contributed immensely to biology, the question naturally arises, were they acquainted with each other’s work? One source I read begins with the assertion “read no further if you want a definite answer to this question.” However, the author concludes that “the unsolved mystery, therefore, remains: did Darwin actually receive a copy of Mendel’s paper and if yes did he bother to read it? (David Galton) Another source I read began “One of the great “what if” question that has fascinated historians of biology is how differently Darwinian evolution would have been received had Darwin known of Gregor Mendel, the Augustinian monk who is now considered the founder of the science of genetics.” (John Farrell)  Farrell continues “But Darwin never knew of Mendel. He never read his published findings outlining the basic laws of genetic inheritance.” A pretty bold statement to be sure. Now for a third source, “There is clear evidence that Mendel read “The Origins of Species” and mounting evidence that Darwin had heard of Mendel’s work. Their places in the scientific world were a universe apart.

Darwin shocked the world in 1859 when the Origins of Species was published.  It was an instant hit. Mendel presented his paper. Versuche uber Pflanzen-Hybriden (Experiments in Plant Hybridization) in February 1865 to the Brunn Society of Natural History in Brunn, Austria  which remained in obscurity until 1901 when copies were discovered independently in Europe and in the United States More about that later. Whereas Darwin’s book sold out almost immediately, there were no question asked, nor discussion made when Mendel finished his presentation.  Some authors and textbook authors have suggested that not one of the 40 or so present had any idea what he was talking about. Indeed genetics wasn’t even in its infancy yet.   However, there were some prominent scientists in attendance including the noted astronomer and botanist G. von Niessl, Karl Whilhelm, a Swiss a botanist and geologist, and German botanist and embryologist Matthias Schleiden who also worked on the cell theory.  Hugo Iltis who wrote The Life of Mendel suggests some reasons for the silence.  Mendel’s presentation was upstaged by an immediate discussion of Darwin’s book and   Mendel’s paper was full of mathematical calculations and ratios. Having read all 40 pages I can attest to that.)  Applying mathematics to biology was a concept before its time. The hot topic for biologists at the time was to try to explain the extraordinary multiplicity of living forms. Mendel wasn’t opposed to the theory of evolution. He had read Origin of Species and other related books. He even wrote notes in the book’s margins. Mendel had said that his experiments were designed to  “support or illustrate the influence of the environment on plants”‘ in support of Lamarck’s theory of blending characteristics which held that when gametes combine there is a mixing of hereditary material that produces a blend like mixing black and white ink to form  gray ink. Thus a mating between a black animal with a white one would result in a gray one and likewise between two plants, one producing black flowers and one with white flowers.

Thus, F₂ (second generation) plants and animals as well as future generations would also be gray since once blended colors could never change.  Obviously, this theory ignored skipping generations, a well observed phenomenon.

Blending inheritance presented special problems for Darwin and other evolutionists since evolution depends on natural selection.  If blending inheritance was true, hereditary variations would disappear resulting in complete uniformity. Thus, matured relation would have no new material on which to act and evolution would cease to occur. (Curtis and Barns)  Back to Mendel’s experiments; even though he expected such results, his experiments suggested much different results. Mendel concluded that “This much already seems clear to me, that nature does not modify species in any such way, so some other force must be at work.”
Mendel ordered 40 copies of his paper to send to famous European scientists. By then Darwin certainly qualified as one of the most famous. This was in 1863, four years after origin of species was published. Reprints were also sent to Schleiden and the Swiss botanist Karl Wilhelm.

Differences in their work

1)Darwin wrote volumes meant to convince by sheer size	1)Mendel wrote 40 pages
2)Darwin proposed natural selection occurring over millions of years	2)Mendel proposed artificial selection to demonstrate genetic inheritance in. only a few generations
3)Darwin focused on the variability of species	3)Mendel’s results indicated mathematical and constancy of inheritable traits

               ‘”It requires, indeed, some courage to undertake a labour of such far-reaching  extent  This appears, however, to be the only right way we can finally reach the solution of a question the importance of which cannot be overestimated in connection with the history of the evolution of organic forms.  This paper now presented records the result of such a detailed experiment….  Whether the plan upon which the separate experiments were conducted and carried out was the best suited to attain the desired end is left up to the friendly decision of the reader”’ –Gregor Mendel  And what a legacy it has been.  Approximately 10 years conducting a single long experiment involving over 27,000 plants.

               Now we come to the real heart of this essay.  Did Mendel read Darwin and did Darwin read Mendel?  According to David Galton “Mendel had, of course, read and studied the Origin of Species in the German translation as soon as the second edition appeared in 1863.  He bought most of Darwin’s other books and studied them carefully making frequent annotations.  Of the 40 copies of Mendel’s work a few ended up in learned societies throughout Europe including the Royal Society. The Linnaean Society, and Greenwich Observatory in Britain.

               If Darwin did receive and read Mendel’s article, he would have found a detailed analysis of the frequencies observed from different inherited traits.  However, Mendel’s results were in the form of mathematical tables and Darwin felt that there was no place for mathematics in biology. Some of Mendel’s final remarks give strong implications that he had discovered laws that could predict the appearance of different hybrid characters in successive generations of the edible pea and probably would apply to other species as well. Mendel’s conclusions  virtually eliminated blending inheritance which Darwin apparently accepted.

Even if Darwin didn’t receive a copy of Mendel’s paper, be had other chances to read Mendel’s work. Herman Hoffman, a professor of Botany had written about plant hybrids in 1869 and included a long section of Mendel’s paper. Darwin’s copy of the book, now preserved in the Cambridge University Library contains handwritten remarks in the margins of surrounding pages but not page 52 the one with references to Mendel.

               Furthermore, a certain George Romannes in preparing an article for the Encyclopedia Britannica on plant hybridization requested Darwin to suggest names of eminent botanists who should be included.  Darwin’s answer included sending him a book by William Focke who summarized Mendel’s work on pages 108-111. But apparently Darwin never read it.  Darwin had done plant breeding experiments using over 50 plant species but never with the idea of studying the transmission of plant characters… The problem of plant hybrid vigor and its role in evolution…. and whether seeds from cross- fertilized flowers would produce superior plants than seeds derived from self- fertilized flowers interested him more. (David Galton) According to John Farrell, Darwin states that “the laws governing inheritance are quite unknown.” (1^st edition) Farrell quoting an article by Daniel J. Fairbanks and Scott Abbott writes that while Darwin knew Mendel, Mendel not only knew of Darwin’s work but even adopted some of his terminology and concepts in evaluating his experiments.  Fairbanks-and Abbot examined. Mendel’s German translation of Origin of Species with marginal notes and then matched Darwinian phrases that Mendel adopted for the conclusion part of his paper.  The color coded words and phrases in his original paper matched those from the passages Mendel marked in his German translation.  Then they used a different color to denote word and phrases not in the passages Mendel marked but found elsewhere in Origin of Species.  Both types of phraseology were collectively found in the papers
Result: phraseology from passengers marked in Origin of Species are more frequent and more diverse in the 10^th and 11^th sections (last two) of his paper.  Fairbanks and Abbott concluded that Darwin’s book influenced Mendel’s writing. Example: Ten times in the concluding remarks only, Mendel used the Darwinian term “element” and in every instance he used it to refer to his conception of material units now known as alleles.  Although it doesn’t offer outright proof that Mendel had become a Darwinian, it is rather suggestive.   And they emphasize that even though special creation by God was still a powerful force, Mendel’s failure to declare it as a personal belief might suggest his acceptance of evolutional theory.

And finally:

• Apparently Mendel realized how important his work was for Darwin’s theory.
• While many biologists accepted evolution during Darwin’s time many did not because of the problem of how-to combine natural selection with a convincing theory of inheritance of traits in species.

References

Ciskanik, M. Gregor Mendel and Charles Darwin: Two Men and a Theory, Magiscenter.com July 31,2020

Curtis, H. N. Sue Barness, (1989). Biology. New York: Worth Publishers Inc.

Farrell, J. How Mendel Channeled Darwin, www.forbs.com 2017

Galton, D. Did Darwin Read Mendel?QJM: An International Journal of Medicine, Volume 102, Issue 8, August 2009,

Conflict between science and religion exists today in areas where moral values are at stake. Reproductive freedom for women, contra­ception, abortion, euthanasia,umbilical cord cell research, and genetic engineering are the result of science and technology which have progressed more rapidly than social and religious acceptance. This raises the question of whether theology can or should censor scientific inquiry in the name of a higher morality. Even population growth and the limitation of family size, global warming, and depletion of natural resources are in question.
The deeper question concerns the nature of truth; are there two truths or two cultures, each claiming to be true? Once again science is concerned with empirical questions that offer explanations of the natural world and rejects supernatural causes and does not pretend to deal with the question of the existence of God or an afterlife.

But modern creationism has provided an example of the new violations of NOMA when members of one magisterium tries to impose their will upon the other domain. For years and years creationists repeatedly attempted to ban the teaching of evolution in American public schools or to force their fundamentalist belief of the Bible in its most literal sense, that God created species separately in six twenty four hour days, and the earth is only 10,000 years old. The original impetus was provided by the famous “Scopes trial” in Dayton, Tennessee in 1925. John Scopes, a physics teacher in the local school, substituted for the fundamen­talist biology teacher. Scopes assigned the chapter on evolution, accepting a legal challenge to test the constitutionality of a recently enacted anti-evolution law. Both the ACLU(American. Civil Liberty Union) and local fundamentalists recruited Scopes for different reasons. The trial drew two fiery and energetic lawyers, Clarence Darrow (defense) and William Jennings Bryan and was broadcast on radio. The trial itself was basically a farce and became commercialized. Scopes, of course, lost and faded into antiquity. But the stage was set for battles that seemingly ended with the Supreme Court decision of Edwards vs. Aguillard in 1987. The equal time issue (equal treatment of creationism) was dead. (Writers note: Gould says that he used the popular Moon, Mann, and Otto biology textbook, Modern Biology., in 1956, the same high school text I used and one of the first books I taught from). One final thought on a literal (word for word) translation of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. For years I have “preached”(sorry for the allegorical reference.) to those who have questioned  my faith because of  my remarks about evolution (especially micro-evolution) that after they read Genesis 1, they should then read Genesis 2 and explain to me which account they accept. The usual explanation is that they were penned by different writers. But which account if either is absolutely correct?  Perhaps more important is the greater question of where does evolution fit in? Or perhaps–like the great discourse on infant vs. adult baptism I had with someone from my past, –does it really matter? Likewise, with immersion vs sprinkling, does it really matter? Which is more important, the method or the intent?  Bryan, according to Gould, made the same mistake many lay people make concerning natural selection by asserting that it involves survival by battle and destruction of enemies. For a greater description of natural selection see Essay XX.

      Darwin made frequent disclaimers about drawing lessons for the meaning of life from his radical ideas. After all, such a new worldview of nature should shed some light on the biggest questions of all: why are we here, and what does it all mean? This, of course, would have violated NOMA (a term not then yet formulated). On the subject of nature Darwin offers the following: “The facts of nature are what they are and can’t resolve religious questions of God, meaning, and morality. Nature is amoral, not immoral.” Perhaps nature conforms to our desire for warmth and fuzzy; perhaps most organisms are cute or beautiful and perhaps peaceful cooperation does usually exist OR perhaps ugly, grotesque, and savage appearances and brutally savage events are the rule, whereas in reality neither extreme dominates. Nature is indifferent to our desires.

Darwin argued that nature offers no moral instruction at all and could not resolve the existence or character of God, the ultimate meaning of life or morality.  Those questions he finally concluded were too profound for the human intellect.  He wrote “The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one.”

      Gould begins to summarize by making some analogies. For example, concerning the concept of Jesus as both fully divine and fully human “It turns out that this duality has a parallel in quantum physics. In the early years of this century (editor’s note, 20th century) physicists, discovered that entities thought of as particles, like electrons, can also act as waves.  The orthodox view is that light is simul­taneously, wave and particle just as is Jesus … God in human form or as really human … He was fully both.” Surprisingly, Darwin was one of the first to reunite science and religion and to supposedly have said that “God is creating all the time” and Gould; “complex carbon-based life… can exist only in a universe in which the physical constraints have been tuned just so. Take the ratio of gravity to electromagnetism (editor’s note-weak force to strong force). Were gravity a little bit stronger, we’d fall in on ourselves like failed soufflé since human life couldn’t exist if the laws of nature were just a little bit off. Then the laws must be as they are because a creating God desired our presence.

                                                                                                                   References

 Gould, S. (1999) Rocks of Ages. New York; the Random House Publishing Group

Kurtz, P. (2003) Science and Religion. Amhearst, New York; Prometheus Books

I graduated from Northern Illinois University in 1966 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Education and earned a Master of Science degree in Education also from NIU in 1973.   I taught in the Harlem School District (5 years), a Chicago suburb (1 year), and the Rockford, IL School District for 27 years (26 at East High School). I culminated my teaching career  at Kishwaukee College (8 years) Two important events occurred  in 1988: I married my wife Angie and I received a summer teacher’s research fellowship through  the University of Illinois School of Medicine at Rockford.  My primary responsibility was light microscopy and Scanning electron miscroscopy of rabbit renal arteries (effect of high cholesterol diet).  For 14 years I was a citizen scientist for the Illinois Department of Natural Resources in their RiverWatch program (monitoring water quality) My hobbies and activities include gardening, golfing, bowling, downhill and cross country skiing, photography, including photomicroscopy and time lapse photography, spending time with my wife and our dog, and in the winter playing around in my small home biology & chemistry lab.

Beyond what I have written in past profiles, in the early 1980’s I was an EMT with the Boone Volunteer Ambulance & Rescue Squad (BVARS) which fit in nicely with my science training and teaching. I also enjoy public speaking and made frequent scholarship presentations to graduating seniors and outstanding middle school students through the former Belvidere Y’ Men’s Club.  I also made power point presentations of the RiverWatch program. But I most enjoyed making presentations at my high school reunions.  Thanks guys for allowing me to do this. 

In essay part XXXIII we learned some of the history of science and religion and differences between them. We learned that, among other things, religion predates science and that they differ in purpose in our lives. In the present essay Gould briefly discusses his two greatest Victorian heroes, Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley and how both of them suffered the tragic loss of a beloved child and became so embittered that they lost any vestige of a personal belief in a just world  governed  by a loving  God.   This Undoubtedly changed their world and reshaped their writings that, in Darwin’s case, forever changed history’s world view. For him causes of life’s history (evolutionary theory) couldn’t solve the mysteries of life’s meaning. Huxley rejected immortality partially because he questioned why humans are granted immortality and “lower” animals who might benefit more from it are not. He reinforced the major principle of NOMA by saying that such a religious belief cannot be subject to scientific proof. His case for NOMA was rooted in the three non-overlapping aspects of integrity–religion for morality, science for factuality, and love for sancitity

In chapter two, Gould points out an interesting evolutionary supposition that our minds tend to work by dichotomy, that is, by concept utilizing complex problems as “either / or pairs” with only extremes considered and no middle ground .which probably resulted from an earlier time when the human brain could only comprehend in terms of on or off, yes or no, fight or flee, etc. Considering that our whole computer system is based on a binary system, we’ve come a long way haven’t we? Thus, when considering two dispute subjects (science and religion.) we assume that one of two extremes must apply; either they must battle to the death or they can be fully integrated into one grand scheme as NOMA (non-overlapping magesteria) that they hold equal worth and status and they remain distinct and fully separate. A classic example of the clash between science and religion resulted.from the trial of Galileo in 1633. More on that later.

Nicolas Copernicus had shaken the world with his heliocentric (sun centered) theory much like Darwin did two centuries later. Even since Ptolemy proclaimed the Earth centered theory, which held that the earth was the center of the entire universe, people interpreted that to include all aspects of life’s worldview including their religious beliefs .( Essay number II). The Catholic Church had banned the heliocentric theory (a clash of the two magisteria) and Galileo’s discoveries pretty much “proved”(within the realm of scientist proof) it.

The Galileo Affair

The year 1616: Galileo traveled to Rome to defend his writings and to defend Kepler’s theory of heliocentrism which by then most theologians accepted.

The year 1624: Galileo. went back to Rome to assure his old friend Pope Urban VIII of proof for heliocentrism. However his proof lacked validity (which is putting it mildly). Contrary to popular belief, he was never charged with heresy.

The year 1633. Galileo was called back to Rome to answer charges from 1624. Galileo admitted his wrongdoings. Then the Inquisition handed down a harsh verdict and sentence forcing him to recant his belief inheliocentrism but never imprisioned or tortured him

The year 1642: Galileo died the same year Isaac Newton was born.

Why the harsh punishment? Some historians attribute it to bad luck; others believe he brought it on himself. He was a social and political climber. He apparently wanted to be the Pope’s astronomer /mathematician. Others believe he had a falling out with the Pope.

Science and Religion in Historic Perception

According to Vern Bullough “Views have ranged from regarding the two as mutually independent to independent from each other with a different sphere of knowledge or magesterium to outright hostility” Andrew Dickenson White (1896) and ‘Wlliam Whewworld, Church leaders stressed that they were distinct entities but mutually reinforcing in Victorian England (Powele 1834, Cannon 1978) This union was shattered in 1859 when Darwin published his “On the Origin of Species.” According to Bullough “there is no conflict between science and religion but there is often one between religion and science.” The reason is that religion often tries to incorporate scientific ideas into theological explanations. At this point Gould raises the question “Are we related to other organisms by genealogical ties or as items in the ordered scheme of a divine Creator?”  Why does so much of our DNA serve no purpose?  What caused the mass extinctions that have punctuated the history of life?’’ Religion determines the moral basis of utility and a scientist has no more right to intervene in such matters than a fundamentalist has to be an expert on the age of the earth. I will use a simile to explain, in part, why science has sometimes come into conflict with religion. Before there was science, there was religion. All “why” questions fell under the realm of religion or theology. Thus questions like “why do the stars seem to twinkle or why does it rain” now placed under the magisterium of science became a question for religion to answer. Some questions now with a scientific explana­tion had a simple explanation: “How do I know, the Bible tells me so.” or “angels did it.”

Columbus and the Flat Earth

For those readers who say that until there was science people always believed that the earth was flat, Aristotle‘s cosmology assumed a spherical planet and Erath Eratosthenes in the third century B. C., actually, believe it or not, measured the circumference of the earth. So how, when, and why did the concept of a flat earth come about? Apparently, Church dogma championed the idea of provoking fear that one might fall off the edge of the earth into eternal damnation.  An historical source of discord between religion and science is based on the fact that religious faith by its very nature is unchangeable. Science is. progressive and ever changing.  For over 900 years virtually all intellectuals accepted a “flat earth theory” The Renaissance rekindled classical notions of a spherical planet but proof remained for the exploits of explorers like Magellan and Columbus-who returned from the opposite direction instead of falling off the edge of the world. However, Columbus never did reach Asia and the term “Indian” for Native American is attributed to this error.  However, Columbus never fought any battles with ecclesiastical officials over the issue or nonissue of roundness vs flatness..

                                                                                                                   References

 Gould, S. (1999) Rocks of Ages. New York; the Random House Publishing Group

Kurtz, P. (2003) Science and Religion. Amhearst, New York; Prometheus Books

 

I graduated from Northern Illinois University in 1966 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Education and earned a Master of Science degree in Education also from NIU in 1973.   I taught in the Harlem School District (5 years), a Chicago suburb (1 year), and the Rockford, IL School District for 27 years (26 at East High School). I culminated my teaching career  at Kishwaukee College (8 years) Two important events occurred  in 1988: I married my wife Angie and I received a summer teacher’s research fellowship through  the University of Illinois School of Medicine at Rockford.  My primary responsibility was light microscopy and Scanning electron miscroscopy of rabbit renal arteries (effect of high cholesterol diet).  For 14 years I was a citizen scientist for the Illinois Department of Natural Resources in their RiverWatch program (monitoring water quality) My hobbies and activities include gardening, golfing, bowling, downhill and cross country skiing, photography, including photomicroscopy and time lapse photography, spending time with my wife and our dog, and in the winter playing around in my small home biology & chemistry lab.

Beyond what I have written in past profiles, in the early 1980’s I was an EMT with the Boone Volunteer Ambulance & Rescue Squad (BVARS) which fit in nicely with my science training and teaching. I also enjoy public speaking and made frequent scholarship presentations to graduating seniors and outstanding middle school students through the former Belvidere Y’ Men’s Club.  I also made power point presentations of the RiverWatch program. But I most enjoyed making presentations at my high school reunions.  Thanks guys for allowing me to do this. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

History & differences

      Although modern science began in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (and some scholars would claim the late fifthteenth century), the precursors of science go back to ancient Greece and Rome. However, not until a new method of inquiry relying on empirical analysis based on careful observation and data collection which replaced tradition, mysticism and Faith, could science flourish. “The cornerstones of science are based on tentativeness and open to criticism in light of new data. In order for scientific progress to be made, centuries of theological and philosophical beliefs had to be abandoned….  Astronomy led the way but only after ancient superstitious idioms in astrology were torn down and rediscovered concepts of mathematics were applied to the motions of stars and planets. Even new inventions like the telescope, as Galileo found out, took a. long time to win over new converts.  Advances in physics and chemistry in the nineteenth century and then biology placed them along­side the former in prestige. Tensions began to rise over the years between theologians and men of science as the clergy became fearful that science was reaping into their domain (magisterium, as we shall soon find out). Tensions escalated as scientists fought to defend the integrity and freedom of the scientific process.  “Religious doctrines and institutions had existed long before principles of science were established and are deeply entrenched in human history or sacred books, cathedrals, and temples.  Cultural heritages are ingrained in the very fabric of civilization….” (Kurtz)  Historically, to question sacred doctrines was to shake the very foundations of the sacred order. “Their religions have persisted because they were indoctrinated by custom and habit, sustained by law and rooted by faith… and defended as encompassing in Virtue. “ (Kurtz).  Science and religion differ profoundly in their meaning of truth. Science requires critical thinking, an open mind, and peer review. Science encompasses and transcends cultures, races, nationalities, and, yes, even Religions.  Christianity in the western world replaced pagan religions especially after the Emperor Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire thus splitting the empire, setting up Constantinople (now Istanbul) as a second papal city. (Kurtz)

      According to Stephen J. Gould  “I speak of the supposed conflict between science and religion, a debate that exists only in peoples’ minds and social practices, not in the logic on proper utility of these entirely different and equally vital subjects.” He then offers a disclaimer that nothing he says in his book, (Rocks of Ages) is original and that his arguments “follow a strong consensus accepted for decades by leading scientific and religious thinkers-alike.” Good people wish to see religion and science working together peacefully to enrich our lives. Gould doesn’t really see how science and religion could ever be unified under any common scheme or analysis but also could see why they should be in conflict. The following quote echoes something I have said for years “Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but entirely different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values…” He then proposes that we embrace a central principle of respectful noninterference with intense dialogue by eliciting the principle of N O MA-Non-Overlapping Magesteria.  (The word magisterium is derived from anagestas E magnum or great).  In other words, science and religious thinkers “debate and hold dialogue in an air of silent awe and obedience to each other. The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value.” This sounds extremely similar to a quote of mine in an early essay from volume I when I stated that “science deals with the question of what and how and religion try tries to answer the ultimate question-of why.” The two magesteria do not overlap. To put this in another way “science gets the age of rocks and religion the rocks of ages. Science studies how the heavens go, religion how to go to heaven.”

      Gould considers himself an agnostic but with open-minded skepticism as the only rational position since one cannot truly know. But he has great respect for religion saying it has always fascinated him almost as much as evolution, paleontology, and baseball (a man after my own heart).  His fascination with religion lies in the historical paradox that it has fostered of the “most unspeakable horrors and the most heartrending examples of human goodness. “

      The inevitable expansion of science out of religion’s expense began late in the seventeenth century during what become known as “the scientific revolution.” Probably the most ardent physicist in history prior to Albert Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton was a committed Christian, who according to Gould, spent more time working on the exegeses of the prophecies of Daniel and John than he devoted to physics. Even today many scientists have embraced NOMA by holding that “deep” questions about ultimate meanings lie outside the realm of science and under the auspice of religious inquiry while scientific methods based on spatiotemporal invariance of natural law apply to all potentially resolvable questions about the facts of nature. Such special interference is usually called a “miracle” or a temporary suspension of natural law. If God decided to suspend these laws for a moment, He would just do that.  J. S. Haldane, (1860-1936) a prominent Scottish physiologist believed that religion and the belief in supernatural events have no connection.  A devout Christian, he believed that religion is the greatest thing in life and behind recognized churches there is an unrecognized church to which all people belong.

An example of a conflict between religion and science centered around the shape of the earth.

        So, how, when, and why did the concept of a flat earth come about? Apparently Church dogma championed the idea of provoking fear that one might fall off the edge of the earth into eternal damnation. An historical source of discord between religion and science is based on the fact that religious faith by its very nature is unchangeable. The first commandment of NOMA holds that “Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special knowledge only through revelation and not accessible to science” According to Gould,  brilliant  Scientists like Newton (physics), Boyle (chemistry) and Hooke (biology), all religious men who argued that God wouldn’t allow contradiction between  His words (the scriptures) and His works (the natural world) Thus nature works by rigid laws that cannot contradict scripture, for God, maker of both cannot contradict himself (Gould)  Agreed!

   End of the first essay on science and religion

References

Gould, S. (1999) Rocks of Ages. New York; the Random House Publishing Group

Kurtz, P. (2003) Science and Religion. Amhearst, New York; Prometheus Books

End of Part XXXIII

I graduated from Northern Illinois University in 1966 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Education and earned a Master of Science degree in Education also from NIU in 1973.   I taught in the Harlem School District (5 years), a Chicago suburb (1 year), and the Rockford, IL School District for 27 years (26 at East High School). I culminated my teaching career  at Kishwaukee College (8 years) Two important events occurred  in 1988: I married my wife Angie and I received a summer teacher’s research fellowship through  the University of Illinois School of Medicine at Rockford.  My primary responsibility was light microscopy and Scanning electron miscroscopy of rabbit renal arteries (effect of high cholesterol diet).  For 14 years I was a citizen scientist for the Illinois Department of Natural Resources in their RiverWatch program (monitoring water quality) My hobbies and activities include gardening, golfing, bowling, downhill and cross country skiing, photography, including photomicroscopy and time lapse photography, spending time with my wife and our dog, and in the winter playing around in my small home biology & chemistry lab.

Beyond what I have written in past profiles, in the early 1980’s I was an EMT with the Boone Volunteer Ambulance & Rescue Squad (BVARS) which fit in nicely with my science training and teaching. I also enjoy public speaking and made frequent scholarship presentations to graduating seniors and outstanding middle school students through the former Belvidere Y’ Men’s Club.  I also made power point presentations of the RiverWatch program. But I most enjoyed making presentations at my high school reunions.  Thanks guys for allowing me to do this. 

Originally I intended for my next several essays to treat the historical controversial battle between science and religion but changed my mind to return to the subject of viruses for obvious reasons.  Let’s review some basic viral facts.  First of all, viruses are composed of just two kinds of organic molecules, an outer protein coat and an inner nucleic acid core comprised of DNA, or RNA, but not both. The nucleic acid component may be single stranded or double stranded DNA or RNA. From essay IX we learned the following facts about both DNA and RNA: the  basic unit of structure of nucleic acids is a nucleotide. A nucleotide of DNA consists of a sugar (deoxyribose), a phosphate group, and a nitrogenous base (adenine, guanine, cytosine, or thymine). The DNA molecule is a long double stranded molecule that is twisted into a double helix. There are many kinds of RNA but they all differ from DNA in that the sugar is ribose (with one more oxygen atom); uracil is substituted for thymine,

As you can see from the diagram below a virus is not necessarily considered a living “thing” It can only live in or on another living organism (There are viruses that inhabit virtually every living being).  They can reproduce only when they are inside another living cell making them an obligate parasite. Unlike any living organism, they can be crystalized, put on a shelf almost indefinitely, then rehydrated and can proceed to invade a cell, reproduce, and carry on all known life processes.

Now let’s look at an image of coronavirus

Some viruses are very specific as to not only the host species but also in some cases the specific cell type, tissue, or organ. A virus attaches to a specific receptor site on the host cell membrane through attachment proteins in the capsid or via glycoproteins embedded in the viral envelope. For example hepatitis viruses attack the liver The specificity of this interaction determines the host—and the cells within the host—that can be infected by a particular virus. (Lumen Learning)

According to MLB.com, yes that’s major league baseball, a novel coronavirus is a new coronavirus that has not been previously identified… On February 11, 2020, the World Health Organization announced an official name for the disease that is causing the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak, abbreviated as COVID-19. In COVID-19, ‘CO’ stands for ‘corona,’ ‘VI’ for ‘virus,’ and ‘D’ for disease. There are many types of human coronaviruses including some that commonly cause mild upper-respiratory tract illnesses Originally, the following symptoms were listed as most common:

• Fever
• Fatigue
• Cough
• Shortness of breath

Since then many others have been added.  I’m not going to spend much time here going over all the symptoms since most everyone is aware of them. 

The most common symptoms of COVID-19 are fever, tiredness, and dry cough. Some patients may have aches and pains, nasal congestion, runny nose, sore throat or diarrhea… Some people become infected but don’t develop any symptoms and don’t feel unwell. Most people (about 80%) recover from the disease without needing special treatment. Around 1 out of every 6 people who gets COVID-19 becomes seriously ill and develops difficulty breathing. Older people, and those with underlying medical problems like high blood pressure, heart problems or diabetes, are more likely to develop serious illness. People with fever, cough and difficulty breathing should seek medical attention.

People can catch COVID-19 from others who have the virus. The disease can spread from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth which are spread when a person with COVID-19 coughs or exhales. These droplets land on objects and surfaces around the person. Other people then catch COVID-19 by touching these objects or surfaces, then touching their eyes, nose or mouth. People can also catch COVID-19 if they breathe in droplets from a person with COVID-19 who coughs out or exhales droplets.  Older persons and persons with pre-existing medical conditions (such as high blood pressure, heart disease, lung disease, cancer or diabetes) appear to develop serious illness more often than others. (WHO)

Early on I was hearing from many people that COVID-19 was “just like the flu” in symptoms and severity.  COVIC -19 isn’t the flu; it’s worse, it is deadlier, far more contagious, and is much more disruptive to our health care system.  It’s hard to get an accurate figure on yearly averages here in America and other countries for flu occurrences and deaths for several reasons.  For one, many people never see a doctor or the illness may be misdiagnosed.  Even the CDC often counts related deaths as flu.  Just in one article I read 37,000 deaths last year were due to influenza with a normal average of 27,000-70,000.  That’s quite a staggering range.  In the same article I saw a range of 30,000-100,000 deaths annually.

Biologically COVID-19 takes from 5-14 days to develop symptoms compared to 2 days for the flu thereby giving it more time to spread through greater social interaction.  And then too, as of now and the near future, unlike seasonal influenza, there is no vaccine.  Initially it was thought that coronavirus was spread by droplets released from sneezing, exhaling, and coughing but now other methods are potentially being added to the list.  United States data on influenza deaths are misleading.  The CDC acknowledges a difference between flu death and flu associated death, yet the terms are used interchangeably.  David Rosenthal, director of Harvard University Health Services said “People don’t necessarily die of the flu virus. . ..  What they die of is a secondary pneumonia”.

The 25.000 to 69,000  number that Trump originally cited doesn’t represent counted flu deaths annually but are estimates the CDC uses by applying complex equations.  Surprised?  Fooled me too.  But in all fairness COVID-19 deaths totals are probably misleading too.  Rumor has it that hospitals receive federal funds for each coronavirus death at their facility and so the natural tendency is to attribute unconfirmed deaths to COVID-19 especially when they are swamped. 

So, for the  the doubters out there who either contest that this is no worse than the flu or that it’s a big hoax, please don’t say that to the thousands of families who have lost loved ones and think about questions like:

• When was the last time the flu closed schools around the globe?
• When was the flu last responsible for closing businesses by the millions around the world?
• When was the last time the flu interrupted sporting events including the Olympics?
• When did the flu cause stock markets to fall to depression levels?
• When was the last time the flu caused unemployment levels and food lines, not seen since the 1930’s? And finally
• When in any of our lives were we “required” to wear masks in public places?

                    Effect of COVID-19 on the Environment

Like most everyone else, I liked the gas prices reminiscent of the late sixties and early seventies.  But when did I have reason to burn that cheap gas? Air pollution dropped significantly because of fewer vehicles on the road and fewer factories in operation.  Here ae a few sample of cleaner air:

• Nitrogen dioxide pollution in Northeastern US down 30%
• Rome air pollution down 49% from a year ago

Compared to previous five years, air pollution was down

• 46% in Paris
• 35% in Bengal, India
• 38% in Sydney
• 29% in Los ‘Angeles
• 20% in Rio de Janeiro

Add those to the list above of differences between COVID 9 and the flu.

However, scientists caution that this is only a temporary decrease and levels will rise again as some sense of normalcy returns.

There is also a downside to this.  Plastic shopping bags that many people previously recycled are now being included in trash or carelessly ending up on beaches, in waterways, etc.  The same is true for disinfectant bottles.

One final thought to ponder.  I am becoming more and more convinced that coronavirus-COVID-19, whatever you want to call it is the product of artificial selection, not the result of natural selection! If so what a shame!

References

Center for Disease Control, COVID-219, 2020                                                                        

Major League Baseball, What are coronavirus and COVID-19? May 10, 2020

Statista (German internet company), What are coronaviruses ?  Feb. 20, 2020

Thanos, K., Founder and CEO, Viruses Lumen Learning, 2012

World Health Organization  COVID-19, March 14, 2020

As I begin to write my third series of Essays on Science for the Common Good in the third week of March 2020, We-the entire human race are right in the midst of disastrous cataclysmic events that none of us has ever witnessed before. Schools are closing, entire businesses and industries are failing, stock markets are crashing, and the word pandemic is taking on a personal meaning to us. More and more cases of COVID-19 are burgeoning and the death rate too keeps rising. Social distancing has become a household word as many of us are beginning to feel not only physical isolation but psychological separation as well. The world has changed faster than the human brain can comprehend amid social disorder; it’s hard to make some sense out of chaos. Many of us turn to one of two magisterium, religion or science for comfort. Since both have been very influential in my life I turn to both. After all with no sports of any kind at any level what other choices are there. And I’m talking not only spectator sports, but participant sports as well. The last week of bowling, was canceled and a spokesperson for two local golf courses today could not confirm whether golf courses are considered “essential businesses” and, therefore, will be able to open… Oh well, such is life.

Sunday, March 22, 2020  Listened to part of a Lutheran sermon to an empty church building and viewed a Methodist sermon streaming on my PC also of an empty church, spent half an hour listening  to a favorite website that not only has awesome spiritual music but also excellent secular music. It is 12: 30 CDT and I should soon be turning on a Cubs spring training game-maybe in a couple months. Just to catch my past readers up a little, we had very little snow in our locale in North-central Illinois this past winter; I cross country skied (Nordic to you European skiers) only about four times this winter and zero times downhill (Alpine). At seventy seven (just 8 days ago and yes I often say I share a birthday with another genius) I think my downhill days are over. I have done several labs (Vernier) and in non-Vernier labs I just recently did a lab on the effect of stimulants (e. g. caffeine, and sucrose) on the motility of planaria (flatworms in phylum Platyhelminthes) and just finished doing a lab on the effect of NaCl concentration, temperature, and pH level (a lab on natural selection) in Artemia (brine shrimp) in which eggs were placed in different environments and hatching viability percentages were calculated. In the first base (no baseball pun intended) experiment, salinity was the independent variable. In two extensions that I designed, temperature and pH were the independent variables. In all three experiments the dependent variable was, of course, the percentage of hatching eggs. And in an ongoing lab I have a colony of mealworms to study the effect of temperature (independent variable) on metamorphosis from eggs to larvae, to pupae, to adult. Eggs are very small and thus hard to find. Both larvae and adults were placed in the growth chamber (pan) and kept warm at about 30°C (86°F) One group of pupae were incubated in an incubator set at 30°C while the other group developed at room temperature (approximately 20°C (68°F))

I have an electrophoresis and Simulated Genetic Screen lab to do. I still have some yearly (winter) tasks to do, shredding, recycling / tossing) documents, receipts, etc. and probably will not get around to converting old photos to digital images. In other news our beautiful 10 year 9 month old collie, Brandie really suffers from arthritis in both hips and hind legs and often needs help getting up. She has almost as many meds to take as my wife and I have. We’re hoping some of last year’s foxes will return to raise their young even though they, along with dropped bird seed hulls, wreak havoc on our perennial garden.

Before I conclude this introduction to my third series of essays I would like to make a few offerings to our present situation worldwide. In all the gloom and doom of the present there are some silver linings. I am going to use a trite cliché that I detest. People are “reaching out to connect.” Maybe a temporary hiatus in youth sports will mean more family dinners here in the United States, more phone conversations with family and friends near and far, more family games. (I have talked to all of my sisters at great length in the last few days). Perhaps more people will agree to agree rather than agree to disagree and perhaps-just perhaps politicians and lawmakers will rediscover bipartisan politics and put their constituents first before their own selfish personal agendas. Specifically here in Illinois maybe fairly drawn districts and term limits will replace corrupt government. A few weeks ago when the last corrupt Illinois politician was pardoned from prison it marked the first time since 2007 that no Illinois politician was in a prison.  Wow!

At the risk of sounding preachy, in these troubled times find solace and hope in something/someone.  I go back to an inspirational song that went to my very heart, core, and soul that kept me going in 2013, a song that brings tears to my eyes yet: “You’ll Never Walk Alone”  (Elvis’s rendition especially) It ranks up there with “It is Well With My Soul”, now perhaps my favorite hymn.

I will have an outline coming soon but be looking for some essays on the two magesteria mentioned above and, of course, more on global warming. (That’s still there).

Did Darwin read Mendel? 

David Galton

Read no further if you want a definite answer to this question. It is a sort of detective story with clues scattered around. The circumstances surrounding the question however are so interesting since they involve two of the most important scientific publications of the 19th century.

The truly ground-breaking studies of Gregor Mendel were read before the Society for the Study of Natural Science of Brunn in 1865 entitled Versuche uber Pflanzen-Hybriden (Experiments in Plant Hybridization). Mendel ordered 40 reprints of his paper to send to famous European scientists; Darwin by then was certainly one of the most famous. Darwin’s book on Origin of Species had been out for 6 years and was already in its 3rd edition. It had been translated into German, French, Dutch, Spanish, Polish and Russian.

Mendel had of course read and studied the Origin of Species in the German translation, Uber die Entstehung der Arten as soon as the second edition appeared in 1863. In his personal copy, he made many notes in the margin with his small and careful handwriting with double underlines of some of the text and even interspersed with the occasional exclamation mark. He bought most of Darwin’s other works and studied them carefully making frequent annotations. So it would be natural for him to send Darwin, as an eminent English naturalist, one of his 40 reprints.

Of the 40 reprints of Mendel’s article records exist that one was sent to each of the following scientists: von Marilaun, Kerner, Beijerinck, Boveri, Schleiden, and the Swiss botanist Karl Wilhelm von Nageli, now working in Munich. The last exchanged letters with Mendel over 7 years on the topic. More copies of the reprint were to be found in learned societies around Europe including the Royal Society, the Linnaean Society and the Greenwich Observatory in Britain.

Where were the other remaining reprints sent (about 29)? At the time Darwin’s house in Kent was a sort of communication hub for European naturalists. Darwin was writing (and receiving) letters on a daily basis about issues and problems of natural history. If Darwin had received and read Mendel’s article, he would have found a detailed analysis of the frequencies observed for different inherited traits from generation to generation of the edible pea. But these results were given in a mathematical form that might have put Darwin off from reading any more of the article. Darwin said that: ‘Mathematics in biology was like a scalpel in a carpenter’s shop – there was no use for it.’ The concluding remarks of the paper made quite far reaching claims that the author had discovered laws that could predict the appearance of the different hybrid characters in successive generations of the edible pea, and that this would probably apply to other plant species. Of course it needed confirmation by further experimentation, but in view of the unity in the developmental plan of all organic life one may assume it to be correct. The final two paragraphs argued that the transference of characteristics amongst cultivated plants, such as the edible pea, can be accomplished and seems to occur by discrete integral steps which if accumulating in one species of plant could ‘transform’ it into a different species. Mendel’s conclusions left no room for blending inheritance that Darwin believed to occur.

Darwin was usually meticulous in assimilating new material and making notes. He could read German slowly, a few pages at a time. He was already corresponding with several top European scientists who were working on the broad issue of heredity. There was Carl F von Gaertner in Southern Germany working in the small town of Calw and later in Stuttgart; August Weismann in Freiberg and also von Nageli. If Darwin thought German articles were important enough he would get them translated by William Dallas, a competent naturalist who often prepared the indexes of Darwin’s books. In the case of Mendel’s article, it was left to the Royal Horticultural Society to translate the work into English a few decades later.

Even if Darwin did not receive a reprint he had yet other chances to read of Mendel’s work in the early 1870s. Hermann Hoffman, a Professor of Botany at Giessen had written a little book on plant hybrids in 1869 and on page 52 was a long excerpt from Mendel’s paper of 1865. On Darwin’s copy of the book (now preserved in the Cambridge University Library) are hand written notes in the margins by Darwin on pages 50, 51, 53 (facing page 52), 54 and 55. These are close to the citation of Mendel’s paper but it may be that Darwin skipped over this passage or did not appreciate its significance.

Darwin had a further chance to read about Mendel’s work in 1881. A student of his, George Romanes, was preparing an article for the Encyclopedia Britannica on plant hybridization. He enlisted Darwin’s help to suggest names of eminent botanists who should be included. Darwin replied by sending Romanes a copy of a recently received book by Wilhelm Focke on the topic, published in 1881. Mendel’s work was summarized on three pages (108–111) and the section ended stating that: ‘Mendel thought he had found constant numerical relationships between the different types of crosses’. But these pages were uncut in Darwin’s copy and Romanes left them so. Mendel’s name was included by Romanes in his article for the Encyclopedia, but he never read what Mendel had done.

Did Darwin miss the significance of this one jewel out of the many plant hybrid papers that were being published at the time? He could have easily checked the results for himself. Darwin had personally done and was still doing large numbers of plant breeding experiments using more than 50 plant species including the edible pea, orchid, snapdragon, flax, primrose, etc., but never with the idea of primarily studying the transmission of plant characters. He was more interested in the problem of hybrid vigour and its role for evolution. His main question was whether seeds from cross-fertilized flowers would produce superior plants than seeds derived from self-fertilized flowers. It seems he never thought of performing plant breeding experiments to check the results of Mendel, even though he had the required skill, knowledge, resources and the patience to do this sort of work. In his book on The variation of animals and plants under domestication (1868) he wrote that he had planted 41 varieties of English and French edible pea to study the extent of their variation. He observed the variations that Mendel had studied: smooth vs. wrinkled peas; tall plants vs. short ones; differences in flower colour, etc.; but he did not study any hybrids. However, he did do crosses using the common snapdragon with the rarer (peloric) form. In the second generation of hybrids that he obtained, he counted 90 to be the common variety (with two as an intermediate type) and 37 to be the rarer form. He thus obtained a ratio very close to 3:1; but he made no comments on this. Darwin was still thinking along the lines of blending inheritance where one would never expect to get constant ratios in the inheritance of parental traits. And he held this view until his death in 1882.

The unsolved mystery therefore remains: did Darwin actually receive a copy of Mendel’s article? And if so did he bother to read it? A catalogue of Darwin’s library from Down House published in 1908 (that is 26 years after Darwin’s death) did not record any of Mendel’s papers. However after Darwin’s death in 1882 his scientific library passed to his son Francis. Down House was cleared of its contents in 1896 following the death of Emma Darwin and the house then leased to a school. Francis Darwin later bequeathed the library to the Professor of Botany at Cambridge University and a catalogue of the library was prepared by H.W. Rutherford (the one published in 1908). There was thus ample time for small items to go astray.

The catalogue did record the presence of Focke’s and Hoffmann’s books; and the former mentions Mendel’s claim to have found ‘constant numerical relationships’ among the different phenotypes of the F2 generation of the edible pea.

Even if Darwin had received Mendel’s reprint did he read it? He was not sympathetic to a mathematical presentation of data and Mendel’s paper was full of algebraic reasoning. If he did read it there is no evidence that Mendel’s analysis influenced Darwin’s firmly held views on blending inheritance. This might have held up the progress of genetics for Darwin’s colleagues in England (G. Romanes, T.H. Huxley, F. Galton, etc.) for at least two decades.

References

Curt S, Sherwood ER. The Origin of Genetics: A Mendel Source Book. San Francisco, W H Freeman, 1966.

Henig RM. A Monk and Two Peas. London, Phoenix, 2001.

She writes that a reprint was sent to Darwin and she obtained her information about this from Anna Matlova, who was director of the previously named Mendel Museum in Brunn. Of course sending a reprint is not the same as receiving one.

Iltis H. Life of Mendel. New York, Norton, 1932.

Mendel GJ. Versuche uber Pflanzen-Hybriden. Verk naturf.Ver in Brunn; band iv 1865. English translation in J R Hortic Soc 1901 and in Bateson W. Mendel’s Principles of Heredity. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1902.

Olby RC. Origins of Mendelism. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1985.

Olby R, Gantrey P. Eleven references to Mendel before 1900. Ann Sci 1968; 24:7–20. This is a scholarly account of the uptake of Mendel’s work before 1900.

Orel V. Gregor Mendel: The First Geneticist. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1996.

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Association of Physicians. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Issue Section:

 Coda

The following essay was adapted from an article by Crystal Jeter

1. One set of alleles is responsible^–for determining each trait, and there are only 2 different alleles (dominant and recessive) for each gene. By way of explanation, alleles are different forms of a gene (and usually expressed by, say A & a). After learning about simple Mendelian inheritance,   alleles (dominant and recessive) and sex-llnked traits, students often think that it is possible to predict results easily..  In humans at least three different genes are associated with eye color. Coat color in cats is controlled by at least six genes Furthermore, the number of particular alleles inherited masks the expression of some characteristics.   For example, the number of alleles that you inherit from each parent that code for production of melanin may partially determine your hair color. Inheritance of more of the alleles may lead to darker hair while inheritance of fewer may lead to lighter hair. For traits that show a Mendelian pattern of inheritance, students often assume that there are only 2 possible alleles for a trait. This is true in some cases. But in many cases, there are more alleles for a trait.  Human height, weight, skin color, and intelligence are all polygenic traits (having many genes ).

2. Your genes determine all of your characteristics, and cloned organisms are exact copies of the original. While genes play a  huge role in how an organism develops, environmental factors also play a role. Epigenetics is the study of heritable changes that occur without changes in the genome.  The gene expression in identical twins has shown changes from factors such as diet and exposure to a different environment. Further studies with identical twins have suggested that these changes can accumulate over the life of the organism. The cloning of Rainbow, a domestic cat demonstrated one striking example of epigenetics. Rainbow’s coat revealed calico coloration while the coat of the clone named Copycat, is a tabby pattern. Because Copycat and Rainbow had identical genomes, the differences must be due to epigenetic factors.

3. All mutations are harmful.  A mutation is a change in the genetic code of an organism. Many mutations are harmful and cause organisms not to develop properly. However, many mutations are silent and some prove beneficial. In the case of a silent mutant, change in the genome does not change the production of the amino add sequence and subsequent protein (remember that multiple codons may code for the same amino acid, so a change in one nucleotide does not necessarily change the gene product). If an organism does live with a mutation, then often the environment will determine whether the mutation is beneficial or harmful. Production of one protein vs. another may confer a characteristic such as a difference in coloration or in the ability to digest a resource (e.g. the ability to digest lactose or maltose instead of sucrose). The phenotypic outcome may be selected, for or against depending on environmental factors

4. A dominant trait is the most likely to be found in the population. The term dominant allele^.sometimes conveys to students the impression that the dominant form of a trail is the one that exists in the greatest proportion in a population.   However, dominant refers only to the allele’s expression over another allele. Human genetics includes examples of dominant traits that do not affect the majority of a population. In fact, acnoridroplasia, a type of dwarfism caused by the presence of a dominant allele is found in fewer than 1 in 10,000 live births. Huntington’s disease, a degenerative disease caused by the presence of a dominant allele occurs at a rate of about 3 to 7 cases per 100,000 people of European descent. And polydactyly (having extra fingers and dwarfism) is a dominant trait. But how many of us have six digits ?

5. While the fifth point is not necessarily a misconception Genetics terms are often confused. Many students understand the basic ideas of genetics but need more familiarity with the terms.  For example, students often struggle with the difference between a chromosome, a gene and an allele.  Chromosomes are structures containing proteins and a single coiled strand of DNA; chromosomes are visible with a microscope only during part of the cell cycle. Genes are units of heredity—specific sequences of DNA or RNA that create proteins with particular functions in an organism. Alleles are variants of a gene. Making sure that students have a strong foundation in the terminology can greatly improve their understanding of genetics and prevent misconceptions.

Dispelling these 5 misconceptions will help students better understand genetics and activities that you plan for both the classroom and the lab. They will also realize there are many influences on the way living things develop genetically over time.