Friday, February 3, 2012

7. Scientists Prove God and Validity of the Quran through Failure to Synthesize Life from Nonlife

We have come to the end of the story. Through previous several articles posted at this blog and at QuranScienceBlog ( we have seen how science in non-tech domain is being shaped up on atheistic lines by the atheist lobby cautiously and surreptitiously exploiting the immense trust people repose in science and scientific community. First and foremost, scientific community does not accept God and hence treats belief in God as irrational and superstitious. This verdict is not based on scientific evidence or based on scientific evaluation of the Quranic revelations. This observation is all the more pertinent and relevant as atheism is unscientific – it is neither scientifically testable nor falsifiable. Therefore it can be stated that the refutation of God by the scientific community has no scientific basis and is meaningless. But the biggest joke is atheists have already proved God! They are not even aware of it! They are yet to realize it!  

Being the Word of God (Q. 18:27) and under His protection (Q. 15:9), the Quran is Truth (Q. 16:102; 17:105) and none can change it (Q. 18:27). The Quran thus becomes the universal reference standard for verification of information in the sense any information that is not consistent with or contradictory to the Quran will be false. This applies to every kind of information including science. Thus we have seen theories that contradict the Quran have either failed or remained controversial. Steady state cosmology, molecular gene (genome), theories of origin of life, and Darwinism come under this category. Of these, steady state theory that was introduced to counter big bang cosmology, which indicated beginning for the universe and time and hence the need for Creator, is almost rejected. Theories of origin of life are not scientific although they circulate as scientific theories. There are dozens of them. None of these theories meets the requirements of scientific theory. They are neither verifiable experimentally nor falsifiable. They do not yield verifiable predictions either. They all remain in the domain of nonlife without giving any suggestion as to how life originated. These theories are founded on the baseless assumption that life originated from nonlife as emergent phenomenon. It is surprising to see how these theories get published and how they get into science curriculum! It is the same scientific community, which proclaims the Quran is irrational without examining its scientific validity, that upholds pseudoscientific theories and promote them as science! Darwinism is yet another theory being fought against by scientists and theistic religious leaders. Even after one hundred and fifty years, it remains controversial! 

Another giant in the list is the molecular gene (genome) theory. While introducing the gene concept in 1909, Wilhelm Johannsen warned against treating gene as physical entity. The term ‘gene’ was meant to indicate the factor responsible for inheritance of characters. He had also warned against assigning gene to particular character. But later scientists could not think of an entity with metaphysical underpinnings. Thus with the elucidation of the chemical structure of DNA, which was found to determine the amino acid sequence of protein, the molecule was declared as constituting the genetic information required for the biological activities of an organism. Thus the phenomenon of life acquired physical basis. Today we know that molecular gene and genome are in big crisis. Both warnings given by Johannsen stand proven. But yet biologists are not mindful of their mistakes nor are they prepared for a reexamination of the whole concept of physical gene.

Summing up the discussions, the following conclusions can be drawn.

a) None of the theories of origin of life is scientific. These theories do not meet the requirements of a scientific theory. They are neither testable nor falsifiable. They also do not yield testable or falsifiable predictions. In other words they do not satisfy any of the criteria formulated for a scientific theory. It is these theories that are taught in schools and colleges in biology curriculum! It is theories of this kind that are discussed and published in thousands of biology journals! Nobody questions them! The scientific community who declares God and religion as blind beliefs and irrational is silent about its own criminal action of promoting unscientific theories in the garb of science. Its hypocrisy and hidden agenda are laid bare!

b) Darwinism-based theory of evolution is another gimmick to sell atheism. Darwin proposed his theory against natural evidence (absence of intermediate forms of life) knowingly with the caveat that nature is wrong (i.e., fossil record is imperfect)! The assumptions on which the theory is based are invalid, the predictions of the theory have failed and more than all, several natural evidences and scientific findings are against it. Voice of dissent over the theory is getting louder by the day.

c) If we examine the biology literature, it will be apparent that biology as a whole is molecular gene-centric barring perhaps such traditional areas as taxonomy, anatomy, cytology, physiology and biochemistry. In other words, if molecular gene concept is proved wrong, modern biology will collapse under its own weight. The assumption that life originated from nonlife (i.e., nonliving matter) is founded on the idea that biological program is encoded by a chemical molecule, DNA. It is therefore believed that change in DNA structure (mutation) brings about change in the biological information encoded by it. That in turn reflects in the change of phenotype. New organism evolves that way. With this assumption, a living being is reduced to mere bundle of chemical molecules. It is without testing the scientific validity of molecular gene, all these conclusions are being drawn by scientists. No wonder molecular gene (genome) concept is in deep crisis now.

The seemingly biased approach of biologists toward these theories places them in a class of their own. These atheism-friendly theories enjoy immunity from satisfying the essential criteria prescribed for a scientific theory. Biologists introduce these theories into the realm of science and treat them at par with scientific theories to give credibility to atheism and project theism as irrational. That biological diversity we observe today is the product of chance evolution is a foregone conclusion. That the genome encodes biological information required for the life of an organism is another foregone conclusion. Explanations given to biological phenomena are therefore developed to suit these conclusions. The question that inevitably comes up here is how long biology will be able to survive on atheistic pseudoscientific foundation?

Entry of pseudoscientific theories into the domain of life sciences has made biology a mockery of sorts. Biology is virtually a breeding ground for atheism-oriented pseudoscientific theories. The pathetic state of affairs of modern biology can be understood from the fact that although biology is the science of life, biologists do not know what “life” is; they cannot even define the phenomenon. Evolutionary biology is the science of evolution of species; but evolutionists (including Darwin) do not know what “species” is. Genetics is the science of molecular gene; but geneticists do not know what the “gene” is. One does not need anything more to visualize where biology is taking us.

The Quran is the only source that sheds light on the phenomenon of life. As may be noted, theories of origin of life from nonlife, theory of evolution of species through descent with modification, and molecular gene theory indicating life is material phenomenon are opposed to the Quranic revelations. The Quran reveals to us that life is nonmaterial phenomenon. Life is caused by the nonphysical intangible rooh (or nafs). Accordingly organism has been described based on a computer model as natural biocomputer or biorobot. Please see post 4 at QuranScienceBlog ( for a detailed discussion. The rooh (soul) can be understood as the nonmaterial biosoftware of an organism. The molecular gene theory is thus refuted by the Quran. Wilhelm Johannsen’s original proposal of nonphysical gene is however consistent with the Quran. Any theory that is against the Quran, the Word of God, is destined to fail. The Quranic revelation thus poses the biggest challenge to material gene concept. If material gene theory is wrong, it goes without saying that every other theory (particularly those relating to origin of life and evolution of species) is also wrong.   

Biologists are unable to explain life because the molecular gene and genome concepts are wrong. In other words, life is not a material phenomenon. Non-recognition of this truth leads biologists to try out synthesizing life from nonlife (chemical molecules stored in bottles on the shelves of laboratory). To create life, biologists start from scratch by synthesizing genome, chromosome, or a cell through artificial means using chemical molecules. A more practical method is to try it out with a dead cell. Instead of creating synthetic cell without involving a living organism (which of course is impossible), a dead cell can be considered as equivalent to prosthetic cell. It can be used as the starting material for the creation of life. It has all the material structures (genome, cytoplasm and other cell structures including cell wall) except life (biosoftware). That is to say, it is materially identical to a living cell. Biologists only have to restore life to it by chemical means without employing a living cell. In this way they can test the scientific validity of the molecular gene and genome concepts. The outcome of this scientific experiment will also provide answer to the biggest question “Is there God?” If they succeed in creating life from nonlife without involving living cell or organism at any stage during the process, they are not only proving the molecular gene but also disproving the Quranic revelation of nonmaterial basis of life and God’s very existence. On the other hand, if they fail in their attempt, it will invalidate not only molecular gene concept but also theories of origin of life and evolutionary biology as a whole. More importantly it will confirm the validity of the Quran and existence of God. A lot of studies are now going on in several universities and research institutions in this line to create life from nonlife. As of today, all the experiments have failed indicating the validity of the Quran and existence of God. Atheists have thus proved God already. Their continued efforts to create life from nonlife are not going to produce a different result. But indeed future failures will help confirm the existence of God unequivocally. Atheists are now doing that. That will mark the end of atheism as well as the religion-science controversy. It is just a matter of time biologists called it a day. That will also mark the day of realization of another Quranic revelation: “Soon will We show them Our signs in the (furthest) regions and in themselves until it becomes manifest to them that this (Quran) is the truth. Is it not enough that your Lord is witness over all things?” (Q. 41:53).


Wednesday, February 1, 2012

6. Pseudoscientific Theories to Promote Atheism: Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

British naturalist Charles Darwin published the book On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life in 1859, which formed the basis of the theory of evolution [1]. Darwin utilized his vast knowledge about biodiversity generated from observation of nature to build his views about the origin of biological organisms. Darwin believed that species were mutable and could give rise to newer forms if beneficial heritable variation occurred. In this way new species evolved as descent with modification. He assumed heritable variations occur in species by chance. He further assumed there is severe competition between species leading to struggle for existence. If any variation occurs in an individual that helps it in some way to outcompete, that individual survives and the variation is transmitted down to future generations. In this way the variation gets preserved in the population. He called this mechanism “natural selection”. According to the theory, natural selection is a purposeless, unconscious mechanism driven by chance whose result is supposed to take geologic time for manifestation. Gradual accumulation of small variations ultimately leads to speciation.

With the publication of Theodosius Dobzhansky’s book Genetics and the Origin of Species [2] in 1937 the evolutionary theory started being understood and appreciated as genetic change in populations. This led to the development of “synthetic theory” (also called “modern synthesis” or “neo-Darwinism”). Compared to Darwinism, the modern synthesis gives more emphasis to random genetic drift than to natural selection. It recognizes that genes are discrete entities through which characteristics are inherited and the existence of multiple alleles of a gene is responsible for variation within a population. Speciation occurs as a consequence of gradual accumulation of small genetic changes.

Although Darwin’s theory has been widely publicized, it has not been possible to defend the hypothesis with scientific evidence. We also do not find proof in real situation to substantiate his arguments. On the other hand, evidences and findings are mounting against the theory. In his book, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, Soren Lovtrup, professor of zoophysiology at Universityof Umea, Sweden, points out a very important fact about the critics of Darwinism. He states: “Some critics turned against Darwin’s teachings for religious reasons, but they were a minority; most of his opponents…argued on a completely scientific basis.” He goes on to explain so many reasons for the rejection of Darwin’s proposal. “…first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous.” [3]. Lovtrup’s remarks in effect clear the misunderstanding of many people who think that the theory is opposed only by religious leaders. Scores of scientists have either rejected it or are skeptical about it.

Is Darwin’s theory scientific? 

Over the past century and a half, biologists have been hailing the theory as scientifically proven fact. A brief review of the evolutionary literature is made here to show this is a wild claim far from truth. The theory is examined here from two angles namely, whether the assumptions of the theory have been scientifically validated, and whether predictions of the theory have been proved correct.

a) Invalid assumptions

The strength of a theory lies primarily on the validity of its assumptions. Three important assumptions of the evolutionary theory namely, a) competition exists between species, b) heritable variations occur in the organisms by random chance processes (mutations), and c) natural selection offers a mechanism for evolution, are examined here.


Darwin assumes there is severe competition between species leading to struggle for existence. “A struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high rate at which all organic beings tend to increase” [1, p. 55]. “Nothing is easier than to admit in words the truth of universal struggle for life” [1, p. 54].

Darwin’s assumption of high rate of increase of organic beings as the cause of competition implies that both intraspecific competition (competition among the members of the same species) and interspecific competition (competition between species) exist in nature. Ironically we find the parents taking care of their children who are their ‘enemies’ according to Darwin. Darwin’s assumption that evolution of new structures or innovations enables a species to outcompete the others and that results in its survival is perhaps the most misleading idea by which he fools the world, more so his followers. Darwin’s theory is a circular argument.  If competition is present in nature, that should also be a product of evolution. This means evolution only creates competition and does not eliminate it. There is no rationale for the argument that evolution takes place for enabling the species to overcome the competition (for its survival) when evolution itself is responsible for creating that competition. Is this science?

The existence of competition between species in nature is a distortion of facts. What we find is cooperation and harmony among species in an ecosystem. Struggle for existence due to competition between species is the key factor required to sustain Darwin’s model of biological evolution. Do conditions leading to competition of such magnitude prevail for a long time anywhere on this planet for natural selection to operate? Active competition in contemporary assemblages has often been inferred from the degree of niche overlap displayed, and invoked to explain observed patterns of distribution, abundance and behaviour. Studies conducted with lotic fish communities at the University of Southampton, U.K., showed little unequivocal evidence for the occurrence of interspecific competition because there exists no definitive relationship between similarity of resources use and degree of competition [4]. Peter Kropotkin was a Russian revolutionary anarchist and a critic of Darwinism.  He categorically denied that evolution resulted from struggle for life. Kropotkin could not accept Thomas Huxley’s (a staunch believer and protagonist of Darwinism) ‘gladiatorial’ Darwinism as valid: “They conceive of the animal world as a world of perpetual struggle among half-starved individuals, thirsting for one another’s blood.” Stephen Jay Gould devotes a full chapter in his book Bully for Brontosarus presenting Kropotkin’s views on biological evolution based on cooperation [5]. Coexistence of species is a natural reality. A time-tested proof against competition is ‘plankton paradox’. Application of the principle of competitive exclusion, i.e., the species with greater competitive ability will crowd out the less competitive one, seems to contradict with some of the well known facts (referred to as paradoxes). The plankton organisms use the same resources. All plankton algae use solar energy and minerals dissolved in the water. There are not so many variations in mineral components to account for the large variability in plankton algae species [36]. In other words diverse species of algae coexist with identical resource requirement without competition and mutual exclusion.

Random chance mutations

Darwin says: “…we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection.” [1, p. 69]. First, the very assumption that “any variation in the least degree would be rigidly destroyed” is itself wrong because even the first ever organism evolved with the most lethal attribute – death!  The variation referred to by Darwin is the genetic variation. Heritable variation is supposed to be caused by genetic (DNA) mutation. It is now well established that spontaneous mutation is extremely rare and even if it occurs, it is mostly deleterious to the organism. Nevertheless, the evolutionary theory leans heavily on the occurrence of these random mutations.

Francis Crick, L. M. Murkhin, and Carl Sagan had estimated that the difficulty of evolving man by chance processes alone is 1 in 102,000,000,000 which  according to Borel’s law is no chance at all [7]. Orthodox Darwinists however believe that despite the tremendous odds against evolution, the large amount of time involved somehow makes the impossible possible. Unfortunately, the argument that time alone solves the difficulty of probability considerations, is not only intellectually uncomfortable but also preposterous. For example, Borel’s “Single Law of Chance” declares that when the odds are beyond 10200 (on a cosmic scale) an event will never occur, no matter how much time is involved [8]. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, U.S.A., in an excellent comprehensive review of the evolutionary literature discusses the problems and difficulties in the evolution of novel genetic information through random mutations [9]. A typical gene contains over one thousand precisely arranged bases. For any specific arrangement of four nucleotide bases of length n, there is a corresponding number of possible arrangements of bases, 4n. For any protein, there are 20n possible arrangements of protein-forming amino acids. A gene 999 bases in length represents one of 4999 possible nucleotide sequences; a protein of 333 amino acids is one of 20333 possibilities. Since the 1960s, biologists have thought functional proteins to be rare among the set of possible amino acid sequences. The presumed ability of mutation and selection to generate information in the form of novel genes and proteins has been questioned by many scientists and mathematicians. Morris cited work relating to site-directed mutagenesis on a 150-residue protein-folding domain within a B-lactamase enzyme. On the basis of these experiments, he estimated that the probability of finding a functional protein among the possible amino acid sequences corresponding to a 150-residue protein is 1 in 1077 [10]. These observations question the possibility of evolution of organisms requiring new genetic information. The Cambrian explosion is a case in point. The “Cambrian explosion” which is also called “biology’s big bang” refers to the geologically sudden appearance of many new animal body plans about 530 million years ago. At this time, at least nineteen, and perhaps as many as thirty-five phyla of forty total made their first appearance on earth within a narrow five- to ten-million-year window of geologic time. Many new subphyla, between 32 and 48 of 56 total [11] and classes of animals also arose at this time with their members displaying significant morphological innovations. The Cambrian explosion thus marked a major episode of morphogenesis in which many new and diverse organismal forms arose in a geologically short period of time [9]. New Cambrian animals would require proteins much longer than 100 residues to perform many necessary specialized functions [9]. Cambrian animals would have required complex proteins such as lysyl oxidase in order to support their stout body structures [12]. Lysyl oxidase molecules in extant organisms comprise over 400 amino acids. These molecules are both highly complex (non-repetitive) and functionally specified. Reasonable extrapolation from mutagenesis experiments done on shorter protein molecules suggests that the probability of producing functionally sequenced proteins of this length at random is so small as to make appeals to chance absurd, even granting the duration of the entire universe. DNA mutation rates are far too low to generate the novel genes and proteins necessary to building the Cambrian animals, given the most probable duration of the explosion as determined by fossil studies [10]. According to Ohno [12], even a mutation rate of 10-9 per base pair per year results in only a 1% change in the sequence of a given section of DNA in 10 million years. Thus, mutational divergence of preexisting genes cannot explain the origin of the Cambrian forms in that time.

Histone H4 and H3 lack functional intermediates in eukaryotes. Histone H3 is one of the slowest ‘evolving’ proteins known (1,000 times more slowly than the apolipoproteins). That would mean about 1-2 (non-synonymous) substitutions per nucleotide per trillion (=1,000,000,000,000 or 1012 ) years! That is, the time for Histone H3 and H4 to substitute one amino acid is longer than the age of the Earth, our solar system and the universe [13].

Discovery of the phenomenon of cell-directed mutagenesis by Miroslav Radman was another blow to the theory of evolution. He showed that bacteria harboured a genetic program to make mutations. At that time, no one believed this heretical proposal [14]. Many evolutionary biologists were skeptical about this discovery because genetic mutation was believed to be a random phenomenon. Obviously, the scientists refuse to think beyond Darwinism. In 1988 another report of cell-induced mutagenesis appeared in the literature, which was more startling than Radman’s. Molecular biologist John Cairns and his colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health demonstrated that bacteria could induce specific mutations depending on their environmental conditions [15]. As expected, the evolutionists gave only a cold shoulder to this discovery because cell-directed mutagenesis indicates that there is built-in mechanism in the cell by which the organism can induce required changes at times of need.

Natural selection

Darwin assumed “natural selection” as the mechanism of organic evolution. “Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring….I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of Natural Selection” [1, p. 53]. “It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working …” [1, p. 71]. Natural selection implies that a structure evolves through accumulation of a series of beneficial variations in an individual of a species.

Many scientists have questioned the very rationale behind natural selection. Stephen Jay Gould remarks: “…how do you get from nothing to such an elaborate something if evolution must proceed through a long sequence of intermediate stages, each favored by natural selection? You can’t fly with 2% of a wing or gain much protection from an iota’s similarity with a potentially concealing piece of vegetation. How, in other words, can natural selection explain these incipient stages of structures that can only be used (as we now observe them) in much more elaborated form?” [16]. Cohen writes in his book Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities: “‘Survival of the fittest’ and ‘natural selection.’ No matter what phraseology one generates, the basic fact remains the same: any physical change of any size, shape or form is strictly the result of purposeful alignment of billions of nucleotides (in the DNA). Nature or species do not have the capacity for rearranging them, nor adding to them. Consequently no leap (saltation) can occur from one species to another. The only way we know for a DNA to be altered is through a meaningful intervention from an outside source of intelligence: one who knows what it is doing, such as our genetic engineers are now performing in their laboratories.” [17].

Results of several scientific studies also question the existence of a mechanism called natural selection. Robert Macnab of Yale University concludes his elaborate and thorough review of the sensory and motor mechanism of the bacterium, E. coli, with the following thought-provoking remarks: “As a final comment, one can only marvel at the intricacy in a simple bacterium, of the total motor and sensory system which has been the subject of this review…that our concept of evolution by selective advantage must surely be an oversimplification. What advantage could derive, for example, from a “preflagellum” (meaning a subset of its components), and yet what is the probability of “simultaneous” development of the organelle at a level where it becomes advantageous?” [18]. The report of the restricted role of natural selection in evolution by Weinreich and his colleagues from Harvard University is another frontal attack on the efficiency of the much hyped evolutionary mechanism. They demonstrated the haplessness of natural selection, the driving force behind evolution. “Five point mutations in a particular ß-lactamase allele jointly increase bacterial resistance to a clinically important antibiotic by a factor of 100,000. In principle, evolution to this high-resistance ß-lactamase might follow any of the 120 mutational trajectories linking these alleles. However, we demonstrate that 102 trajectories are inaccessible to Darwinian selection and that many of the remaining trajectories have negligible probabilities of realization…. we conclude that much protein evolution will be similarly constrained…” [19].

Motoo Kimura’s neutral theory is another, which questioned natural selection. Orthodox Darwinists did not like Kimura’s theory, because he maintained that all-powerful natural selection was not powerful at all. At the molecular level, the power of natural selection was greatly minimized. Molecular variation in proteins and DNA that had no influence on the fitness of the individual organism was observed, i.e., selectively neutral, questioning the importance of natural selection in the traditional areas of morphology and anatomy [20].

These and many other reports clearly indicate that natural selection is not operating in nature and hence to consider it as the mechanism of evolution is in itself meaningless.

b) Failure of predictions

A theory like evolutionary theory is best verified by the success of its predictions. The theory predicts many things that are verifiable. But none of the predictions is scientifically proved. Evidences are against the predictions of the theory.


Despite the scientific inadequacies of the assumptions, the only possible natural evidence that would have swayed in favour of the theory is the fossil record showing intermediate forms predicted by the theory. Darwin stated: “…the number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon this earth.” [1, p. 231]. “Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all the species of the same group together, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent forms and the intermediate links.  Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains…” [1, p. 149-150]. But the fossil record did not live up to Darwin’s expectations. It is barren for transitional forms. Darwin’s reaction to the absence of intermediate forms is: “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” [1, p. 230]. His remark about the imperfection of the fossil is unscientific and uncalled for. It is Darwin’s theory and not Nature that necessitated the intermediate forms and it is Darwin who predicted their presence in the geological record.

Whatever argument evolutionists may advance, the geological record is against Darwin’s theory. It shows that no intermediate forms as envisaged by the theory ever lived on this planet. The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record thus prompted Darwin to state: “He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation.” [1, p. 279-280]. To call nature’s archive of biodiversity as imperfect for the reason that it does not agree with one’s idea is something unheard of and unthinkable in science. There are many theories in physical and chemical sciences that provide predictions to enable us to verify their veracity. But in the event of failure of a prediction, no one would consider the theory is correct and the natural evidence wrong! 

If natural evidence goes against the predictions of a theory, it is preposterous to defend it by perfunctory arguments. It is a fact that Darwin knew there were no organic gradations in the fossil record even before he proposed the theory. But he deliberately ignored that and chose to cover it up by declaring the natural archive of biological history as incomplete! No evolutionist would have doubted the perfection of the fossil record if Darwin’s theory had not predicted transitional forms. In no other field of science can one find such unethical move to deliberately misinterpret natural formation in defense of a theory. David Raup, the curator of the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History commented in 1979 on the situation of the missing link thus: “Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. Ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information.” [21].

The theory of punctuated equilibrium (PE) proposed by Eldredge and Gould literally shook the very foundation of Darwinism namely, phyletic gradualism. According to Prothero, their work not only showed that paleontologists had been out of step with biologists for decades, but also that they had been unconsciously trying to force the fossil record into the gradualistic mode [22]. The PE does not support gradualism, the backbone of Darwin’s theory. Naturally, the gradualists started a frontal attack at PE. The debate still goes on. The minds of paleontologists were deep set in gradualism. As Eldredge and Gould observed, “the paleontologists were raised in a tradition inherited from Darwin known as phyletic gradualism, which sought out the gradual transitions between species in the fossil record.” [22].

If evolution takes place in steps, intermediate forms of emerging species with new organs or body parts in various stages of development will have to be present at all times – past, present and future. But we do not find intermediate forms or incomplete body parts among extant organisms. Among the two million or so documented species, not one of them has been identified by taxonomists as intermediate form; all of them have been described as perfect species clearly indicating that transitional forms as predicted by Darwin’s theory do not occur in nature. The absence of intermediate forms in the existing biodiversity, besides the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, invalidates Darwin’s theory of origin of species.

Usefulness of a structure to other species

“Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of, and profits by, the structure of another” [1, p. 167]. This statement is against the spirit of natural selection proposed by Darwin. If a species can take advantage of the structures of another species, competition is nullified and natural selection is disabled. Further Darwin tries to hide this contradiction by stressing on exclusivity. Darwin puts up the challenge: “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory for such could not have been produced through natural selection” [1, p. 167]. In the next breath, however, he presents an example that would annihilate his theory. “One of the strongest instances of an animal apparently performing an action for the sole good of another, with which I am acquainted, is that of aphids voluntarily yielding their sweet excretion to ants….” [1, p. 175]. But Darwin treats this case as not a challenge to his theory. He remarks: “But as the excretion is extremely viscid, it is probably a convenience to the aphids to have it removed….” [1, p. 175]. How strange the arguments and counterarguments are! Any number of cases of evolution of organs and parts in organisms for the exclusive use of other organisms can be cited. For example, banana fruit is of no use to banana plant but serves as food for other species; similarly many plants produce tubers not required for them but useful to others.

Extinction of old species

“The theory of natural selection is grounded on the belief that each new variety, and ultimately each new species, is produced and maintained by having some advantage over those with which it comes into competition; and the consequent extinction of less-favoured forms almost inevitably follows.” [1, p. 261-262]. “The extinction of old forms is the almost inevitable consequence of the production of new forms” [1, p. 280]. How could Darwin make such a prediction when there exist millions of older species including the most primitive single-celled organisms on the earth? Although the theory predicts their extinction as soon as new forms evolved, they are all there even after the evolution of the so-called newer species millions of years ago.

Descent with modification

‘Evolutionary tree’ is the representation of the concept of descent with modification through the portrayal of the common ancestries assumed to have been shared by diverse species. Evolutionists use structural, anatomical, morphological or traditional homology for the purpose on the assumption that phenotypic similarities between species are inherited from common ancestral species. Besides these, genetic homology called molecular homology also exists. This homology is based on DNA sequence. From the genetic point of view, the evolutionary tree is a portrayal of the evolutionary history based on genetic relationships. It is also called phylogenetic tree. Since the idea hinges on genetic lineage, the similarities among organisms are considered to be the result of genetic relationships among them [23].

The ‘similar genes’ found in two species need not be an indicator of a common ancestor.  For instance, a paper published in PloS Biology in 2006 says:Genome analyses are delivering unprecedented amounts of data from an abundance of organisms, raising expectations that in the near future, resolving the tree of life (TOL) will simply be a matter of data collection. However, recent analyses of some key clades in life’s history have produced bushes and not resolved trees… Whereas genomic analyses have shown that at the species level, chimpanzees are humans’ closest relatives…, many of the genes and genomic segments examined have followed different evolutionary paths.” [24]. Therefore deduction of phylogeny of a species from the phylogeny of a gene is not correct. As Crawford mentioned, phylogenies generated from sequences of a protein represent the phylogeny of the gene encoding the protein, and may or may not be equivalent to the phylogeny of the species [25]. A particularly unexpected outcome of the studies in this field is that structures traditionally viewed as being analogous are regulated in their development by genes that are clearly homologous. We must accept that homology is usually a hypothesis about evolutionary history rather than a deduced matter of fact [26].

Genomic similarity is the norm for determining the phylogeny. Basically, comparative genomics is a description of the matches between genomes. The most glaring omission in the stories constructed from genomic data is the comparison of phenotypic similarities vis a vis genomic similarities. Without describing the genome-phenome correspondence, genomic comparison of two species is of no value. For instance, the argument that man evolved from chimpanzee makes no sense without specifying the phenotypic similarities conferred by the 98% genomic similarity shown by these species. In reality we find man and chimp are different in every phenotypic aspect. In the absence of demonstration of genome-phenome correspondence between the assumed ancestor and the species evolved from it, the idea of descent with modification (phylogenetic tree) loses its scientific appeal.

The rooting of the evolutionary tree has also come under fire. Evolutionary biologists look at the universal tree of life as being consisted of three domains: the ordinary bacteria, the Archaea which are microbes best known for living in extreme environments and the eukaryotes (eukarya) including man having nucleated cells [27]. From the comparisons of the genes encoding ribosomal RNAs of the microbes it was assumed that life began with some primitive bacteria. These then branched into Archaea, modern bacteria and later to eukaryotes. However, comparisons of DNA sequences of other kinds of genes had led to varied versions of the evolutionary tree making the tree of life more confusing rather than more focusing. “More genomes have only further blurred the branching pattern of the tree of life. Some blame shanghaied genes; others say the tree is wrong.” [28].

Woese proposed the concept of the ‘universal ancestor’ to look at the rooting of the evolutionary tree [29]. The ancestor according to this model is not an organism but a loosely knit, diverse conglomeration of primitive cells that evolved as a unit, and it eventually developed to a stage where it broke into several distinct communities, which in turn became the three primary lines of descent. The primary lines, however, were not conventional lineages. Each represented a progressive consolidation of the corresponding community into a smaller number of more complex cell types, which ultimately developed into the ancestor(s) of that organismal domain. The universal ancestor is not an entity, not a thing. It is a process characteristic of a particular evolutionary stage. But the question how such an ancestor, which was not an organism, came into being puts evolutionists in a quandary.

Evolutionary tree also changes with the method used for identifying the species. Construction of phylogenies relies on the principle that a bigger difference in sequence between two species means a more remote common ancestor. The number of possible trees rises exponentially with each species added to the analysis. Although mathematical techniques have been devised to find out the most likely tree, it is often difficult to choose between the many possibilities with any confidence although comparing many genes can make the choice easier [30]. The patterns of ancestry vary depending on the gene considered. In other words, what the phylogeny reveals is the ancestry of only the gene and not the phylogeny of the species that carries it [30].

Lateral gene transfer has literally shaken the hypothesis of descent with modification. According to Andre Goffeau, a geneticist at the Universite Catholique de Louvain, Belgium, there is so much lateral transfer that even the concept of the tree is debatable. The genomes of modern microbes may be mosaics of genes from different organisms rather than descendants of any single early form of life suggesting thereby that not even the ribosomal genes reflect evolutionary relationships [28]. Evolutionists now realize that the contemporary view of vertical gene flow, which is what Darwin’s theory predicts and the basis of the evolutionary tree concept, is not consistent with genomic data. To their amazement, the least expected horizontal gene flow is more common. It is like saying children are born to their parents inheriting more genes from their neighbours! With the evolutionary history becoming more horizontal, the basis on which the theory has been founded is getting blurred by the day. If Darwin’s idea of biological evolution were correct, it should have been possible to construct tree of life. Descent with modification is not only a prediction of the theory but is also its central aspect. If vertically oriented evolutionary tree cannot be constructed no more evidence is required to reject the theory.  In reality none of the predictions of the theory has been found true.  

The picture that emerges from the foregoing discussion is that the diverse forms of life could not have evolved from a common ancestor. There is no evidence whatsoever to say that morphological, anatomical, embryonic and genetic relationships among diverse forms of life are indicators of descent with modification from common ancestral species. The literature on phylogeny passes a clear verdict of the failure of phylogenetic concepts. Neither the tree based on morphological characters nor molecular homology is correct. The reason is that the evolutionary tree is just a figment of evolutionists’ imagination. All the anomalies observed in the construction of the tree tell us so. There is no species, no phylogeny and no evolutionary tree of the kind evolutionists claim. With both the rooting of the tree and the topology coming under fire, what is left of the evolutionary tree unquestioned? These facts might have prompted Elizabeth Pennisi to title her review paper as: “Is it time to uproot the tree of life?” [28]. New Scientist also had covered these aspects in detail in its 2962 issue (January 21, 2009).  Construction of evolutionary tree proves to be an impossible proposition. Failure to construct the tree proves the concept of descent with modification is mere wishful thinking.

c) Species problem

“Species” is an undefined concept in biology. The term “species” means different things to different people and it will continue to be so in future as there is no indication of a unified concept in sight. This leads to a very complicated situation in the field of evolutionary biology because species is the unit of evolution. Even Darwin did not know what “species” is and how to define it. It is without knowing what “species” is he wrote his famous book about origin of species! Obviously it would be wrong and that reflected in his theory also as discussed earlier. He admits this fact in his book. “… I look at the term species, as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, and for mere convenience sake.” [1, p. 46]. There are as many definitions of species as there are authors who have written about them. Some of these are: morphological species concept, biological species concept, evolutionary species concept, recognition species concept, cohesion species concept, phylogenetic species concept, Greek species concept, tyological species concept, Darwin’s species concept, ecological species concept, phenetic species concept, etc.  Mayden identifies 24 species concepts [31].

The species concept was originally used to classify the biodiversity. Karl von Linne, a Swedish botanist and medical doctor known to scientific world as Carolus Linnaeus, published the most influential book in taxonomy Systema Naturae in 1735 in which he outlined a scheme for classifying organisms based on morphological and anatomical similarities. The order of hierarchy in Linnaeus classification is: Kingdom-Phylum-Class-Order-Family-Genus-Species. There is no reason why organisms cannot be described in terms of characteristics other than the visual ones. If the criteria are changed, the placement of species in the classification scheme will also change. Nevertheless, the concept is certainly advantageous and essential to describe and study diverse organisms. The problem comes only when the classification system is used to describe the pedigree of a species (evolutionary tree).

It is clear that the theory of evolution has no scientific basis. Its predictions have failed and its assumptions have proved wrong.  But yet evolutionists propagate that it is as scientific as any theory in physics or chemistry! More importantly the results generated from evolutionary studies are interpreted to suit the assumption that the theory of evolution is a proven fact. As Thompson commented: “This situation, where men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.... I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial.” [32].

Darwin’s confessions

“I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations so common and multiform in organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser degree in those in a state of nature had been due to chance.  This, of course, is a wholly incorrect expression…” [1, p. 111]. Darwin wrote later in his another book, The Descent of Man that: “I admit…that in the earlier edition of my Origin of Species I probably attributed too much to the action of natural descent of the survival of the fittest.” [33]. He also commented about his own theory as “grievously hypothetical”. Saying “The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder.” Darwin couldn’t possibly believe the eye had evolved by natural selection. He openly admitted his doubts saying that “this seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” [34].

In a letter to Asa Gray, Harvard biology professor, Darwin wrote: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” [35]. Fourteen years after the publication of The Origin of Species, Darwin wrote to a friend thus: “In fact the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations….When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed…nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not.” [36]. The most important message in these statements is that Darwin did not claim what he proposed was a scientific theory. Surprisingly however biologists not only accepted Darwin’s idea of origin of species but also elevated it to the status of a scientific theory without proving it scientifically. A more detailed analysis of Darwin’s theory may be found elsewhere [37].


1. Darwin, C. 1859. The Origin of Species. Bantam Books, New York (1999).
2. Dobzhansky, Th. 1937. Genetics and the Origin of Species. Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 2nd Ed., 1941; 3rd Ed, 1951.
3. Lovtrup, S. 1987. Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth. Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275.
4. Interspecific competition in lotic fish communities; ~ajhd/research.html. Accessed May 27, 2002.
5. Ronald Logan. “The suppressed ideas of Kropotkin on Evolution”. Kropotki.html. Accessed May 28, 2002.
7. Carl Sagan, F.H.C. Crick, and L. M. Mukhin in Carl Sagan, ed., Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CETI) (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1973) pp. 45-46; cf., Emile Borel, Probabilities and Life (New York: Dover, 1962), chapters one and three. Cited from: Ankerberg, J. and Weldon, J. What is the Probability of Evolution Occurring Solely by Natural Means? – Part Two. PDFArchives/science/SC3W1201.pdf.
8. Ankerberg, J. and Weldon, J. What is the Probability of Evolution Occurring Solely by Natural Means? – Part Two.
9. Meyer, S.C. 2004. The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 117(2):213-239.
10. Conway Morris, S. 1998. Early Metazoan evolution: Reconciling paleontology and molecular biology. American Zoologist 38 (1998):867-877.
11. Meyer, S.C., Ross, M., Nelson, P. and Chien, P. 2003. The Cambrian explosion: biology's big bang. Pp. 323-402 in J. A. Campbell & S. C. Meyer, eds., Darwinism, Design and Public Education. Michigan State University Press, Lansing.
12. Ohno, S. 1996. The notion of the Cambrian pananimalia genome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 93:8475-8478.
13. Smith, J. M. 2000. Population genetics revisited.  Nature 403:594-595.
14. Chicurel, M. 2001. Can organisms speed their own evolution? Science 292(5523):1824-1827.].
15. Cairns, J., Overbaugh, J. and Miller, S. 1988. The origin of mutants.  Nature 335: 142-145.
16. Gould, S. J. 1985. Not Necessarily a Wing. Natural History, October, pp. 12-13.
17. Cohen, I.L. 1984. Darwin Was Wrong:A Study in Probabilities. New York: NW Research Publications, Inc., p. 209. Cited at: origins/quotes/natural.html Accessed on February 9, 2005.
18. Macnab, R. 1978. Bacterial Mobility and Chemotaxis: The Molecular Biology of a Behavioral System. CRC Critical Reviews in Biochemistry 5(4):291-341.
19. Weinreich, D. M., Delaney, N. F., DePristo, M. A. and Hart, D.L. 2006. Darwinian evolution can follow only very few mutational paths to fitter proteins. Science 312(5770):111-114. DOI: 10.1126/science.1123539.
20. Korthof, G. 2001. How to attack neo-Darwinism and still end up in evolution textbooks. The neutralist-selectionist controversy. Version 1.3a, 8 July 2001. gkortho37.htm. Accessed May 18,  2002.
21. Field Museum Bulletin January, 1979. Cited from: The Evolution Exegesis - Darwin's Doubts. Edward Atkinson evolutiondarwinsdoubts. html  Accessed 8-3-2006.
22. Prothero. D.R. 1992.  Punctuated equilibrium at twenty: a palaeontological perspective.  Skeptic 1(3):38-47.
24. Rokas A, Carroll SB (2006) Bushes in the tree of life. PLoS Biol 4(11): e352. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040352.
25. Crawford, D.J. 2000. Plant macromolecular systematics in the past 50 years: one view. Taxon 49:479-501.
26. Gaunt, S.J. “Evolutionary developmental biology: Homologous regulatory genes and processes. doi: 10.1038/npg.els.0001064.
27. Koch, A.L. “Bacterial origins”. doi: 10.1038/npg.els.0000445.
28. Pennisi, E. 1999. Is it time to uproot the tree of life? Science 284:1305-1307.
29. Woese, C. 1998. The universal ancestor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 95:6854-6859.
30. Whitfield, J. 2004. Born in a watery commune. Nature 427:674-676, News Feature.
31. Mayden, R. L. 1997. in Species: The Units of Biodiversity, eds. Claridge, M.F., Dawah, H.A. and Wilson, M .R. (Chapman & Hall, London), pp. 381-424. cited in: Kevin de Queiroz. 2005. Ernst Mayr and the modern concept of species. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 102 (suppl. 1):6603-6607. (Also see: EEOB 208: Process of Evolution. Evolution/lecture6.html Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana. Accessed November 22, 2004).
32. Hannah Newman. Accessed February 9, 2005.
33. Darwin, C. 1871. The Descent of Man. Vol 1, p. 152.
34. The Evolution Exegesis – Darwin’s Doubts. Edward Atkinson.
35. Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation, N.C. Gillespie, p. 2.].   
36. Charles Darwin, Letter to Jeremy Bentham, in Francis Darwin (ed.). Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, Vol. 3, p.25.
37. Wahid, P.A. 2007. Darwinism: Science Made to Order. Adam Publishers, New Delhi.

5. Pseudoscientific Theories to Promote Atheism: Theories of Origin of Life

The phenomenon of life remains even today the biggest mystery and challenge to human intellect. Life and death can be defined only in conjunction with the Quranic revelations (see post 4 at How to define life is a sweeping question that affects the whole branches of biology. According to Cleland and Chyba: “There is no broadly accepted definition of ‘life’. Suggested definitions face problems, often in the form of robust counter-examples.” [1]. In spite of the fact that biologists do not have any idea of what life is, it would seem ironical that several theories have been advanced to explain its origin. These can be broadly categorized into four namely, prebiotic soup theory, gene-first model, metabolism-first model [2] and panspermia theory.

Prebiotic soup theory 

It was hypothesised that in the beginning, the earth was very hot and did not possess an atmosphere. But as it cooled, an atmosphere began to develop from the gas emitted from the rocks. The early atmosphere was without oxygen, the vital gas required for higher forms of life. Only primitive forms of life could have survived then. By chance combination of atoms, macromolecules were formed from which self-reproducing structures were formed. The reactions leading to their formation took place when the earth had been sufficiently cooled. The lowering of temperature would have also caused the condensation of steam into water creating large water bodies like oceans, seas, etc., on the planet. Several chemical elements particularly carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen present in the primitive atmosphere combined to form amino acids from which proteins were formed. Stanley L. Miller and Harold Urey of the University of California, San Diego U.S.A., demonstrated that simple amino acids and several complex organic compounds could be formed in a closed system containing hydrogen, ammonia, methane and water vapour under the influence of electric discharge [3]. These results were considered strong evidence to suggest that a similar reaction might have taken place in the early atmosphere under the influence of lightning, resulting in the formation of amino acids and from them, the proteins. These organic substances might have accumulated in the soupy sea. In a discussion of the origin of life, George Wald concluded that life arose in the sea [4]. It was also hypothesized that random encounters of molecules could have led to the production of molecules of life. “The suggestion that random chemistry could produce the molecules of life “held the field for a long time.” But later calculations appeared to show that the early atmosphere contained much more carbon dioxide and much less hydrogen than Miller's model required, and correcting these concentrations cast doubt on the likelihood that complex molecules would form in abundance. Where, then, might organic precursors have come from? There is some, albeit scant, evidence for their arrival on comets colliding with the earth, but there is little enthusiasm for this as a solution. Finally, there is no geologic evidence, in either sediments or metamorphic rocks that such a soup ever existed.” [2].

Gene-first model

This theory suggests that DNA is the precursor of life. The model is however handicapped by the chicken-and-egg problem associated with DNA and protein. Since DNA codes for protein, it is required for the production of protein while protein is required for the synthesis of DNA as catalyst. The role of DNA in the prebiotic scenario thus became suspect. The importance shifted to RNA as it can function as temporary information carrier and catalyst.  According to the RNA world hypothesis, the first living system was a polymer(s) of catalytic RNA capable of self-replication that subsequently evolved the ability to encode more versatile peptide catalysts [5]. Mineral-catalyzed reactions, followed by a series of fractionations, have been suggested to offer the most plausible route to RNA [6, 7]. According to Smith et al., a stable cell wall is required to protect the first primitive organism. The first cell wall might have been an internal mineral surface, from which the cell developed a protective biological cap emerging into a nutrient-rich “soup”. Ultimately, the biological cap might have expanded into a complete cell wall, allowing mobility and colonization of energy-rich challenging environments [8].

Metabolism-first model

Even while the RNA world hypothesis was seriously considered, Günther Wächtershäuser proposed a radical alternative theory of the origin of life based on iron sulfide. Iron disulfide (pyrite) can catalyze a variety of crucial biochemical reactions. According to him the earliest living system was not a nucleotide-based replicator but a mineral-based metabolizer converting simple and abundant inorganic compounds like carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide into more complex organic ones on the surface of a pyrite crystal [9, 10, 2]. Wächtershäuser’s theory of auto-origin suggests pyrite formation as the earliest energy source for life based on surface metabolism and autocatalytic reproduction cycle. Essentially it is a theory of carbon fixation from an archaic, pyrite-pulled version of the reductive citric acid cycle [9, 10]. Another view is that life on the earth might have begun in rocks on the ocean floor more than four billion years ago. Hot springs deposit a honeycomb of iron sulphide mineral on the ocean floor. This would have served as the ideal place for life to originate [11]. Bernal preferred life to begin by catalytic assembly on a mineral surface [12]. Another suggestion is the clay system of Cairns-Smith [13]. Clays may have been the catalysts that spurred the spontaneous assembly of fatty acids into small sacs that ultimately would have evolved into the first living cell. These vesicles could be induced to grow and split into separate vesicles under laboratory conditions. Many other substances with negatively charged surfaces also catalyzed formation of vesicles. When montmorillonite particles were loaded with a fluorescently labeled RNA and those particles were added to micelles, the RNA-loaded particles could be detected inside the resulting vesicles. When the labeled RNA alone was encapsulated inside vesicles, it did not leak out. This is considered as a demonstration of growth and division without any biochemical machinery [14].

Panspermia theory

The idea that life originated from non-life on this planet by chance received a jolt when a new theory called ‘directed panspermia’ was proposed in 1973 [15]. According to this theory, spores of life might have been sent to the earth in an unmanned spaceship by a more advanced civilization evolved billions of years ago on a planet of another star.

Problems with the theories

All attempts to assemble an integrated scheme of physicochemical processes have significant weaknesses [16]. Problems occur with hypotheses of the earliest molecules with the properties commonly associated with life. These include the unlikelihood of formation of complex self-replicating molecules such as RNA by chance encounters even over geological time; the difficulty of protecting such molecules following their formation from dilution and destruction by high temperatures, hydrolysis and ultraviolet radiation; and finally the difficulty of imagining how self-organization alone could lead to encapsulation of a complex hierarchy of biochemical reactions in a membrane to form the simplest unicellular organism [16]. The “RNA world” theory is not a feasible proposition and is losing ground. The theory is appealing because of the supposed dual roles played by RNA – both as genetic material and as a catalytic molecule in the protobiological evolution. However this concept encounters considerable difficulties for the fact that RNA is chemically fragile and difficult to synthesise abiotically. The known range of its catalytic activities is rather narrow, and the origin of an RNA synthetic apparatus is not clear [17].

A high temperature origin of life (80o to 110oC) was widely favoured because hyperthermophiles which grow at temperatures between 80o and 110oC are claimed to be the oldest organisms on the earth, although there are dissenting opinions [18]. The atmospheric models depicting an early warm (approximately 85o to 110oC) earth support this theory. Still higher temperature origin (350oC in submarine vents) was also proposed. However, the instability of nucleobases (adenine, uracil, guanine, cytosine and thymine) at temperatures much above 0oC would make them unlikely to accumulate on the early Earth. Since these compounds are essential for the formation of the first genetic material in the pre-RNA and RNA world, a low-temperature origin of life and atmospheric models suggesting a cool early earth (about 0oC) rather than a warm one (around 85o to 110oC) can only be considered, if origin of life involving these nucleobases is assumed [18].

Many of the theories of origin of life including those relating to the origin of the genetic code have been tested in laboratory experiments on the assumption that the protocol used in those experiments shall provide suitable proxy for a prebiotic environment [19]. A pre-RNA world would have come first, during which some substance, RNA-like polymer carried out the genetic functions later taken over by RNA. Although the hypothesis required the existence of a nucleotide soup in which RNA molecules performed the catalytic activities to assemble themselves, the experimental evidence does not appear to support the existence of such a soup [20].

Another serious problem is explaining the chirality. “To date, none of the models have proposed a solution to one of the more vexing origin problems: chirality. Three-dimensional molecules such as sugars and amino acids can exist in two mirror-image forms, like left and right hands (chiros is Greek for hand). Any nonbiological synthesis of such molecules, as would have occurred before life arose, produces equal amounts of each type. Nonetheless, modern cells use exclusively left-handed amino acids and right-handed ribose sugars, and interference from the wrong kind shuts down biological reactions. How could chiral life arise in the presence of so much interference?” [2]. According to Freeman Dyson, the popular accounts of the origin of life side step the issue of the origin of the complex cooperative schema worked out between proteins and nucleic acids – the controlled production of self-replicating catalytic systems of biomolecules. Instead they focus on other hurdle, i.e., producing amino acids and nucleotides, and getting them to polymerase into proteins and nucleic acids (typically RNA). All the scenarios that have been proposed for producing RNA under plausible natural conditions lack experimental demonstration and this includes the RNA world, clay crystals and vesicle accounts. No one has been able to synthesize RNA without the help of protein catalysts or nucleic acid templates, and on top of this problem, there is the fragility of the RNA molecule to contend with [21]. It seems very unlikely that minerals played an important part in prebiotic chemistry, both as simple adsorbents and as catalysts. It is also unlikely that a single mineral would have functioned as a specific catalyst for several unrelated reactions. Even if the members of a suite of minerals could each catalyze one step in a complex cycle, it does not seem likely that the cycle would self-organize on their surfaces [22]. All these hypotheses were proposed believing that life is material phenomenon. Anybody can suggest theory of this kind; not one but any number.

The experiments hitherto conducted on the origin of life show that life can arise only from life. Chemists have been able to make complex organic molecules such as proteins, amino acids, DNA, RNA and other complex building blocks of life in the laboratory but no one has been able to synthesize a cell or put together simple structures such as mitochondria or chloroplasts from its constituents [23]. At present we have the knowledge and technology required to produce any ‘gene’ (DNA molecule) in the laboratory. Molecular biologists have been synthesizing genes, and recently a research group at the J. Craig Venter Institute, USA. has artificially produced the complete genome of an organism. The organism is Mycoplasma genitalium, a parasitic bacterium with the smallest genome for any free-living cell. The group constructed synthetically the genome of the organism and named it Mycoplasma genitalium JCVI-1.0. It contained all genes of the organism except the gene MG408, which was disrupted to block pathogenicity [24]. This is a landmark achievement in biology for two reasons: one is that scientists could synthesize the genome (which according to them is genetic program) of a living organism. Secondly, it proved that genome cannot produce life. It is this unwelcome finding that is more important than the former. This would mean that even if a genome (identical to that of a living organism) had been produced through chance combination of molecules in the prebiotic soup as scientists assume, it would not have sprung to life. The failure of the synthetic genome to spring to life questions the very assumption that life is material phenomenon and it originated on Earth from non-life. It is pertinent to note that any claim of creating life from non-life should be based on chemical synthesis without involving a living cell or organism at any stage during the experiment.  Instead of synthesizing a cell in the laboratory from scratch, researchers could as well use a dead cell as the starting material. A dead cell is identical to a prosthetic cell containing all the chemical structures including genome. They only have to restore life to it. Efforts so far made to synthesize life from non-life have failed indicating that there is no experimental evidence yet to establish that life is a material phenomenon. In other words, the experimental failures support the assertion that life is nonmaterial phenomenon (proving the Quranic revelation of nonmaterial rooh as the cause of life in verses15:28-29). Further none of the so-called ‘theories of origin of life’ proposes how life originated.

Literature on the origin of life leads us nowhere. Panspermia is not a theory of origin of life at all. It does not address the question of origin of life but hypothesizes that life descended to Earth from elsewhere. In effect, it only shifts the venue of origin from the earth to another region in the cosmos. It is silent about how life originated in the first place. Research papers published on the question of “origin of life” are mere views of the scientists about the likely scenarios that might have occurred prior to the origin of life, and nothing more! They all still remain in the province of non-life. In that condition they are neither theories of origin of life nor scientific facts. This will be made amply clear from the following conclusions drawn from a study of the origin of life (italics added): “A CO-dominant atmosphere may have existed when life originated. This atmosphere could have produced a variety of bioorganic compounds with yields comparable to those obtained from a strongly reducing atmosphere. A small amount of CO2 could have allowed the primitive Earth to freeze. This could mean that CO would have been more stable in the atmosphere than previously thought because of the reduced vapor pressure of water. Methane and ammonia would have been also more stable and could have contributed to the synthesis of bioorganic compounds. CO2 is likely to have been present, but it might not have been significantly involved in the synthesis of bioorganic compounds” [25]. The conclusions drawn from this study exemplify the kind of information being spewed out from research on origin of life. Biologists only construct storylines to enhance the credibility of the false assumption that life originated from non-life! It is such thought experiments on which these theories are founded! In fact there is not an iota of evidence to hypothesize life’s origin from non-life!

The biggest joke is none of these theories suggests how life originated! They all stay in the non-life domain. They do not even qualify as scientific theories as they are neither testable nor falsifiable directly or indirectly through their predictions. These theories do not yield any predictions also. Yet they are considered as scientific theories! Does anyone including their authors and publishers consider these stories as science? If not, why these stories are published and promoted as science to mislead the public?


1. Cleland, C.E. abd Chyba, C.F. 2002. Defining life. Origins of life and evolution of the biosphere 32(4): 387-393.
2. Robinson, R. 2005. Jump-starting a cellular world: Investigating the origin of life, from Soup to networks. PLoS Biol 3(11): e396.
3. Miller, S.L. and Urey, H.C. 1953. Production of some organic compounds under possible primitive Earth conditions. J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 77:2351.
4. Wald, G. 1979. The origin of life. In Life: Origin and Evolution, Readings from Scientific American, W.H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco, p. 47-56.
5. Gilbert, W. 1986. Nature (London) 319:618; taken from Sowerby, et al. 2001. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA  98:820-822.
6. Joyce, G.E. and Orgel, L.E. 1993. in The RNA World, eds. Gesteland, R.F. and Atkins, J.F. Cold Spring Harbor Lab. Press, Plainview, NY, pp. 1-25.
7. Parsons, I., Lee, M.R. and Smith, J.V. 1998. Biochemical evolution II: Origin of life in tubular microstructures on weathered feldspar surfaces. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95:15173-15176.
8. Smith, J.V., Arnold, F.P., Jr., Parsons, I. and Lee, M.R. 1999. Biochemical evolution III: Polymerization on organophilic, silica-rich surfaces, crystal-chemical modeling, formation of first cells, and biological clues. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:3479-3485.
9. Wachtershauser, G. 1994. Life in a ligand sphere. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91:4283-4287.
10. Wachtershauser, G. 1990. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 87:200-204.
11. Martin, W. and Russel, M. 2002. On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, published online, doi:10.1098/rstb.2002.1183 (2002).
12. Bernal, J.D. 1967. The Origin of Life. Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London.
13. Cairns-Smith, A.G. 1982. Genetic Takeover and the Mineral Origins of Life. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York.
14. “Clays aided first life”. Astrobiology Magazine, Topic3.html.
15. Crick, F.H.C. and Orgel, L.E. 1973. Directed panspermia. Icarus 19:341.
16. Smith, J.V. 1998. Biochemical evolution I. Polymerization on internal, organophilic, silica surfaces of dealuminated zeolites and feldspars. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95:3370-3375.
17. Devincenzi, D. ed. Final Report, Astrobiology Workshop at NASA Ames Research Centre, December 1996. Available at Astrobiology Workshop website. Cited at:
18. Levy, M. and Miller, S.L. 1998. The stability of the RNA bases: Implications for the origin of life. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95:7933-7938.
19. Landweber, L.F. 1999. Testing ancient RNA-protein interactions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:11067-11068.
20. Shapiro, R. 1999. Pre-biotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin of life. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:4396-4401.
21. Accessed April 25, 2003.
22. Orgel, L.E. 2000. Self-organizing biochemical cycles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97(3):12503-12507.
23. Bhandari, N. 1998. Life beyond earth. Curr. Sci. 75:991-994.
24. Gibson, D.G. et al. 2008. Complete chemical synthesis, assembly and cloning of a Mycoplasma genitalium genome.  Science 319 (5867):1215-1220.
25. Miyakawa, S., Yamanashi, H., Kobayashi, K., Cleaves, J.H. and Miller, S.L. 2002. Prebiotic synthesis from CO atmospheres: Implications for the origins of life. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99(23): 14628-14631.