Senapathy SBE Reply Number 3
(Part III)


    Part I:

  1. Why a new theory?
  2. The occurrence of long DNA molecules in the primordial pond.
  3. Random DNA sequences available in a primordial pond would have inevitably contained millions of complete split-genes (genes of multicellular animals and plants) in them.
  4. Splice-junctions in eukaryotic genes are perfectly explained by the new theory.
  5. Complexity first and simplicity next: Seemingly complex eukaryotic genes and cells are far more probable than the apparently simpler prokaryotic genes and cells.
  6. From split-genes (primordial DNA sequences) directly to genomes for complex organisms: Origin of many kinds of similarities directly from the primordial pond, not by organismal evolution.

    Part II:

  7. Darwin's domain: Arbitrary assumptions and self-imposed limitations.
  8. Fossil record too... truly supports the new theory.
  9. Misleading mutations: Mutations are passive genetic changes, and are incapable of evolving new genes, new body parts or new organisms.
  10. It is the egg that was the first, not the chicken: The validity of the concept of the seed-cells.
  11. If Darwin was alive today......
  12. History of Darwin's theory reveals how it was shoehorned into what it is today...
  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.

    Part III:

  14. Negating the evolution theory is unnecessary, since the new theory explains the scenario of life on earth in a better manner. --- OR --- Why don't we discuss the details of the new theory, that explains the scenario of life on earth in a better manner, instead of being hung up with the same old questions of the evolution theory?
  15. Prebiotic richness and new chemical evolution experiments.
  16. Survival of the mammalian baby.
  17. The simplest possible living cell on earth is not really simple.
  18. Shared differences in protein sequences.
  19. Evolution theory or the independent birth theory is falsifiable: Empirical tests for the independent birth theory or the evolution theory.
  20. Conclusion.

Part III


14. Negating the evolution theory is unnecessary, since the new theory explains the scenario of life on earth in a better manner.

Why don't we discuss the details of the new theory, that explains the scenario of life on earth in a better manner, instead of being hung up with the same old questions of the evolution theory?

With due respect to my critics I want to say the following. Most of us have been believing so far that evolution was an established fact. We all looked at the similarity of genes among different organisms and became completely convinced that what else is needed to prove that evolution is the only way to explain the scenario of life on earth. So we were all resigned to the possibility that evolution from a single primitive living cell (whose origin is not explained under the evolution theory) into all the complex organisms on earth is what must have happened. In trying to understand this, we simply took for granted what the pioneer molecular evolutionists (the architects of the Modern Synthesis) said after they had a look at the then available initial details of DNA/protein sequences: that DNA sequences mutate and change and produce new genes over geological time, and these genes are selected at the level of the organism by means of organismal selection. Thus microevolution can be extended to macroevolution, and this will explain the origin of all organisms on earth -- organisms as different as the earthworm, crab, snail, octopus, fish, frog, bird and mouse -- all from that simple single cell whose origin is still a mystery to evolution theory. We have accepted this premise without much scrutiny, because this was so appealing and because there was no other reasonable theory that was capable of explaining the scenario of life on earth without involving evolution as the underlying basis.

As I have discussed in many of my previous posts here, similarity of gene and protein sequences is only part of the story. The scenario of life on earth poses a lot more details that requires scientific explanation. Evolution theory does not provide this. It has not provided such an explanation for the past century, nor does it seem likely that it will do so in any future. It only shows that if an entirely new theory without involving evolution as its underlying basis can explain the scenario of life, then it could be plausible. If such a theory can explain what evolution theory can, and if it can also explain what evolution theory cannot, one should look at it favorably as a possible alternative. This is exactly what I have provided in my new theory of the Independent Birth of Organisms. As Jeff Mattox has pointed out, the book has four parts to it, and only the first one is mainly being discussed in this forum:

  1. the problems with macroevolution,
  2. the new theory of independent births (life itself and multiple life are highly probable),
  3. how the new theory fits in with the existing facts, and
  4. how this theory answers all the problems with macroevolution.
A discussion of the parts 2 through 4 is what is important for seeing how this theory is capable of explaining the scenario of life on earth better than the conventional evolution theory. In fact, it is not my main aim to argue how the conventional evolution theory is unable to explain the "macrodifferences" among distinct unrelated organisms. Again as Jeff Mattox pointed out, this argument is there in my book only to show a comparison as to how these macrodifferences that are unable to be explained by evolution theory are able to be explained by my theory. My main aim in the book is to describe the new theory (which is done with brevity), and to show how all of the scenario -- molecules, organisms, and fossils -- are explainable by this theory (which is done elaborately) without any of the problems that the conventional evolution theory has faced for well over a century to this day.

I have mentioned before that I am fully aware of the explanations provided by the conventional evolution theory for explaining the scenario of life on earth, especially the molecular and genetic details. So, my critics can be rest assured that I am fully equipped to understand what they think is out of my field. In fact my primary field is molecular biology, and I have been practicing research in this field for well over fifteen years.

It is not surprising that people simply believe that the gene-mutation mechanisms that is capable of explaining the microdifferences among basically similar species of a distinct organism is also capable of explaining the macrodifferences among evolutionarily unrelated organisms. In the first place, people are easily convinced that evolution should be true because all organisms are based on DNA and proteins, tissues and cells, and similar genetic codes and biochemistries and metabolisms. This is a genuine feeling that will come to anyone, and will be convincing to anyone. This underlying feeling is the cause for people easily accepting that genetic mutations can produce anything and everything starting from a primitive single cellular life producing all the billions of disparate and complex organisms on earth. But there are many problems that conventional evolution theory has been facing not only during the times that the details of DNA and proteins were pretty much unknown, but during the modern times when we have much DNA and protein data. This is why I have discussed elaborately in my book how, with all these molecular details, the evolution theory does not explain many crucial organismal unrelatedness and molecular unrelatedness, and how the details are well explained by the new theory. Perhaps many are not even aware that there are many problems for the evolution theory that are detrimental to that theory. Such detriments to the evolutionary theory are explained by the new theory, and in fact are supportive to it. This is why the later parts of my book (parts 2 through 4 above), which explain these details, are more important than the part 1.


15. Prebiotic richness and new chemical evolution experiments.

In one of his recent posts Keith has said, "Nucleotides don't easily come about -- they arise almost entirely via biological processes. This is a stumbling block for _any_ origin-of-life theory." Why is it a stumbling block? Why have we been thinking that nucleotides don't easily come about by prebiotic chemical evolution processes? It is purely because of the limitation in our own thinking. Nothing else! With what scientific basis did one say that nucleotides are difficult to come about by these chemical processes and why did one say this? Such statements have been inspired and shaped purely by the prevailing evolution theory and nothing else. Even in the very first experiments that Stanley Miller and Harold Urey conducted at the U of Chicago, they found nucleotide bases in their mixtures. In the subsequent experiments simulating chemical evolution, not only nucleotides and amino acids, but also oligonucleotides and oligopeptides have been found.

In fact, what they found with the limited approaches is only the tip of the iceberg. My question is: have we done many different experiments that could reflect the primordial pond? Certainly not! We have probably done only a few out of the many kinds of experiments that are possible. And we have not done experiments in size and time that would truly reflect a typical primordial pond. Under primordial earth conditions, many small and big ponds if not the whole earth's surface were the reaction vessels, and all the earth's chemicals themselves were the reactants. Great lengths of time was available for these ongoing reactions. Considering these, our flask experiments are indeed utterly limited. With this much of extreme constraints in our experiments, how incorrect it is to theorize based on the results of such limited and limiting experiments? It is amazing to see how we constrain our thinking by our own methodologies and results from experiments that we designed incorrectly in the first place. We have stuck to this constrained thinking, because we believed that the story was complete there, and did not even think that we have seen only the tip of the iceberg. Let us open our minds to new experimental possibilities! We will then realize our past mistakes, and also our present mistakes that we are doing based on the past mistakes! I am certain if we do the right experiments we will see that abundant amount of DNA could be formed in a primordial pond.

Another question that Keith raised concerns the prebiotic enzymatic catalysis. The question was, how before the gene-coded enzymes came into being, the first machineries of the living cell could have been built? I have devoted a whole chapter in my book (Chapter 6: "The Primordial Pond: Universal Sequence Pool and Universal Gene Pool"), where this very question is elaborately answered. For lack of space, I will not discuss the answers here.

Dave Oldridge has asked: If my theory is correct, then why should I not simulate a typical primordial pond today, and demonstrate the formation of the genomes and organisms. It certainly is a good suggestion. I have also thought about it for sometime, but not to produce genomes of organisms, but at least to see if split-genes could arise out of it. But, there are many practical difficulties. Even producing the amount of random DNA required in such experiments using automated synthesizers is cost-prohibitive. If, as he suggested, we can experiment with the DNA of things living today and throw in their enzymes too, one still needs many pounds of DNA material and a considerable quantity of enzymes. It takes a good deal of resources for such experiments that an individual cannot afford. But certainly it is a good approach to testing at least some of the premises of the new theory. I certainly believe that this kind of experimentation will have a lot of promise in the future.

In fact, I believe that larger primordial pond experiments, wherein the mere size of the Miller-Urey flask, the quantity of reactants, and the reaction time are increased, will lead to interesting results. There are a variety of unorthodox ways of conducting primordial pond experiments! I am sure some of them will turn out surprising results.


16. Survival of the mammalian baby.

One of the questions that came up here concerns the survival of the mammalian baby from the primordial pond. Let us first consider the whole scenario of all organisms. Greater than 98% of all animals are invertebrates, and less than 0.1% of all animals are mammals. All the invertebrate organisms start their embryonic growth as eggs that are standalone, that are independent of the mother's body for their growth. The embryo grows independent of the mother -- whether directly into the fully grown baby or through metamorphosis. The individuals then essentially take care of themselves for finding food for their further growth. The process of the embryonic development in major groups of organisms are very different.

A mammalian baby grows inside the uterus of the mother. It grows inside the amniotic sac, which is akin to the egg enclosure in invertebrates. However, it derives its nourishment not from stored nutrients within the egg, but from the mother's bloodstream through the placenta. When the baby matures to its near full formation, it comes out of the amniotic sac, and out of the uterus. It is then nurtured with milk of the mother -- for varying amount of time for different animals. In creatures such as the mouse, the gestation period is few weeks. In many animals, the baby, although suckles the mother for a considerable amount of time, is able to eat food from the environment in a few days after birth. The gestation period for the human baby is about 10 months. The baby needs to be nourished by the mother's milk for about one year, after which it can begin to become independent.

We are asking how could the mammalian babies from the primordial pond survive without the mother? As Jeff Mattox pointed out, the situation then could have been different during the time when mammals originated from the primordial pond. Further research needs to be done to get closer to understanding the truth. However, many possible scenarios could be thought of to understand this. Let me describe one.

Let us generally consider if the mammalian baby in the amniotic sac can grow in a conducive environment in the primordial soup. As I have mentioned in the book, there is no reason why the primordial pond could not have had a concentrated soup of rich biochemicals from which the amniotic fluid could derive its nutrients. The end of the gestation and the timing when the baby comes out of the amniotic sac and out of the uterus is determined today by many factors. However, in the case of the mammalian baby that was growing in the egg-like amniotic sac in the primordial pond, the situation could have been different. Let us take the human baby for example. Instead of about an year in the amniotic sac when it comes out, what if it can grow further for an extended period of time within the sac? That is, at a time when the baby is ready to feed on "food" from surroundings? The mammalian baby is known to swallow the amniotic fluid constantly and pass urine in the amniotic sac. Around the age of one or so, the baby has a strong instinct to put anything it finds into its mouth and swallow it. In the primordial pond scenario, the mammalian baby could remain in the egg-like amniotic sac for an extended period of time, and could come out around the time when it can start eating food on its own (say after two years or so instead of the ten months). Not all babies of a mammalian organism would survive in this scenario, but even if one out of a hundred or even thousands survive by this process, there is a probability that few individuals will survive that is enough to establish its population.

This explanation is as crude as it can be, and may seem farfetched. However, it is a possible scenario. But, many real things about life and living things that happen everyday are fantastic and amazing, and would seem farfetched when viewed from a different framework. For example, the structure and function of advanced organ systems, the fact that most babies are born perfectly normal, the function of the genome based on DNA and its complex embryonic growth, the development of the brain just from information contained in genes and its complex function are only but a few. In this background, just an extension of the gestation period does not seem that fantastic.

We should also consider a comparison here of this discussion concerning my theory with the theory of evolution. In the theory of evolution from a nonmammal to mammal, the placenta and the breasts had to be evolved from a reptile that lacked them totally. Many placental specific plasma proteins (PSPP) had to be evolved. The main thing is that these had to be evolved through random genetic mutations. In the new theory, however, it was only the selection of preexisting genes from the primordial pond that would bring forth these systems and organs. If organisms as complex as invertebrates were possible by this process, the vertebrates and mammals were no different and could be equally probable. The genomic complexity of a mammal is no different from that of even a simple invertebrate. When the fundamental processes of genome assembly and the direct birth of organisms from their seed cells are possible for all non-mammals which constitute well over 99.9% of all animals, then the survival of the mammalian baby from the primordial pond does not seem as a real problem.

It is first important to figure out the origins of life and organisms based on genes and genomes, that is, the genetics of life's origins. Many other things may require further analysis and research. But, if we are able to understand fully the genetics of origins by a mechanism that also explains the major scenarios of life on earth, then other subsidiary questions can be further analyzed and understood.


17. The simplest possible living cell on earth is not really simple.

It is obvious that the prevailing thoughts concerning the simplest possible life on earth are purely based on assumptions. People generally think that the simplest possible life on earth is simpler than the simplest living cell on earth today. The underlying idea is that today's simplest living cell had evolved from the assumed simplest possible life that originated long ago, and vanished as it evolved and shaped into the simplest living cell of today. But this assumption, although seemingly scientific, is really not, when we scrutinize what constitutes a simplest living cell. Any living cell has to have a certain number of genes, a genome, genetic machineries for DNA replication and the ribosomes for protein translation, etc., for itself to be viable as a living organism and for its duplication. Even this seemingly small set of proteins and functions would require about a minimum of a thousand genes. Could the proteins of this assumed organism be simpler than the proteins that we know today in living things today? No! This is another myth of evolutionary biology. Let us ask: Are the proteins of the prokaryotes, which are supposed to be the simplest free-living organisms on earth (or even of the mycoplasma, which are not truly free-living), simpler than the proteins of the eukaryotes, even of multicellular ones such as the frog, mouse or human? The answer is no! Their proteins are as complex as those of the multicellular organisms. (For example, the bacterium E. Coli has about 3000 proteins, each no less complex than those in any of the complex multicellular organisms.) A protein, for example, a metabolic enzyme, is a protein in its full sense. It did not evolve from simpler peptides. None of the proteins of a typical prokaryote is any simpler than the proteins of the supposedly highly evolved, highly complex, multicellular organisms. It is only the structure and function of the organisms that house these genes that vary. The distribution of the length and the complexity or the information content of the proteins in a prokaryote is no different compared to those in any multicellular organism.

What I am driving at is the following. The thinking about the simplest possible living cell in biology in the past until today has been inspired by the prevailing concept of evolutionary biology, that shaped the thinking into a series of simple to complex life: first a simple living cell, then a complex living cell, and then .... a more complex, eukaryotic cell, then a two-celled, three-celled, .... and a many-celled organism, and so on. Do we have any observations that pointed to this kind of a concept? No! The only thing that made us think this way was the prevailing concept of evolution proposed by Darwin, and nothing else. In other words, the prevailing thoughts about the first, simplest, primitive cell on earth, and the process of the formation or evolution of such a cell are all based on assumptions and inferences, inspired and shaped by the concept of Darwin. These assumptions are 1) incorrect and 2) unnecessary, in light of the new knowledge concerning the split-genes and other molecular details, and in light of the new theory that I have proposed based on this new knowledge.


18. Shared differences in protein sequences.

The shared differences that may occur in protein sequences among similar organisms can be explained by the new theory. As Jeff Mattox pointed out, the sharing of genome pieces by newly assembling genomes in a primordial pond can explain many of the shared differences in a given protein that occurs commonly in two different organisms. This mechanism shows why the same protein (in fact, essentially the same gene) even occurs in the first place in two distinct organisms, although these organisms also contain many utterly unrelated genes and proteins.

Such differences can also arise in the genome of the seed-cells, wherein a seed-cell could give rise to changed seed-cells and changed but similar organisms. This proposal shows how very similar organisms could be produced from a primordial pond with essentially the same genome, but independently from the primordial pond. A seed-cell could divide into millions of copies, most of which would have lost their ability to be viable as organisms. Some, however, would have been able to become viable as organisms. Figure 10.5 in my book proposes how the seed-cells could change in the primordial pond with essentially the same genome but undergoing major genomic repatterning that includes a variety of mutations, and producing very similar, but independently born organisms (i.e. not produced by organismal descent with modification) from the primordial pond. In this scenario, the organisms that are produced from seed-cells derived from a common seed-cell would have genes with the same common differences as the common seed-cell, and other random differences.

While this is an equally plausible mechanism as that of evolution for the very similar organisms, there are reasons why this should be more a reality than that is offered by the evolution theory. The new theory is able to explain many fundamental things concerning the origin of many entities of life, which the evolution theory is simply unable to. It shows how the genomes of complex multicellular organisms can arise directly from the random primordial DNA sequences in the primordial pond, and many aspects of genes and proteins and their change. It illustrates how genes' abundance was inevitable in a primordial pond, and how they could lead to multiple genomes based on essentially the same genetic code, biochemistries, many common genes, and many unique genes. It illustrates how unique and unrelated genes can originate in distinct organisms (independently from the common pool of primordial genes), which no evolutionary theory can explain. While the new theory is able to explain all these aspects of life on earth -- all of which are impossible by the traditional evolutionary theory -- it is reasonable to accept the explanation of the new theory for the shared differences in protein sequences among very similar organisms.

We are speaking about essentially the same proteins (evolutionary terminology: homologous proteins) in very similar organisms. In distinct organisms there are unique proteins that are not present in other organisms. In these cases, we can only speak about the unrelatedness of genes, and not about the similarity of genes. Furthermore, as Jeff Mattox pointed out, if we really analyze the number of cases that fit with the common-difference pattern and random-difference pattern, we may see that the frequency of the random-difference pattern will be far more compared to the other pattern. This is where further research will help very much. Also, in this context, I invite people to read and understand about the proteins that are unique and unrelatable in distinct organisms that will alleviate their problems in always thinking about similarity.


19. Evolution theory or the independent birth theory is falsifiable: Empirical tests for the independent birth theory or the evolution theory.

People say that evolution theory is unfalsifiable. That is no longer true. People have said on SBE that my independent birth theory is also unfalsifiable. This is also not true. The molecular details and technologies available today make it possible to really test which theory is correct. Thus, both theories are falsifiable!

Let me describe two molecular tests that can be begun immediately to disprove either theory. These tests are purely analysis of hard data, so there is no rhetoric involved.

(Test 1) The first test has to do with the presence of unique proteins in distinct organisms that are in no way relatable by any means of organismal descent. Already there are a large number of examples in the research world brought forth by many biologists working in various fields. Although these biologists realize that these proteins are distinct proteins and are in fact unrelatable, they are puzzled -- but they expect to eventually find some means or data that will bring them out of this confusion. In other words, they find data that are opposing to the larger evolution theory within which they are working, but they have not come out of the domain of the old theory and they have no way of explaining their opposing data. No one has looked at the data as evidence that points to a totally different truth about origins -- the independent births of organisms.

I have collected a list of proteins and genes that are unrelatable by means of organismal descent (see Chapter 9: "The Molecular Scenario of Life: Evidence for the New Theory"). I believe that a systematic research into this subject will produce a large volume of data in this regard -- mostly from distinct invertebrate creatures which are an excellent test ground. For our discussion here, we can examine some of the proteins from some distinct creatures: those from a set of proteins generically called blood proteins, immune proteins, respiratory proteins, etc., from various distinct organisms. The proteins of a generic function (blood, for example) in a distinct organism (for example a vertebrate) are actually not related to the proteins of the same generic function in another distinct organism (for example the "blood" of an invertebrate). People have been believing that the proteins of the same generic function in distinct organisms (say the bloods of all organisms) are derived from a common ancestor and are therefore related. On this assumption, the blood plasma proteins in a vertebrate, for example, were originally thought to be similar to those in an invertebrate. But these proteins have recently been found to be absolutely different. (The blood plasma proteins in distinct invertebrates are also distinct and unrelated). If this is true, then it is also true that those distinct organisms that contain such unrelated proteins are also unrelated by descent. In fact, if we can prove that invertebrate and vertebrate creatures are in fact distinct and unrelated by evolution, then other distinctions among other distinct organisms will automatically follow.

Just to give an example, let me quote Russell Doolittle on the plasma proteins (Doolittle, R. F., 1984, The Plasma Proteins, Second Edition, Volume IV, Putnam, S.W., ed., Academic Press, New York, pages 317-360).

"The most astonishing thing revealed by our survey of vertebrate plasma proteins is that so many of them appear to be represented in even the lowest of fish. ... The further paradox is that most of these same proteins have not been identified among the invertebrates or even the protochordates. When were they invented? ... Moreover, the primal events whereby they were derived from other stock proteins remain mysterious in most of the cases."
To cite another quote from Doolittle about blood clotting:
"Certain crustacea have an extracellular protein, casually referred to as "fibrinogen," that can be gelled directly by a transglutaminase without concordant proteolysis; in contrast, fibrin formation in vertebrates involves the thrombin-catalyzed release of peptides from the amino-terminal segments of the alpha and beta chains. Some other invertebrates possess a system based on limited proteolysis, but gel formation in those creatures involves a protein called "coagulogen" that bears no resemblance to vertebrate fibrinogen."
About fibrinogen, again another quote from Doolittle:
"If this were true, however, we would expect to find fibrinogen-related proteins among the protochordates or invertebrates. So far no such proteins have been found, even though a number of explorations have been undertaken. Proteins that "gel" upon appropriate provocation have been identified, but none of these is thrombin-sensitive nor do they bear any other genuine resemblance to vertebrate fibrinogen."
Again Doolittle about transferrins:
"Palmour and Sutton included in their survey a protochordate and a large number of invertebrates. Of all the creatures examined in their study only moths (3 species) had a blood protein that bound iron. Nothing corresponding to transferrin could be detected in the body fluids of amphioxus, sea cucumbers, horseshoe crabs, crabs, snails, clams, limpets, or assorted worms."
In respiratory systems, different invertebrates use unique oxygen carriers. Although hemoglobin is used in all the vertebrates, it is used only in some invertebrates. Many other types of oxygen carriers, totally unrelated to hemoglobin, are used in many different invertebrates. Also, very dissimilar hemoglobins seem to be present among some invertebrates, which are only functionally (i.e. oxygen-binding function) similar to the typical hemoglobin. Hemocyanin, a large protein that contains copper is the oxygen carrier in some invertebrates. For instance, molluscs such as Helix and Octopus have hemocyanin. Bivalves, which are also classified as molluscs, do not have hemocyanin. Limulus (classified under Chelicerate) and Palinurus and Homarus (classified under Crustacean) also have hemocyanin. It is possible that the various hemocyanins are structurally different, although functionally similar. Hemocyanin protein has absolutely no relationship with hemoglobin or other oxygen carriers. Another protein, chlorocruorin (a protein containing iron), is present in some worms. Apparently this protein is absent in other invertebrate or vertebrate creatures. Heamerythrin, another protein with iron, is present in a few invertebrates, but not others. The single class Polychaeta exhibits several respiratory pigment molecules in apparently a random pattern among its families. The structures and the process by which oxygen is transported in invertebrates are totally different from those in vertebrates and among the different invertebrates. Many invertebrates do not even use such a circulatory system.

The list grows on and on, and for lack of space I will stop with this. When we dig into the literature, we begin to find many details that demonstrate that they fit very well with the independent birth theory. Some superficial similarities in these proteins are not the result of organismal descent, but are only due to functional constraints that can originate in totally independent proteins and genes.

As for plasma proteins, there are about 600 proteins in the blood plasma of vertebrates. An active search for the presence of any protein similar to these proteins in invertebrates, from which the plasma proteins of vertebrate blood are believed to have evolved, has been totally futile from the start of this search about 25 years ago. Even in the case of fibrinogen, the only case wherein a protein in an invertebrate has been found with some similarity in sequence, it is in a form which the vertebrate fibrinogen could not have evolved -- even by the account of molecular evolutionist Russell Doolittle, who is a pioneer in the field of plasma proteins. Even the term "blood" of the vertebrate, invertebrate, or the various distinct organisms is used only in a generic sense, and the blood of each of these organisms has nothing to do with that of the other organisms in terms of the genes, proteins, cells, or other materials that constitute each blood system.

This example of the plasma proteins can be extended to the respiratory systems, the immune systems, and other systems. Any organism that originated would need some form of body fluids, some form of respiratory system, some form of immunity, and so on -- each of these systems could originate from the primordial gene pool in many different ways. Until now, by superficially looking at widely distinct organisms that have body fluids such as blood plasma, we have simply assumed that these blood plasmas and their component proteins and other materials are all related by evolution. Similarly, when looking at the immune systems, respiratory systems, visual systems, and so on (systems that are only superficially similar in terms of their generic function), we have simply believed that each of these generic functions are related by evolution from a common ancestor. Any living organism will need some sort of circulating body fluids, some sort of respiration mechanism, some sort of immunity against invading organisms and materials, some sort of reproductive functions, and so on, just for it to be possible to live. But these systems could be made up in many different ways with many different kinds of proteins, cells, and bodily structures, yet each system would operate with similar overall function in the organism. If the primordial gene-pool had a large set of genes from which a given functional system could be made in different ways, that is what would happen. And that is what seems to have happened when we look at the scenario of living things carefully.

We have not looked at these superficial scenarios any differently than that proposed by conventional evolution because there was no finer data until recently that would show it to be different, and there was no other theoretical framework or theory by which one could evaluate such data when it started to become available. Some of these proteins can have some superficial sequence similarity that is imposed only by functional and structural constraints and are not due to descent. In my book, I have elaborately described and demonstrated how such similarities can very well arise in proteins that originated from totally distinct random sequences (unrelated by organismal evolution) in the primordial pond, and how it is, in fact, incorrect to connect them by organismal descent.

The primary reason we have been superficially believing that proteins of similar generic functions are similar and "homologous" among the various organisms is because such thought has been inspired and induced by the prevailing theory of evolution and because there were also similar genes among different organisms. But, when we scrutinize the available data itself, we can see that they do not support evolution, but rather the independent birth theory, because there are many unique and unrelated genes, and the whole systems of blood plasma, coagulation, respiration, immunity, are completely unique and unrelated among the different organisms. In fact, very few people have ventured into any real research in this field. Scientists who have done so, such as Russell Doolittle, have come up with puzzle after puzzle that have not been solved. When we look at these data on the basis of the new independent birth theory, we can see that they fit the new theory very well.

In essence, by testing if the proteins from one organism are in fact unrelated to those from another distinct organism, we can test if one organism is unrelated to another organism. The sequences are known for some of these proteins, and in some cases they are not yet known. There are other kinds of data (such as the detection of genes by DNA-hybridization or the detection of specific proteins by specific antibody binding). With the available data itself biologists have been puzzled that there are many proteins in distinct organisms that cannot be found in other organisms. These biologists have not yet come out of the evolutionary domain. On the basis of the new theory, we can see that these are unique and unrelated proteins that show that these organisms are also unrelated. The genes for these distinct proteins in the distinct creatures were derived separately from the primordial pond.

The data that shows "organismal distinction" or "organismal unrelatedness" have only recently begun to be found. In addition to those proteins for which sequences are available, there is also considerable protein data for which the sequences of either the proteins or their genes are not yet available. These data, however, when viewed with the new theory in mind, will show that they actually fit with the new theory, and are obvious evidence against the evolution theory. Once the sequences of these proteins are known, we can actually prove unambiguously that these genes are indeed unrelated and are therefore not the result of organismal descent. Thus, this kind of data and their analysis actually make it possible to see which theory is correct and which is not. So, it is possible to falsify both the evolution theory or the independent birth theory with the molecular data.

There is another consequence of the establishment of the presence of unique proteins in distinct organisms: the concept of mutations will also be proved to be a passive activity in genomes without actually changing one distinct organism into another. If distinctly unique genes can be shown to be improbable to be arrived at by any means of mutations from any preexisting genes, then the concept that mutations brought forth all the genes of all the multitudes of complex creatures from the one original assumed ancestral single cell will also shown to be incorrect. I invite everyone to plunge into this literature and then come back and say if I am right or wrong.

(Test 2) The second test has to do with the developmental genetic pathways (DGP) of distinct organisms. According to my theory, the DGP of distinct organisms should be distinct. (The DGPs of some sets of organisms can be similar due to the reuse of genomic pieces in the primordial pond.) If the data for the DGPs for many distinct organisms that we can define as "independently born" become available, then we can test our concept with this data. Data is already available for a few distinct creatures that belong to the independently born categories. For instance, the cellular developmental maps (the developmental lineage of all the cells in a full grown embryo) for the embryos of sea urchin (Phylum Echinodermata), Ceanorhabditis elegans (Phylum Nematoda), and Aplysia (Phylum Mollusca) are already available. Eric Davidson has carried out extensive studies on the embryonic developmental cellular patterns of some of these creatures. He took representative organisms belonging to eight different phyla for his analysis. He has stated the following (Davidson, E.H., 1990, "How embryos work: a comparative view of diverse modes of cell fate specification," Development, 108:365-389):

"Classical authors, however, and those of their successors who have attempted to deal with more than one embryonic form, have been struck by the amazing variety in the modes of embryonic development that exist in the various phylogenetic reaches of the Animal Kingdom. ... Table 1 considers the development of representative animals of eight different taxa for which there is considerable information available. It is evident at a glance that these organisms utilize profoundly different strategies to achieve development. ... For the differeces among taxa in their modes of embryonic development are anything but trivial and superficial (certain hopeful reductionist delutions of recent years to the contrary)."
From Davidson's writings one can see that the developmental genetic pathways of distinct organisms appear to be similar only at a superficial level, and that, when we look at the finer level, they are distinct, and, in fact, unique. However, working within the evolutionary theory's domain, Davidson expects that these distinct DGPs could somehow have evolved from a common ancestor. But, when we view even the available data with the new concept in mind, we can see that these organisms are in fact unrelated. It is clear that Eric Davidson, who is primarily a molecular biologist, has found distinctions and unrelatedness among the embryonic development of organisms belonging to different taxa. But, he tries to fit this empirical observation to the evolutionary theory, just because that was the only theory out there for the origin of life and organisms at that time.

We can develop computational methods to compare these DGPs and test if they can actually be derived from one another at all in any geological time. This have not been attempted yet. Thus, there are actually computational, mathematical, or quantitative ways by which we can determine if these DGPs can be derived from the DGP of a common ancestor. The data is there, and more will be coming. The methods can be developed. However, it will take considerable resources for doing these analysis in an elaborate manner. For our discussion, I have shown sufficient data in my book that demonstrates the concept of organismal unrelatedness (pages 375-451).

Thus, there are ways to test which of the theories -- the evolution theory or the independent birth theory -- is correct. These theories are no longer unfalsifiable since we now have the data, new methodologies, and a new scientific theory that is an alternative to evolution theory, with which we can analyze the data to prove one way or the other. In fact, some people have suggested that a professor could give a semester problem to his students with the objective to disprove the independent birth theory. By these approaches delineated above, one can accumulate, tabulate, and study even the available data from the existing literature, which itself may be sufficient to convincingly prove or disprove the theory. I will be truly happy if my theory is proved wrong, since truth will emerge out of such exercises. And whatever be the truth, it will be certainly interesting.

Evolution theory has been dogmatized on the basis of a few observations -- a few observations that seemed to fit the theory, and that, in return, seemed to support or even prove the theory. With the large Mount Wilson telescope, Edwin Hubble could see that there were galaxies beyond our own Milky Way. The telescope could break the long-held scientific notion that the universe was made up of only our galaxy. The telescope could show that the mysterious spiral nebulae, long believed to be clouds of gas, were actually other galaxies, star systems beyond our own. This discovery dramatically demolished the accepted boundaries of the cosmos. Just as the telescope was a supremely valuable gift for astronomy, the recently unearthed split structure of genes of multicellular organisms is a supreme gift to our understandings of life's origins. By understanding the origins of these genes, we understand not just the origin of genes, but the origins of life and organismal disparity, and many many other details of life on earth. The distinct structure of these genes enables us to take a deeper look into the origins of life and its disparity, just as the modern telescopes enabled us to look far into the universe.

Time and again, human kind has made the mistake of dogmatizing things based on few observed facts. Time and again we have also seen that such dogma have been changed when more and deeper observations were possible and made. Thus far, evolutionary theory has been a working assumption, a provisional hypothesis, based on all our scientific observations. But these observations are not final and complete. Just as the astronomers of yesteryear concluded that the universe consisted of only our Milky Way galaxy, we had concluded, based on our observations of the living world, that evolution theory explained life and the living world. But, our observation of the living world was not complete due to limitation in methodologies, knowledge, information and understanding. Today, like the large Mount Wilson telescope that revealed new galaxies and changed our views about the universe, techniques of DNA sequencing have revealed amazing information on the structures of genes, observations that are new and revealing things that were unavailable yesterday, observations that reveal new understandings concerning life's origins. New research with the genes and proteins of various distinct organisms, especially in the invertebrate world, are revealing that there are many genes that are indeed unrelated among these organisms -- a notion exactly opposite to that based on similarity of genes. New research with the cellular developmental lineages are revealing that the developmental genetic pathways of distinct organisms are indeed unique and unrelated -- again a notion that is opposite to the long-held superficial belief of similarity of embryonic development of all organisms. These new observations enable what seemed unfalsifiable falsifiable! If these observations, and more and deeper observations on the same lines in the near future, show that organisms are indeed unrelated by means of descent with modification, then the basic evolution theory will be proved incorrect, and, by the same token, the independent birth theory proved correct.

Descartes said:

I think that the truth about life's origins is hidden deeper in the genes, not just in their superficial similarity. It is certainly accessible to us with all the modern technologies and information. Let us take a fresh look into the scenario and try to unearth the beautiful truth.


20. Conclusion:

If anyone can prove my theory wrong, I will be first one to accept it fully with an open mind. People can set up tests that will prove the theory wrong. But they have to read my book and understand really what I have said before they can attempt to do that. It is not enough to argue based on a few posts that appear here either on heresay, or based on just a couple of introductory chapters on the web page, or based on some discussions of the few who have read the book completely. In fact, I would like it very much if people read the book and tear up the details and concepts. I have spent over 15 years as a scientist carrying out detailed analyses and analyzing their results and forming concepts, which cannot be commented upon superficially by people without even reading the book that contains all these details. Precise answers to most of the questions that have appeared on this forum are there in the book. I invite people to read the book that describes all these concepts in fair detail and the supporting evidence. If one reads the book fully and then prove the concepts there are incorrect, I will be fully open minded, and will fully agree with them.

In concluding these remarks, I want to say the following. I am very happy that the discussion in SBE concerning my theory has turned out to be productive and reasonable. I am happy that the Internet is a place where we can talk in a conducive atmosphere, and exchange fruitful ideas and information. With regard to the questions on origins, we are only trying to understand the reality, not define it. Reality here is what has already happened and is fixed. In trying to look back, we can propose many ways of understanding it. More than one way may appear to explain what has happened. In order to really figure out the truth, we need to sift through the details and carefully put the puzzle together. Truth cannot be intimidated. It can only be comprehended and assimilated. Intimidation and arrogance cannot change the truth. So it certainly gives a nice feeling to see that the discussion has turned out to be friendly and amiable. Thanks again, and I will be pleased to answer any new questions or any questions that I have not answered here.

Periannan Senapathy
12 September 1995

I love my Mac [top] -- [The new theory home page] -- [Part I] -- [Part II]