Never allow your mind to get prejudiced about an idea or a thought. The key to really understand things is to have an open mind. If what you have been believeing ever since your birth is found to be false, enquire into it with an open mind and if all evidences point towards it being false, immediately give up your childhood belief.
Do not stick to your old belief inspite of knowing it is false, and do not try to find evidence which will prove that it is true, just for the sake of proving it true.
On the contrary, the best way to prove something right is always to try to prove it wrong! In this way you will always strengthen your beliefs because you would have tried to prove it wrong in n number of ways and it should pass the test every time.
I hate when people start arguments based on prejudice. I do not argue with such people. I am not here to change anybody, I am here to increase my knowledge. Those who stick to their prejudice, to their egos and blind faith are just making fools of themselves.
Let us talk about evolution. When I was first taught Darwin’s theory of evolution I actually liked that idea. But then no prejudice please. Upon enquiry I had a doubt. Life started evolving from carbon and other raw materials available on earth. Well, in that case all these raw materials as we know do not come under the definition of life. So as things evolved where did LIFE exactly start? Was it when the first cell was formed? Or was it when the first amino acid formed? Was it when the first protein molecule formed?
As I studied further, I came across viruses which are defined as intermediate stage between life and lifeless chemicals. This is because viruses cannot reproduce on their own. They need a host to multiply! One of the basic properties of life is the ability to multiply on its own by reproducing. So viruses do not fit into this category unless the definition includes a host cell!
So as I continued my thoughts on this I am yet to find a satisfactory answer to whether some intelligent designer designed life or was it purely natural evolution with random mutations.
But I am sure that darwin’s theory cannot account for the formation of complex life forms. I feel darwin’s theory is right only within its own domain and the problem exists because it has been extended outside its domain as something which explains the entire evolution of life on this planet.
Even the evolution of a simplest of the simple proteins from random combination of amino acids is not possible, even looking at it as a probabilistic chance in terms of earth’s age! Not possible even in terms of universal age known to us!
Then all these proteins have to assemble together, form sub cellular entities, then cells.. looks like proteins were already intelligent 
Not possible. Then DNA, genes, replication, repair mechanism, translation… No way possible that it evolved on its own, unless and until there is a totally different type of operational procedures at molecular level, which I dont think is the case..
If we say that we evolved merely from random mutations, then I would like to quote Einstein but in a different context as “God does not play dice” 
The domain of the darwin’s theory as I think is adaptation of life, NOT evolution of life. Darwin’s theory explains the process of natural adaptation very well, the most suitable design will survive in an environment. Like for instance consider the birds of gallapagus which he found. Some have soft beaks and some have strong beaks. During a drought the soft beaks birds do not get fruits to feed on, while the strong beak birds can break open the shells of dried fruits from earlier seasons and survive on it. So in this case the soft beaked birds will not survive.
So what darwin’s theory explains is the survival and adaptation within a species. But there is no way that it explains the evolution of a completely different species from one species. Nor there is any way that is explains the very basic evolution of life where mitochondria, lysosomes, DNA etc form on their own(?!) and then form a cell, and then cells group together to form multi cellular life.. all this does not look scientific enough. Its not logical, its highly probabilistic. And as I have said in my earlier articles, this definitely does not explain the creation (or evolution) of new species. It is simply impossible for chromosome numbers to change and new genes to be formed by a genetic mutation and for opposite sex individuals of the same species to be formed at the same time so that they reproduce to continue the new species!
So in a nutshell, darwin’s theory only explains the adaptation of a particular species or the survivability of a particular species. But it does not explain Evolution of life, there is simply not enough data to support this.
Probably Darwin’s theory is just a subset of the real theory of creation/evolution of life on this planet.
June 3, 2007 at 10:22 pm |
“So what darwin’s theory explains is the survival and adaptation within a species. ”
That is what the Theory of Evolution is all about, indeed. And it does explain speciation quite nicely – to put it as simply as possible, enough adaptations, enough changes then the differences between two groups will be so great that eventually they’ll be different species.
And the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. That’s covered by the Theory of Abiogenesis.
June 4, 2007 at 7:21 am |
@Matt.
Darwin’s theory does not explain the formation of new species either! It only explains what survives within a given species!
For a new species to form the basic DNA structure has to change. Not just some gene change, but entire chromosomes have to be added or removed. Moreover, there should be a male and female of the new species at the same time!
This whole theory of new species evolving from old species is based on mutations of genes. First thing is mutation is not natural selection, its accidental. Secondly mutation is most of the time harmful and kills the offspring. Thirdly mutation is just a gene change, no new chromosomes are formed or removed. New species requires change in chromosomal count or heavy genetic alteration via hundreds of mutations and all these mutations have to be good ones.
Lastly new species require atleast two from the opposite sexes!!!
So Evolution based on change DOES NOT explain formation of new species.
Random gene mutation has nothing to do with changes based on adaptation. But then there is no other scientific explanation available today for small changes in genetic structure other than mutation.
Also evolution does not explain the addition of fancy features to a species. When everything was going fine why did a new species evolve? Or why did some new features evolve? There are lots of unanswered questions in evolution.
Evolution does not explain cambrian explosion either!
June 4, 2007 at 8:52 am |
“Darwin’s theory does not explain the formation of new species either! It only explains what survives within a given species!”
*sigh* Have you actually researched the Theory of Evolution? The whole basis of the Theory is evolution of different species. A simple example: Species A lives in one area. A part of Species A migrates to another area with differing climate and terrain. To survive, Species A adapts and evolves until such time as it is a different species. Things gradually change over time until they become something new that survives better.
“When everything was going fine why did a new species evolve?”
*sigh* Because nothing is perfect and things can also be better suited. Therefore, things continue to change.
“Evolution does not explain cambrian explosion either!”
It’s been covered:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html
I suggest you do some more research into this topic before continuing.
June 4, 2007 at 6:20 pm |
@Matt
Well then you tell me how darwin’s theory explains formation of new species. I dont know whether you understand chromosomes, genes etc. Going by your own example of migration to another area of different climate and terrain, if they are not adapted to that climate then they simply perish, thats all.
If, as you said that creates a new species instead, then how does that happen? How do the genes mutate? How do new chromosomes form? How does a new male and female of the new species evolve at the same time? Inter species breeding is not possible… This is a major stumbling block.
HOW DO NEW SPECIES FORM AT A GENETIC LEVEL?
How does the information about the required changes in the new species passes on to the animal prompting a change in the genetic structure of the next offspring? The current answer is random mutation. Obviously random mutation has nothing to do with passing information about required changes!!
Random mutation can in no way lead to a new species, it only leads to deformed off springs. For new species to form out of random mutations, the exactly required n number of mutations should occur in the same offspring (one male and one female should be born for the new species). Random mutations cannot explain addition or deletion of chromosomes which is what differs from species to species! All your arguments will be ignored if you do not address this very basic issue. When you say new species evolves based on random mutation, it definitely cant be adaptation!
The existing theory is like saying arranging the letters of English alphabet randomly will form a Shakespeare’s sonnet!
An even more basic question.. by your own example of the adaption based evolution of new species.. it takes few generations to form a new species… do you think till that new species evolves, nature will give some compensation for existing unadaptable species to continue to live and breed till the new species arrives??
In Darwin’s time he didn’t know about cellular mechanism which is why he doesn’t explain the origin of life. Which is why it got carried away to abiogenesis. Even today all experiments to create even the very basic fundamental amino acid out of chance from existing raw chemicals has failed miserably!! Read about Stanley miller’s experiments on this.
June 7, 2007 at 11:13 am |
Boy! you say dont be a prisoner of any ideas but you surely are. You seem to question things, which is very good, but you dont have an “open mind” which you yourself have admitted is the key to better understanding. Let me clear somethings for you with the little knowledge i have.
1. New species are created only when there’s a need for it, eg: Ages ago tiny Vegitarian(pardon my layman terms) fish roamed the oceans, primarly feeding on the planktons etc, but as time went by(and by time i mean 1000’s of years), these fish would have become so huge in number, so huge that they’re competing for the little food. In that case there might be certain fish which would have liked the idea of eating flesh. Let me tell you that these small percentage are could be very low as 5 or 10 in a million. but these fish would have fed upon the dead carcases of the other fish and would have survived longer than their contemporaries. They would have spread this too their offsprings. These fish could have come in to exsistence by the process of crossover, where during the exchange of chromosomes (23 from papa and 23 from mama in our case) there are variations producted in the DNA sequence, there by affecting the Genes(since genes are composed of DNA) and this will therefore affect the chromosomes since choromosomes consist of genes (from a few 100 to 1000’s in some chromosomes). These fish could now evolve into sharks, piranahs and all the Non-Veg Fish that you see. This is because evolution is a continous process. A becomes B, B becomes C .. it goes on.
2. The point here is that these Non-Veg fish could have come into existence a long time before but at that time there were no need of Non-Veg, since at that time there were lot of natural food available, and hence their numbers would have dwindled down or stayed the same. Only when there was very little food, or there was a need for survival, would the advantages that these fish had for years would have come into play.
3. Another important phenonmenon in natural evolution is that evolution does not always happen at a constant rate. There are always periods of time where in there are a burst of new species for no reason, this has happened a lot during the history of earth. These are known as Punctuated Equilibriums. No one clearly know what ifluences them, but most of the vibrant species today could have sprout from any of the Punk-EEK (for short) phase. And clearly this cannot be design because of its randomness. By defnition designs are always structured and timed.
It is very easy to give credit to intelligent design because Life and Life forms are beautiful and seemingly flawless, but looking closer you see the flaws the numerous “Trial and erros” that would surely indicate the role of nature who is the ultimate desinger.
Coming to amino acids, they cannot be called life, LIFE is anything that is conscious of it self and its surroundings. Even amoeba is consicous of itself and it surroundings and hence it is defnitely a life Form, but not viruses, since they’re just a patch of chemicals.
In terms of computers they’re like a bad piece of CODE (junk code), which just keeps repeating itself once it is put into the executing program (LIFEFORM).They cannot be executed by Them selves(not .exe files) . Virus have no intention to LIVE and propagte, unlike bacteria. They’re just a nasty chemicals (quite complex but) that will ultimately result in breakdown of cells because your cells are kinda “allergic” to them. I know i can explain this a lot better in person. But i hope i’ve cleared some things for you.
Feel free to comment back. And i really loved the piece about vedas and caste system
-swamy
June 7, 2007 at 9:02 pm |
@swamy
I enjoyed your comments!
Now let me tell. A few years back I was a staunch supporter of evolution. But as I started digging in, I found there were obvious flaws in it visible ONLY to an open eye.
Let me also clarify. I am NO SUPPORTER OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN either! I support only the truth. I have my own problems with intelligent design too. Who designed the intelligent designer? was he one or many? did he design all at once or in phases? Who is he/she/? And we all know its an endless chain…
Do you know a real bird fossil which is much older than Archeopteryx was found in China? Archeopteryx is not an intermediate between birds and dinosaurs. It is in fact a bird itself! See my post http://hitxp.wordpress.com/2007/05/19/an-evolutionary-crisis/
You said “New species are created only when there’s a NEED for it”. Sorry, THERE IS NO SUCH MECHANISM IN OUR GENES WHICH CAN DECIDE WHEN TO CREATE A NEW SPECIES. Can you describe the actual mechanism? For this to happen there has to be a process which continuously monitors the surroundings to identify any NEED that arises. What is that mechanism? How does it monitor the surroundings? Only accepted way today as to how a new species is created is via RANDOM MUTATION. Note the term RANDOM here. There is simply no known scientific process in our genes which can identify the NEED to modify existing species!!
Even if we for the sake of argument blindly assume that there exists one such mechanism, the very next question is when and how was this mechanism created during evolution. Evolution had to be started with simplest of molecules, as there was NO life in young earth when it formed, so in that case, when and how did this mechanism that decides the NEED get created?
What you said about 23 papa mama chromosomes clearly shows you are arguing without even knowing the basics of how genetics works. Sorry to say this but please please please read about genetics first.
During crossing over phase of meiosis sister chromatids EXCHANGE genetic code, and this entire genetic code belongs to same species where random sets of alleles are selected from what you call mama and papa to form the new child with a combination of features from mama and papa. CROSSING OVER IS NOT MUTATION. THERE IS NO WAY ON EARTH that this can lead to the formation of a new species. You can get it confirmed from any genetics expert you know.
If what you said were true then by now scientists would have produced hundreds of new species by trying out millions of crossing overs in a lab!! HOW ON EARTH CAN CROSSING OVER CREATE /REMOVE CHROMOSOMES FROM THE OFFSPRING? If that were the case the offspring would die in its infancy itself. Have you seen what even very minor genetic mistakes like sickle cell anaemia cause???
Please read genetics completely. Please read about the cellular mechanism. Without knowing these things completely, it is very wrong to argue for/against evolution/intelligent design or any related theory.
Even if we assume that for arguments sake you are right and Crossing over does indeed result in a new species. Now assume that this new species is a male member. Now what are the chances that another new female of this new species is formed at the same time period to another set of parents in a nearby vicinity?? We all know very well that sexual counterpart is required for continuation of a species.
Do the sister chromatids of one set of parents talk to the sister chromatids in the other set of parents and decide to form a new species whose genetic strucuture is mutually agreed upon?? Just think, doesnt it sound like a funny story? There will be distinct billions of crossing over of sperms of which only one (or few depending on the species, for ex: for humans usually one child, for dogs usually about 6-8) that will finally become new born(s). Now what are the chances that for two different couples, the same type of NEW species is born, one male and one female, out of these billions of combinations?? So even if the sister chromatids are made to talk to each other and agree on a new design, one cannot guarantee that they will be the ones who will be fertilized!!
NOTE THE MOST ABSURD REQUIREMENT HERE. Even if we forget the requirement for a sexual counterpart to reproduce and continue the species, there is major flaw in this argument of yours. It is the absurd requirement that, when one pair of chromosomes from Papa decide to form a new species (as you said based on the NEED), at the same time an EXACTLY SIMILAR crossing over should occur in the mama (!) AND the same new sperm of papa should fertilize the same egg of mama!! Come on.. be reasonable..
Next, what you talked about evolution not happening at constant rate, let me assure you, it has nothing to do with evolution, which is why researchers dont even know why it happens like that.
But, I will tell you why. Because evolution happening at non constant rate is NOT BASED ON ANY THEORY but is based on the available fossils. For some time period no fossils or very less fossils are available and hence they say that evolution didnt happen at that time very fast. For some time period like cambrian explosion lots of fossils are available and hence they say that evolution happened very fast during that period. Tomorrow if we are able to find fossils for inbetween periods also then they will UPDATE the theory, and still wont find any reason to explain all this!!! Or who knows for some time period fossils may NOT BE AVAILABLE AT ALL due to non preservation, and these people without answering the question “WHY”, simply made a theory saying evolution does not happen at constant rate always. This is exactly what I call lack of scientific spirit of inquiry. It is very unscientific and prejudiced way when people try to support evidence by theory, where as it should be the other way round. Theory should withstand the test of any evidence found. Which is why I like Einstein and his general theory of relativity! Most evidences that support it were discovered after this theory was formed.
Also, You have misunderstood what I said about amino acids. Amino acids are the very basic building blocks of life on earth. They form proteins which in turn govern all the cellular processes. Primitive earth didnt have amino acids. For life to have evolved on earth, amino acids should have formed on its own by pure random chance from its constituent C,N,H,O molecules, proteins should have formed by pure random chance from these amino acids.. all required proteins should have gathered together at the same place to form a primitive cell, and then proceed towards life formation…. Simple mathematical calculations would say this probabilistic chance of protein formation requires billions and billions years more than earth’s calculated age of about 4.5 billion years to form by pure chance!! How did these initial molecules form? After that how did they assemble into mitochondria, lysosomes, ribosomes, golgi apparatus, ER etc at the same time and coordinate things? Dont you think they have to be intelligent to do all this on their own!!
I dont think you have understood species formation by mutations. Evolution theory says that new species evolve based on adaptations, but the method for this is said to be random mutations! There is not a simple mechanism known which even comes closest to explain as to how the details of an environmental change could be passed on to next offsprings via a changed genetic code to create new species.
I challenge you to provide me a scientific explanation of the following scenario. This is the biggest stumbling block for me to accept evolution. Consider that a species A1 is living in an environment adapted to a condition B1. Say the environment condition changes from B1 to B2. Now according to theory of evolution, the species evolves from A1 (which is adapted to B1) to a new species adapted to A2(which is adapted to B2)
How on earth does the body of species A1 recognize what exactly is the environment change and how on earth does it change its genetic information to create a new off spring of species A2? The only explanation scientists offer is of random mutations!! In other words, pure chance!! Can any person call mutation as adaptation?? Where is adaptation here? Mutation always occurs independent of environmental changes. They can take place even when the environments remain stable for a species. All observed mutations are harmful ones!! They simply kill the offspring.
I am not sure whether you are able to understand what I am trying to say. There is a difference between
1) changes occurring in the same species (these changes will be across genre) AND
2)changes occurring to create a new species altogether.
One or two random mutations can never create a new species. Its not just the change in genetic code. It needs hundreds of such changes and MORE IMPORTANTLY addition and deletion of chromosomes. Can you give a single example of how this can happen automatically?? This is not even possible in random mutations.
Do you know that for simple mutations in our cells we have enzymes that correct these incorrect genetic code? In other words, nature opposes mutations. Mutations that occur inspite of this are always rejected by nature. An extra leg, a twisted heart, sickle cells,etc are all mutated gene examples.
Another point to note here is that most species existing today also have their ancestor species also existing today. If it were evolution due to adaptation then the ancestor species should have become extinct as they were not adapted to changed environment. But that is not the case. We still see guerillas, chimpanzees etc in case of humans.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, I think you are aware of the fact that IT IS HARMFUL for a species to breed within close relatives because this will expose dormant alleles which expose the hidden genetic defects, there by causing weak offsprings. Which is why its always advised not to marry within nearby relatives. Given this proven genetic account, HOW DID MEMBERS OF NEW SPECIES THAT WAS FORMED STILL SURVIVE INSPITE OF BREEDING WITH CLOSE RELATIVES? AND EVEN IF THEY DID THEN WHEN AND HOW DID LARGE SCALE VARIATIONS APPEAR THAT WE SEE TODAY? Please dont tell me RANDOM mutations, it simply doesn’t make any sense. Nature doesnt play dice to create new species
If inspite of reading all this if you still have no doubts about evolution, well then, evolution is a matter of faith for you, in that case, lets end the debate, I hate blind faith
I have lots more arguments which question evolution, very little time to type it all!!
If you want to continue the debate, try to find answers to those questions that I have raised which counter evolution, than trying to find out other arguments that support it!! Even if a theory has passed a million tests, and fails in one test, then the theory is still wrong!!!! Which is why I always try to disprove a theory to get convinced about it!!
BY the way I would be more happy if Evolution is proved to be true! But what I want is not what I like, but what it really is!
June 8, 2007 at 6:05 am |
i have just one thing to say. Species are not born, they evolve over time. And stop being obsessed about mutations, how many crazy sci-fi flicks have you seen? I really lost interest in explaining the whole thing to you because you’re so stubborn and unwilling to change your prespective. Look kid! when two people mate, their offsprings just dont mutate (to the level you’re thinking, like a complete different species), it’ll take atleast more than 2000-5000 (based on the new bacteria research done, search in washingtonpost.com if i remeber correctly) of generations to notice any visible difference between generation 1 and generation 5000 (or watever). And as for NEED, c’mon get the basics straight, when i say there’s a need for it, it doesn’t mean someone is monitoring the whole situation, it means work of nature comes into play, survival and adaption or caused due to this need and it happens automatically because one species will develop an Edge over the other over course of time. I suggest you post the same query on some genetics forum, but be warned, people out there can be really sarcastic when your going to show the same attitude there.
June 8, 2007 at 6:56 am |
I have many things to say and ask!!
Again!! Who is being stubborn? I have asked valid scientific questions, and instead of explaining how that happens at a basic level, you are simply repeating the same old theoretical statement without any proof!!
Its very strange. First you said “New species are created only when there’s a need for it”
Now you are saying “it doesn’t mean someone is monitoring the whole situation, it means work of nature comes into play”
I didnt say “someone” has to be monitoring, I said for the need to be detected “something” / “some process” HAS to be there in the bodies.
If it is not there, then the change becomes random. Need identification has NOTHING to do with random things.
What you said about bacteria is random mutations, not need based evolution. Bacterial cells divide once in 20 minutes and hence its easy to observe long generations here. Thats all.
Let me put it in plain english. HOW DOES THE NATURAL MECHANISM WORK TO CREATE A NEW SPECIES? IS IT RANDOM MUTATIONS OR IS THERE SOME IDENTIFICATION PROCESS? IF THERE IS A PROCESS WHAT IS THAT? IF IT IS RANDOM MUTATIONS THEN THE WHOLE EVOLUTION IS FLOPPED BECAUSE RANDOM MUTATIONS CAN ALSO LEAD TO THICK FURS IN A DESERT!
Please stop using poetic sentences like “work of nature comes into play”, “and it happens automatically” etc. Science always demands answers in the form of HOW and WHY?
Again as I said, consider a species A with chromosomes 24 which evolves into a new species B with say 26 chromosomes. The whole change might require hundreds or thousands of generations to form. But there HAS to be a single generation where the number of chromosomes has changed from 24 to 25 or to 26. For that new born there HAS to be another sexual couterpart with same new count of chromosomes. Else it will lead to situations like down’s syndrome, klinefelter’s syndrome etc giving birth to newborns which cant reproduce! This is basic genetics.
Already there are about 15 questions of mine which are intelligently avoided and unanswered. I do not want to change anybody, change is an internal process. As I said earlier, I would love evolution to be true, but definitely NOT BELIEVE IT TILL ALL MY DOUBTS ARE CLEARED. Generic answers without specific details are not scientific.
If that were the case, I would have easily argued for intelligent design saying, aliens used to visit earth once in a while, they used to monitor the environment and as and when it changed, they created new species in those places. Some aliens also wanted to experiment with new designs, which is why you find new species evolving even when there was no need to change or no danger for an existing species!! Now the aliens are no more visiting us, which is why you havent found any new species evolved after man became intelligent. Aliens stopped there and left after that. They transferred their knowledge to man before leaving, so that intelligent man can now design new species!!
I dont argue like above because I am not writing a science fiction here
I am not obsessed about mutations. The issue here is RANDOM MUTATIONS used to support evolution. Fred hoyle, noted mathematician and physicist said, “The chance that higher life forms have been evolved by chance is comparable with the chance that a Tornado sweeping a junk yard might assemble a boeing-747 from the materials available”
Forget him, please read what those great genetic scientists who actually discovered things at the genetic level have to say about evolution!! Thats simply because they have questions at a very fundamental level. Which is why I asked you to read about latest genetics and cellular mechanism, without which you will NEVER get an actual picture of what is happening. Even if evolution is true, it should happen at this level of cellular mechanisms and genetic structure changes, NOT AT surroundings level which you keep talking about. Surrounding in case of evolution are just a cause, the actual effect is at genetic level.
Instead of repeating the same thing, why dont you try to prove me wrong by countering the facts that I gave one by one. I am not here to stick to my guns. If I found answers to my questions, very tomorrow you will be seeing me writing a post supporting evolution!! But definitely not without any base proof!
By thinking about Darwin’s theory over these arguments, now I doubt even my original post about this theory explaining adaptation!! Random and adaptation are two different things linked ONLY by chance.
June 12, 2007 at 8:22 am |
hi,
i really appreciate the way you have done research,
but apart from all this, i always have had a feeling that there are somethings that are not meant to be known the more deeper we go the more complex it is. maybe we could satisfy ourselves that we have reached a particular level. and i jus ask a small favour…what do you know something deep about the big bang theory? have you read the “angels and demons” by “dan brown” he says that there were matter and antimatter which were created by god and he ends up creating antimatter.
well if that might be the case, then the big bang theory might also be wrong. can you write something about this??
June 13, 2007 at 5:21 am |
@ag
No I haven’t read “angels and demons”. Will read it once.
Yes will definitely write a post on this. Thanks for an interesting topic
June 14, 2007 at 9:08 pm |
I really enjoyed the rest of your articles, but this one doesn’t seem to excite me as much as the others. You seem to be contradicting you own views. I think you have some misconceptions about evolution. I am in the middle of something here, so i’ll be back with a detailed explanation of my views.
July 27, 2007 at 1:14 pm |
I will try to give you a detailed answer but for the time being you can go through :
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-05/989331026.Ev.r.html