[top] -- [The new theory home page]
-- [Part I] -- [Part III]
7. Darwin's domain: Arbitrary assumptions and self-imposed limitations.
Why does evolutionary theory say that all life started from a simple single cell that is supposed to be most primitive. Whatever it means by being most primitive, it ought to have had at least a thousand genes each of which should code for a functional protein. Can the evolutionary biologists say, even theorize, how the genes for this most primitive cell came about? No, they cannot. First of all let us ask: why should evolutionists say that life started with a single cell? Because Darwin said it in the first place as the basis of evolution? Yes, that is one reason. The other reason is that evolutionary theory basically demands that life on earth is very improbable, and, therefore, multiple life is extremely unlikely. Thus, somehow one life came about, from which all life sprang about. Now all these are pure assumptions! If any evolutionist says that it is not, then s/he is simply being emotional! In fact, Darwin's theory, and evolutionary theory in general, has limited and constrained the free thinking of scientists for well over a century to the extent that it has confined even well-meaning scientists to think within the self-limiting domain of evolution.
Since according to Darwin, and the beginning evolutionists, there had to be a single first ancestor that was also most primitive, then the chemical evolutionists also had to confine their thinking into finding ways and mechanisms of producing that single primitive living cell with the assumptions that was suitable to, and in line with, that constrained thinking. So they started their assumptions that somehow some short genes that are shorter than any known real genes in any known living organism -- either prokaryote or eukaryote -- began from some short RNA or DNA sequences and began to form some primitive cell, again that is different from any of the cellular kinds that is ever known to us -- i.e. a cell far far simpler than the most primitive living cell, and one that cannot be defined as living. These are nothing but pure assumptions! No matter how much evolutionary biologists shout at us, this is the truth. Why did we assume these? Again, as I said before, there was Darwin's theory to base these assumptions and which also required these assumptions, and also there were no other concrete data to contradict the theory or the assumptions. But, now that we know about the amazingly distinct structures of the genes of the prokaryotes and the eukaryotes, and the extremely high probability of the eukaryotic genes but not the prokaryotic genes in a small, finite amount of random DNA material in the primordial pond, it is obvious that these assumptions are unfounded and incorrect, and, in fact, unnecessary! And, the basic evolutionary theory itself is unnecessary to explain the origin of life and the disparate organisms on earth.
So, if we do not limit or constrain ourselves in our reasonable assumptions within a constrained domain of evolutionary thinking, and if we allow us to think that a primordial pond can be richer than what has been assumed under the traditional evolutionary theory, we can certainly see that far more complexity was possible in it. After all, the molecules that we are talking about, the DNA and proteins and other biochemicals are nothing but the products of the elements of the earth itself, that were available on the earth everywhere! Why should we think that all these elements that were abundant on the hot molten earth should have produced only small biochemicals and short chains of DNA, RNA and proteins that cannot form genes, genomes and cells directly from them? We thought so because of the limitations in our assumptions and thinking, which was shaped by a theoretical framework that inspired it on the one hand, and demanded it on the other. So, knowing this, why should we now constrain ourselves in our thinking and assumptions? Why should we not take a look at other, even more reasonable assumptions? If we come out of that constraining theme, we can see that complex biochemicals could be easily formed. Organic complexity could ensue in a primordial pond that was capable of producing long DNA molecules to the extent that they would contain billions of fully formed genes. In fact, we can see that it does not take a lot of random primordial DNA or a large primordial pond for this to happen. About a hundred pounds of random DNA in a small primordial pond of a few cubit feet is more than sufficient to contain this number of genes and be capable of forming genomes. An amount that is so reasonable indeed, considering that this amount is that present in a few hundred human individuals or in a few large forest trees. If any evolutionist says that this is impossible, it only reflects the constraint in his/her thinking and confined assumptions learned into his/her system from the limiting evolutionary biology (Or, we can use the word shoe-horning, a term used by Stephen J Gould to indicate the confining nature of learned themes).
Once this can be seen to be possible, then the conglomeration of these genes into many genomes each capable of producing a viable organism, unicellular or multicellular, becomes a reality. If we agree to the possibility of a reasonable amount of DNA instead of a constrained amount of almost no DNA (which was based purely on assumptions), then we can see that it solves a lot of problems in our understanding of the origins! If we tear ourselves out of the constraining domain of traditional evolutionary themes, we can see that we can understand a lot more than before.
We must be able to see that evolution theory assumes many things, without any way of scientifically explaining any of these steps. Some of these steps are:
Darwin's theory is a big assumption (that all life on earth are related to a single-celled primitive ancestor through descent with modification) which was made based on a few small observations (such as the incidental variations among essentially similar species of otherwise a distinct organism e.g. the many similar species of the organism crab). The big assumption then led to many other small assumptions, which fill the evolutionary text books today (e.g. the evolution of the genes of the first living cell, etc., as listed above). It is truly amazing that a whole field has been revolving around a big assumption, with only small observations, and other subsidiary assumptions seemingly supporting it. And that people are imbibed into this assumption-domain sincerely thinking that the big assumption is a fact. And, when a new theory comes up with a much better explanation, these people get emotionally upset and angry at the new theory. It is truly amazing that evolution theory has only small bits and pieces of apparent support and evidence, and really nothing else! People who believe in evolution theory have to first come to grips, and realize that this is the truth.
8. Fossil record too... truly supports the new theory.
If we truly ask: what does evolution theory have as supportive evidence? The answer: similarity of sets of species within the genus and family level, and similarity of genes. These are observations that are fully explained by my theory, which explains even the presence of unrelated genes among organisms. Even when we turn to the fossil record, it truly opposes the evolution theory, and actually supports my theory. The crucial part of the fossil record -- the Cambrian explosion -- is TOTALLY opposed to theory of evolution, whereas it is fully explained by my theory. The initial sudden explosion of unique organisms on earth -- right around the time when unicellular eukaryotes had appeared for the first time -- and the later slowed-down birth of only similar organisms is fully explained by my theory. This whole scenario (the curve shown in Figure 11.1 in my book) truly opposes the evolutionary theory. Only an inverted or reverse scenario of the true scenario is expected or predicted by any theory of evolution.
One reasonable question that has come up here in SBE is: If the Cambrian explosion and the later fossil record together spans over a hundred million years, do we say that the primordial pond was active that long? I do not think so and I have alluded to this in the book. The reason for this has to do with the constant shrinking of the geological ages of fossils by older fossil finds and newer dating methods. Let us consider the Cambrian explosion. Until recently it was supposed to have spanned ~30 million years of geological history. But, in just one stroke of "newer and improved" methods of radioactive dating in 1993, this time-span was reduced to less than 5 million years -- a considerable reduction for a single methodological improvement indeed (refs: Bowring, S. A., et al., "Calibrating rates of early Cambrian evolution," Science, 261:1293-98 (1993); Kerr, R. A., "Evolution's big bang gets even more explosive," Science, 261:1273-74 (1993)). What if one or two more such strokes of methodological improvements come along in the future? Would not the Cambrian explosion time-span be reduced to 500,000 years, or much less?
Neither new genes nor new and unique bodily structures can evolve that highly rapidly to produce the numerous distinct creatures with multitudes of unique body parts that are found right in the Cambrian explosion -- truly a geological instant -- starting from the unicellular eukaryote or even a primitive multicellular creature. The initial burst of complex multicellular organisms is truly sudden, and no evolutionary biologist can explain this by any means of genetic mechanisms. The only way this scenario can be explained is by the new theory of the nearly simultaneous assembly of multiple genomes from a common pool of genes in one primordial pond. This sudden birth scenario is a blow to any evolutionary theory and is fully supportive of the new theory. Darwin was bothered by this scenario very much indeed! Although he thought that the future science would unearth simpler precursor creatures to the Cambrian creatures in rocks of PreCambrian times, the future findings actually belied him. As Stephen J Gould has explicitly and elaborately narrated in his elegantly written book Wonderful Life, the PreCambrian actually showed that NO multicellular precursors to Cambrian organisms ever existed at all! If Darwin was alive today, just based on this alone he would simply accept that his basic theory is incorrect and the new independent birth theory is correct.
Now let us consider the "later" geological record. It has been known that the fossil age of most organisms are always pushed back in time by fossil finds that are older than the previous fossils. We all know that this has been the trend now for all these decades. It means that the organisms that seems to have appeared more recently in geological time all have actually appeared earlier and earlier as we find newer and newer fossil samples. When we make a graphical representation of the distribution of the frequency of appearance of distinct organisms, it gives a curve that totally fits with the new theory. It may still appear to span many millions of years, but if we shrink it further in terms of time without qualitatively affecting it -- which is what is happening in reality -- it will show that the curve fits my theory perfectly, which curve is even more opposed to the theory of evolution.
What I am driving at is the possibility that the primordial pond need only be active for a reasonably short period of time (e.g. a few thousand to few tens of thousands of years). We should take this argument in a qualitative sense for the moment, since further research is needed on this topic. As for the question of bugs eating away the DNA and the seed-cells, we do not really know the protective conditions, the reaction-vessel like nature of the primordial pond, and many other aspects, which might contribute to this. One can only speculate for now on this subject. Again my answer to this question is: If we can provide a strong theory that explains the origin of organisms, and organismal disparity and similarity, and so on, based on known scientific facts of genes, genomes and organisms, and which explanation suit and fit the real scenario of life on earth far better than the evolutionary theory, then we can try to figure out answers to other subsidiary questions that come up by further research.
Paleontologists may get angry with me for what I have said, but I have said nothing that is not true nor scientific! Under evolution theory, we have been struggling with the fossil scenario, but could not really come to grips with it -- starting from Darwin until today. From Darwin through Goldschmidt to Gould, the fossil problems have not been solved. We have to come to grips now and accept that evolution theory really does not explain it. Under my theory, the qualitative scenario is very well explained. The trend in quantitative measures is approaching what is predicted by the new theory. We do agree that Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin were right when they said that the geological span of earth was far longer than that was believed before them, but the geological time-span in which the multitudes of original organisms appeared is much, much shorter and sharper than has been believed by the traditional evolution theory.
9. Misleading mutations: Mutations are passive genetic changes, and are incapable of evolving new genes, new body parts or new organisms.
We all know that the theory of evolution is ultimately based on genetic mutations. Mutations in DNA is supposed to provide the genetic variations in genes, which are assumed to elaborate into new genes, new body structures, and all the new organisms. It has been simply believed in evolutionary biology, with absolutely no evidence, that genetic mutations provide the raw material for phenotypic (morphological) variations, from which the good ones are selected, and which process simply elaborated the first primitive ancestral single-cell into all the multitudes of complex organisms that we know on earth. If genetic mutations are not there, then there can be no evolution. And, if genetic mutations are incapable of evolving new genes and genetic networks, then also there can be no descent with modification. So, the whole modern theory of evolution (the Modern Synthesis) is totally dependent upon the ability of mutations to evolve new genes and new genetic networks. What I did in the first part of my book is to show that our traditional belief about mutations' abilities is fundamentally incorrect.
In reality, it is just an inherent biochemical property of DNA to mutate. Given a DNA molecule in a biological system, its sequence will mutate due to its chemical nature. The enzymes that copy DNA sequence will make mistakes rarely, and will cause the sequence to change. Many chemicals and physical agents such as X-rays can introduce changes in DNA sequence. I have elaborately analyzed all the possible gene mutating mechanisms in my book over many pages, and even mechanisms such as transposons can only change sequences into their normal variants or produce defective genes, but are incapable of evolving unique genes. (Since I have described the details concerning this topic many times in my previous posts, and elaborately in my book, I will not go into details here). When we really scrutinize what these mutations do to a genome, we can easily see that they only change the sequences without affecting the quality of the constant set of genes in an organism. Each gene does change in sequence, but only into its normal genetic variants. This is basically because most mutations change the amino acids to acceptable degenerate amino acids in the protein, and the codons into their acceptable degenerate codons. These normal sequence variations of a gene, and those of all the genes of an organism, only lead to the normal variations that occur in the various individuals of an organism. If the mutations occur in crucial positions of genes, they may lead to genetic defects, the cause of many genetic and congenital diseases. As I have reiterated in my previous posts, mutations cannot lead to new genes in any geological time. The time needed to achieve such an evolution is unrealistically larger than even the age of the universe.
Mutations are only the cause of the production of similar species of a distinct organism (say the many different crab species of the organism crab, or the many different snail species of the organism snail) that had originated independently in the primordial pond. It is only these variations within a particular distinct organism that the evolution theory is able to explain, but which has been wholly and mistakenly extrapolated to all the organisms on earth connecting all of them to the single-celled ancestor purely by a leap of faith and assumption. This extrapolation is the sole but the big mistake of evolution theory!
Let us now also consider that these mutations are supposed to have started to cause evolution beginning from the first ancestral primitive cell. But, as we discussed before, evolutionists do not even understand how the genes of the original ancestral living cell (which they assume to be a prokaryote) had originated in the first place. If we cannot understand how the original genes of the first living creature came into being, there is no meaning in arguing about the change of these genes, and their assumed evolution into new genes. It is therefore of greatest importance to try to understand how genes could have originated in the first place in the primordial pond. If we do so, we see that it is only the split-genes that could directly originate in the random primordial sequences in a primordial pond. And then it is easy to see that not just one gene for a complete protein with a specific biochemical function but numerous distinct genes for various distinct biochemical functions could simply occur in a reasonably finite amount of random DNA in a small primordial pond. Therefore, under this scenario, there is no need to evolve new genes, since there in the primordial pond Nature will have all the multitudes of genes that it needs to assemble the genomes of organisms from. It only had to choose the preexisting split-genes from the random primordial DNA sequences. And since we know that many genomes can originate from this genetic pool in the primordial pond, there is no need to mutate genes or genomes to obtain new genes or new genomes.
One small note. The discussions of evolutionists not only in this forum, but even in evolutionary biology text books are in a manner as though there are mutations only for the purpose of evolution. They may even go one step further and may ask: why then are they there if not for evolution? It is to this extent that our minds have been imbibed with the theory of evolution. To them I would like to say: mutations are there only because they are the natural property of DNA. All the mutations have only mislead us into thinking that they cause evolution, but, in reality, they do not change the constancy of the set of genes in a given genome and the fixed developmental genetic pathway of a given distinct organism. That is the reason the numerous organisms that appeared at the beginning of multicellular organisms' origins, say in the Cambrian explosion, have remained fixed and unchanged forever.
Until now there were no other mechanisms other than the proposal of evolutionary mechanisms that even had the appearance of being able to explain the presence of similar genes and unique genes in distinct organisms. But, now the new theory of the independent birth of organisms is able to easily explain the presence of similar genes and unique genes in organisms that are structurally and evolutionarily unrelatable.
In a similar manner, we have so far had no other theory that can explain both macro-differences (evolutionary terminology: macroevolution) and micro-differences (evolutionary terminology: microevolution) among living things, especially because there are genes that are quite similar in organisms that are in different phyla. So unless we can explain such similarity through mechanisms other than organismal evolution, the only course left to us was to accept that genetic mutations caused these changes and brought forth these organisms from a single organism. We can now explain both these phenomena by the mechanisms of independent genome assembly from the same common pool of genes from a single primordial pond. The commonality of genes, biochemistries and cellular features are explained by this rooting of the genomes of all organisms to the common pool of genes in one primordial pond. The differences are explained by the essentially independent genome assembly from this pool of genes. Thus, using essentially the same mechanisms of life, genetic code, DNA/protein mechanisms, and cellular structures, different life forms could be constructed at around the same time. This is what we were unable to explain before without invoking evolution. Now we can, based on the probability of the occurrence of abundant genes in a small amount of random DNA material in a primordial pond. I have shown in my book how in fact there could have been many primordial ponds that gave rise to independent sets of life in various parts of earth. We are now looking at a new world view, where the probability of life in a primordial pond is extremely high, and the probability of the formation of life in many primordial ponds is also very high. The book explains how this is what must have actually happened.
As Jeff Mattox pointed out here, people have been discussing in this forum mainly how the macro differences can or cannot be explained by evolutionary mechanisms. If people will read my book and understand the mechanisms that I have put forth as the mechanisms of independent birth of organisms, then I am confident that they will see that it is actually a better mechanism for explaining all that we know of life on earth. For a fair comparison of my theory and the evolution theory, there should be a discussion of the mechanisms of both the theories. Only then a fair assessment can be made as to which of the mechanisms can better explain the scenario of life on earth.
10. It is the egg that was the first, not the chicken: The validity of the concept of the seed-cells.
There have been a good deal of discussions in SBE regarding the concept of seed-cells in my theory. The essence of this concept is the following. If eukaryotic split-genes could occur fully-formed in random primordial DNA sequences and in abundance, then they could conglomerate directly into the genome of not only a unicellular eukaryote but also into the genomes of multicellular eukaryotes. These genomes could be assembled in typical eukaryotic cells that I call seed-cells, which are akin to the fertilized eggs of todays living creatures. The seed-cell with the genome of a multicellular creature is capable of developing into the organism, just as the fertilized egg of today's animals. This may seem to be an over-simplification of a complex process, but we are trying to understand an important question concerning the origins, and when we do so, we need to delineate the major pathways. Once we understand the main pathways by which the organisms originated under my theory, then we can begin to find answers to other subsidiary questions. [I understand fully the questions relating to the symmetry of the egg and even the maternal yolk-cells and maternally derived messenger RNAs, etc., but these are secondary questions to our main understanding of the major question of the origins here.]
So my theory essentially says that the eggs of distinct organisms originated directly from the primordial pond. In other words, first the egg originated and then the chicken! When I say that the split-genes originated directly in the random primordial DNA sequences, from an abundant collection of which the genomes of multicellular creatures assembled into the seed-cells, some here in SBE seem to be emotionally upset. They seem to be upset with me for having said that such a complex thing was even possible, because this new worldview is so totally opposed to any of the concepts that we have known so far in biology. This disbelief stems from a denial that such complexity is not possible, essentially in one stroke (although, let us not forget, the molecular evolution of this process in the primordial pond would have been time-consuming). But, if we really consider the science of this process, this is what is absolutely probable, not the formation of a prokaryotic cell directly from the primordial pond, and its change into all the multitudes of complex multicellular organisms that we know on earth! It's also depressing to think that "we," "man," the most intelligent creature on earth, is just a random construction from non-living material. On the other hand, mouse, apes and other such higher forms helped lead the way by being viable and contributing their assets to the random mix.
In effect, the eggs of all distinct organisms originated directly and separately in the primordial pond. There are many observations that can be shown to be supportive of this. For example, the typical fertilized egg-cell (a single-cell) is essentially akin to the typical eukaryotic cell, which I have shown to be extremely probable directly from the primordial pond. Furthermore, the developmental genetic pathways of the distinct organisms are indeed distinct, as Prof. Eric H. Davidson of Caltech has demonstrated. I have mentioned many times in my previous posts and elaborately in my book that there are many unrelated genes in distinct organisms that are not possible to be derived from assumed ancestors, and ultimately from an assumed primitive ancestral single-cell. And, there are numerous distinct organisms that are actually unrelatable in terms of their structure through any common ancestor, even by the account of authorities in Zoology (see for example, Mitchell, L.G., et al., Zoology, 1988, The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Menlo Park).
So much is being talked about the complexity of life today. But, let us consider the following. Under my new theory, we should not look at the complexity of the multicellular organism. We should only look at the complexity of its genome. The genome of a multicellular eukaryotic organism is far less complex than the genome of a prokaryotic cell. We say this in terms of the probability of the origins of the information contained in them. Let me say it in a different way so that we will not miss it. The prokaryotic genome is far more complex than the genome of a multicellular eukaryotic organism. Another way: The genome of a eukaryote is trillions of times more probable than the genome of a prokaryotic cell. The probability of the formation of the typical multicellular eukaryotic genome is far greater than that of a typical prokaryotic genome. This is because prokaryotic DNA is not random (it is missing stop codons, for example) while eukaryotic DNA is random (except for minor non-randomness that has arisen in the genomes since the independent birth of organisms). Also, the probability of the genome of a multicellular eukaryotic genome is not very much different compared to that of a unicellular eukaryote.
I equate complexity to probability here. In our analysis of the origins of life and organisms, we should not look at the complexity of the organism that is expressed by the genome. We should only look at the complexity of the genome per se, because it should be the genome that should be formed first, which is the key and instrumental in making the organism. No matter whether it is multicellular eukaryotic creatures, unicellular eukaryotes, or prokaryotes, it is only the probability of the genome that is important.
When a genome was formed by random processes in a primordial pond, what sort of living thing it would express was no consideration to Nature. The random processes were blind to the outcomes of the kinds of living forms. Randomness knows no consequences. So it would produce the more probable ones with more ease than the less probable ones, even though the more probable ones are the structurally the more complex ones. So it produced the eukaryotic genomes (including those of the multicellular ones) more easily than the prokaryotic genomes. The eukaryotic genes and genomes only appear to be more complex to the human sense. But when we scrutinize the science, we realize that it is not.
One small thing about the physical amount of DNA needed to form a eukaryotic genome. The total amount of random DNA that I have computed as needed in a primordial pond for the occurrence of fully-formed split-genes is approx. 10^26 characters. This amount in physical quantity amounts to approx. a hundred pounds. I have described fully in my book why it should not be difficult to expect such an amount in a biochemically rich primordial pond. Now, if we consider the physical quantity of a genome of a typical animal (with 10^8 to 10^10 nucleotides) it is approx. 10^-14 grams.
The DNA sequence pool in a primordial pond = ~10^26 nts = ~50 Kilograms. The DNA content of a typical genome = ~10^-14 grams, which is about a picogram, which is 1/1000th of a nanogram, which is 1/1000th of a microgram, which is 1/1000th of a milligram, which is 1/1000th of a gram.
I wanted to give these quantities so that one would compare the minuteness of a genome compared to the amount of random DNA that can be expected to be present in a primordial pond. It may be large in terms of its number of DNA characters, but it is miniscule and infinitely small in terms of its physical quantity compared to what could be available in a primordial pond. These random DNA sequences contained billions of genes. Only because the genomes were assembled from these random sequences, a typical genome consists of a considerable amount of random DNA (i.e. junk DNA). (Out of approx. one billion DNA characters in a typical genome, ~950 million characters are junk, and only ~50 million characters are actually used to build and maintain the organism.) In fact, our new theory explains the origin of the junk DNA in eukaryotic genomes very well in this manner.
An anecdote: Evolution theory cannot explain the origin of the extremely improbable typical prokaryote gene. It cannot explain the origin of the unnecessary introns in the eukaryotic gene from the prokaryotic gene (neither any reason nor any mechanism provided). It cannot explain the origin of the nucleus in the eukaryotic cell. (The story about one prokaryote engulfing another prokaryote that became a nucleus thereby forming the eukaryotic cell is purely an unfounded assumption.) Evolution theory cannot explain the origin of the junk DNA between genes in the typical eukaryotic genome. With all these improbabilities and with all these inexplicabilities, why are we still hung up with the pure assumption that prokaryotes were the ancestor to all life on earth -- especially when we can explain the origin of the eukaryotic genomes and cells with extremely high probability?
11. If Darwin was alive today......
Darwin saw the overall scenario of life on earth and suggested that all life must have evolved from one or a few organisms. He then thought that all life must have evolved from one original ancestor instead of a few, for the following reasons. All living things were based on basically cells and tissues, and all organisms seemed to be affected by similar poisons or other chemicals. In his time, this was sufficient to conclude that all life originated from one single primitive ancestor. Even in our time, this concept seems to be reinforced. All life is based on basically similar units of cells, seemingly similar cellular structures, fundamentally similar biochemistry and molecular biology. Looking at this alone, any one will feel that all living things could have originated from a single ancestor -- especially being in the midst of a society that has been imbibed with and taught about evolutionary theory for well over a century. Certainly, this is one way of looking at the scenario. But, this is not the only way, as evolutionary biologists are utterly convinced. There are absolutely other ways of looking at it. True, no new way was possible until the split structure of the eukaryotic genes were discovered around 1980, which is the most fundamental to such a new way of thinking. Before that, I admit fully, the available knowledge would have induced anyone, and would have convinced anyone, that evolutionary theory was the only way to explain the scenario of life and its diversity on earth. But not after that new knowledge. Not after we know the crucial details regarding genes which enable us to ask questions and find answers about not only the origin of genes but also the origin of life and diversity on earth. With this new knowledge, we can see that genes must have been abundant even in a small primordial pond. We are no more constrained by the pure assumption that complete genes were absolutely improbable. We are no more shoehorned into the thinking that since genes were improbable, there should have been one single primitive cellular life produced by a freak accident, and that the first living cell should have evolved the genes. We are no more confronted with the feeling of the improbability of even the simplest possible living cell on earth. Once we had the new knowledge of the structure of the split genes of the eukaryotes, we can see that such genes could exist complete and in full abundance in many biochemically-rich primordial ponds. In each primordial pond, the new scenario could be easily envisaged. In each primordial pond, the abundantly present genes could conglomerate into not just the genome for one primitive life, but into many genomes for many different kinds of complex multicellular life. In other words, life could originate in multiple forms in each of these primordial ponds.
Given the scenario of abundant genes in a primordial pond, can any one object to the possibility that multiple genomes could be formed in it? No! Other than shouting out of a genuine frustration that this is against the traditionally accepted evolutionary theory, they have nothing else that they can do. This concept solves many problems that evolutionary theory has been facing for well over a century, without ever being solved, without ever being solvable. The origin of higher taxa, the origin of complex organs, the Cambrian explosion, the origin of genes, and the origin of even one genome are examples. Thus, in essence, we can see that the very same scenario that the evolutionary theory was purporting to explain, is able to be explained by our new theory in a far better manner and with far more science to it. True, we can certainly see that evolutionary theory has been a great frame-work that induced many new experimentation and inquiry, but it has shown itself to be not the correct theory. It can explain the scenario of life only to a limited extent, but not completely. A bridge that lets one cross a river even nine tenths of the distance is not enough. If evolution is what has actually happened, then we should not face these many crucial problems in explaining the scenario of life since Darwin's time until today, none of which have been really solved. Here we have a new theory that can explain the scenario completely and correctly.
I agree that it will take some time for the evolutionary biologists to come to grips and to accept a different explanation. But, as Jeff Mattox said in one of his posts, the new theory has all the elements of evolutionary theory in it. Instead of the basic similarity in the genetic code, biochemistry, metabolism and even similarity of genes being due to the organismal evolutionary relationships among all the organisms, their similarity are explained to be due to the origin of all the genomes of all these organisms in the same common pool of genes. When all the genomes were assembled in a small primordial pond, such as in a closed vessel, we can certainly expect the very same or similarity of these fundamental aspects of life among the distinct organisms. Some people feel why do we need a new theory, when the old theory is enough to explain the scenario of life on earth. But, in their fervor to defend the old theory that they grew up with, that they have been taught, that they have enjoyed and revered, they seem to conveniently forget that the old theory does not in fact explain the scenario fully and correctly. Darwin himself knew that very well. And today, the renowned evolutionary biologists like Stephen J Gould and Russell Doolittle know that very well. Many others watching this news forum know that very well. Now looking back, we can see that the old theory has been an ad hoc theory, except that it has been in this ad hoc situation for a long time, well over a century. We simply have to agree that the old theory does not really work with all the new details that we know today of life and living organisms.
I am not sure how many of the posters here who are strongly defending the theory of evolution know how much the things that confront this theory bothered Darwin himself. He was open-minded about many things, many problems that he would agree to be able to overthrow the theory, if other explanations were given. All the problems that bothered Darwin concerning evolutionary theory are very much alive today, and, in fact, new problems have cropped up. As Jeff Mattox once pointed out, if Darwin was alive today, it appears that he will be far more open-minded than most of his defenders here. His writings are full of self-doubts. He will see that genes of multicellular organisms are highly probable directly in the primordial DNA sequences, that there is no need to assume the origin of one primitive ancestral bacterial cell on earth and then its descent with modification forming all other complex organisms as complex as the dragonfly, octopus and frog, and that mutations are an innate property of DNA that are only capable of changing the genes into only their normal variants and defective genes but never to entirely new genes, and he will see that his evolutionary theory only explains the incidental variations that occur within individuals, varieties and similar species of distinct organisms that originated independently in the first place. He will see that not only the details of the genes and genomes are better explained by the new theory, but also that the new theory is able to explain other details of life on earth such as the unconnectedness of distinct organisms and the fossil scenario.
12. History of Darwin's theory reveals how it was shoehorned into what it is today...
In his own time, Darwin was very scientific. But, looking back from our time, Darwin was a poetic observer. He assumed many things based on his observations. Amazingly, his ideas about artificial selection were true even when scrutinized to the molecular level. His concepts regarding natural selection were true. But, these concepts work only within the confines of a given distinct organism to change or sway that organism into its natural varieties based on all the causes of "evolution" he and his followers proposed. Say the crabs and the snails are distinct organisms that have no evolutionary relationship, but the different crabs originated from an original crab, as did the different snails from an original snail, but the crab and the snail originated independently in the primordial pond, deriving and sharing many of their commonalities from there. But even the most advanced zoologists know very well that the snail and the crab are structurally not related, not relatable by any means of assumed evolutionary change. Darwin's thoughts do not work to explain the origin of such distinct organisms.
When we objectively look at the history of Darwin's theory over the past century, we really see the reasons why people have been constraining the field into what a limiting domain it is today. We know that between 1900 and 1940 Darwin's theory almost died. The discussions during those times were at a very superficial level -- considering what we know today. It was the pre-DNA era that was concerned about Mendelian and classical genetics. Then came the initial knowledge of protein and DNA. And, along came the architects of what we call the "Modern Synthesis." When we look back, we can see that these authors also made many fundamental assumptions. They based their assumptions with the details they knew best and most -- DNA sequence, protein sequence, mutation, gene change. And their only objective was to explain evolutionary theory based on these then newly acquired information and details (that is, they were apriori supporters of evolution theory to start with). So they proposed that DNA mutates, genes mutate, proteins change, new genes form, and that all these explain organismal change -- and that all organisms could originate from a single living ancestral primitive cell.
Looking back, we can see that the details they had know then were very superficial at best, and the assumptions they made and the concepts they proposed can actually explain only the change of a given gene into only its normal variants. All what they explained -- gene mutation, genetic recombination and genetic drift -- could only explain the cause and the production of the normal individual variations within a population of a species, and the production of many artificial breeds and similar species (that are nothing but natural varieties) within the confines of a distinct, immutable organism.
Then came along James Watson and Francis Crick, and the fundamental understanding of DNA and protein and their workings -- the molecular biology. While for nearly three decades after that the efforts were focused in understanding these things, the status quo was followed in understanding the life's origins. During this time came along Margaret Dayhoff, Walter Fitch, and Chou and Fasman -- expounding and exploring DNA and protein similarities (developing some methods for identifying sequence similarities and building "evolutionary trees"). But, we can look back and see that these scientists had simply followed the earlier assumptions of the Modern Synthesis. Did they question those assumptions? No! These researchers took essentially what was said before and developed their methodologies for analyzing the gene and protein similarities, which were again provided back as evidence and support to evolution theory. But, they cannot be blamed, because they did not have any new knowledge, any new information than essentially what existed during the Modern Synthesis that would shake their belief in evolution.
Then during the late 1970s came the details of the split-gene structures of the eukaryotic organisms. I consider that this new knowledge of the split structure of the eukaryotic genes is the basis of a new revelation, the path to a new insight and discovery. This new understanding truly enables us to make scientific inquiries and explorations concerning life's origins far deeper and wider than was ever before possible. It has opened the doors to a new world of information and understanding that we never even knew existed before. It is this world of new knowledge that I have utilized to explore the life's origin and form the basis of my new concepts. It is with this new knowledge and information that we can see that the whole scenario, that so far seemed to support evolution theory but which truly falls short of supporting it, actually reveals a totally different manner in which life and organisms had originated -- although using essentially the same basic scientific approaches. I am happy that at least some people here have understood the approaches that I have taken in these explorations, and that these new approaches work well to explain life's origins and diversity.
13. A castle without foundation: Total lack of an explanation for the origin of the first, ancestral cell -- the foundation from which evolution theory begins.
There are a few things that still amaze me. For example, many Darwin supporters here say that a gene is improbable on earth. But, they have never uttered a word about how the genes of the first living cell were formed. If at all, there were only some superficial musings about it. No clear cut scientific explanations what so ever!
They are working under the assumption that a bacterial cell was the most ancient living cell. But they cannot even make any scientifically valid theory how a bacterial cell could come about -- except to say that the bacterial cell looks simple, and that all the rest of life looks more complex, and so the bacterial cell must be more ancient and ancestral, and that there are some fossil evidence. People like Keith say that even a reasonably long DNA molecule could not come into existence in the primordial pond, and strongly argue supporting that presupposition. So then, let him and others like him answer the question as to how the genes of the most primitive cell came about. And how did the original ancestral cell itself originate? If even reasonably long DNA or RNA sequences could not originate abiotically, then how could a minimum of a thousand complete genes and cellular machineries originate in the primordial pond that are required for the origin of the simplest possible cell? Even their negative assumptions lead to no solutions that would help the evolutionists theorize about the origin of the original ancestor. If they cannot understand the origin of the very first cell, from which the whole field of evolution begins, how could one accept the rest of the story, if the beginning of the story itself is missing?
The understanding of the origin of the genes for the first ancestral cell, its genome and genetic and cellular machineries, is AT LEAST as important as the Theory of Evolution itself, which begins from the assumed prior existence of the first cell. Evolution theory seems to say: You lift the mountain, then I will carry it! I say this because, once we are able to explain the origin of the genes and genomes of one cellular life based on the new approaches, it automatically explains the multiple origins of many simple and complex organisms at the same time by the same mechanisms from the same primordial pond. And indeed, it makes any evolutionary theory unnecessary for explaining the scenario of life on earth for the most part (except for explaining the production of incidental variations of each distinct organism that originated independently.)
Evolutionists almost always speak with apparent authenticity whereas what they do not even seem to realize is that most of what they say are based purely on assumptions. A big castle has been built but without any foundation.
Recently Jeff Mattox asked in one of his conversations with Keith Robison the following:
"Keith: how would YOU explain the origins of life?"To which Keith resoponded:
"Good question -- I don't really try to. Clearly there was a transition from clearly-not-life to clearly-life, probably going through a long phase of somewhere-in-between. However, that early clearly-life stage was much simpler than the common ancestor of all living things (CAoALT), and the CAoALT was a descendant."This response sums it all up. It illustrates the incorrect path that evolutionists have taken starting from wrong assumptions, which has led them through the wrong path.
[top] -- [The new theory home page]
-- [Part I] -- [Part III]