tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33309364587215997622024-02-08T08:55:01.609-08:00AtheismPseudoScienceBlogHolistic knowledge (see at http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com) can be developed only based on the Quran. Atheism has no scientific basis. This blog is devoted to expose the nefarious plans of the atheist lobby to distort science and level it against theism.
My website: www.islamicscience.inP.A. Wahidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13917883281952189981noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3330936458721599762.post-72928092825169299632012-02-03T11:35:00.000-08:002012-02-03T19:47:48.157-08:007. Scientists Prove God and Validity of the Quran through Failure to Synthesize Life from Nonlife<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">We have come to the end of the story. Through previous several articles posted at this blog and at <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">QuranScienceBlog</b> (<a href="http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com/"><span style="color: blue;">http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com</span></a>) 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! <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">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!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Summing up the discussions, the following conclusions can be drawn.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">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! <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">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? <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">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 <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">rooh</i> (or <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">nafs</i>). Accordingly organism has been described based on a computer model as natural biocomputer or biorobot. Please see post 4 at QuranScienceBlog (<a href="http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com/"><span style="color: blue;">http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com</span></a>) for a detailed discussion. The <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">rooh</i> (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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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). <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div></div>P.A. Wahidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13917883281952189981noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3330936458721599762.post-19004829969703084402012-02-01T00:19:00.000-08:002012-02-01T00:19:18.310-08:006. Pseudoscientific Theories to Promote Atheism: Darwin’s Theory of Evolution<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">British naturalist Charles Darwin published the book <i>On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life</i><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"> </span>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.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">With the publication of Theodosius Dobzhansky’s book <i>Genetics and the Origin of Species</i><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"> [</span>2] <span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">in 1937 </span>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 <i>genes are discrete entities</i> 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. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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, <i>Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth</i>, 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. S</span><span style="color: black; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun;">cores of scientists have either rejected it or are skeptical about it. <o:p></o:p></span></div><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black;"></span></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black;">Is Darwin’s theory scientific?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></b><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">a) Invalid assumptions<o:p></o:p></span></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black;"></span></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black;">Competition </span></i></b><span style="color: black;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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]. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>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? <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>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 <i>Bully for Brontosarus</i> 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. <o:p></o:p></span></div><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black;"></span></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black;">Random chance mutations</span></i></b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black;"> <o:p></o:p></span></i><br />
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>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. <o:p></o:p></span></div><span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">Francis Crick, L. M. Murkhin, and Carl Sagan had estimated that the difficulty of evolving man by chance processes alone is 1 in 10<sup>2,000,000,000</sup> which<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>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 10<sup>200</sup> (on a cosmic scale) an event will never occur, no matter how much time is involved [8]. <span class="bodytext">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 </span></span><span class="bodytext1"><span style="color: black; font-size: 9pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">[</span></span></span><span style="color: black;">9]. </span><span class="bodytext1"><span style="color: black; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-family: Arial;">A typical gene contains over one thousand precisely arranged bases. For any specific arrangement of four nucleotide bases of length <i>n</i>, there is a corresponding number of possible arrangements of bases, 4<i><sup>n</sup></i>. For any protein, there are 20<i><sup>n</sup></i> possible arrangements of protein-forming amino acids. A gene 999 bases in length represents one of 4<sup>999</sup> possible nucleotide sequences; a protein of 333 amino acids is one of 20<sup>333</sup> 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 10<sup>77</sup> [1</span></span></span><span style="color: black;">0]. <span class="bodytext">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]. </span>N</span><span class="bodytext1"><span style="color: black; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-family: Arial;">ew Cambrian animals would require proteins much longer than 100 residues to perform many necessary specialized functions [</span></span></span><span style="color: black;">9]. </span><span class="bodytext1"><span style="color: black; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Cambrian animals would have required complex proteins such as lysyl oxidase in order to support their stout body structures [1</span></span></span><span style="color: black;">2]. </span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span class="bodytext1"><span style="color: black; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">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<sup>-9</sup> 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. </span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span class="bodytext1"><span style="color: black; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">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 10<sup>12</sup> ) 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]. <o:p></o:p></span></div><span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black;"></span></i></b><br />
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black;">Natural selection<o:p></o:p></span></i></b><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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 <i>Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities</i><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">:</span> “‘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]. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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, <i>E. coli</i>, 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?” [1</span><span class="bodytext1"><span style="color: black; font-size: 9pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">8]. </span></span></span><span style="color: black;">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<sup> </sup>jointly increase bacterial resistance to a clinically important<sup> </sup>antibiotic by a factor of <v:shapetype coordsize="21600,21600" filled="f" id="_x0000_t75" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" stroked="f"> <v:stroke joinstyle="miter"> <v:formulas> <v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"> <v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"> <v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"> <v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"> <v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"> <v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"> <v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"> <v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"> </v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:formulas> <v:path gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect" o:extrusionok="f"> <o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"> </o:lock></v:path></v:stroke></v:shapetype><v:shape alt="~" id="_x0000_i1025" style="height: 4.5pt; width: 6pt;" type="#_x0000_t75"> <v:imagedata o:href="http://www.sciencemag.org/math/sim.gif" src="file:///C:\Users\user\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.gif"> </v:imagedata></v:shape>100,000. In principle, evolution to<sup> </sup>this high-resistance ß-lactamase might follow any<sup> </sup>of the 120 mutational trajectories linking these alleles. However,<sup> </sup>we demonstrate that 102 trajectories are inaccessible to Darwinian<sup> </sup>selection and that many of the remaining trajectories have negligible<sup> </sup>probabilities of realization…. we conclude that much<sup> </sup>protein evolution will be similarly constrained…” [1<strong><span style="font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">9]. </span></strong><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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]. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><strong>b) Failure of predictions<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p></o:p></i></strong></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black;">Gradualism <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div><span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>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. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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]. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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 <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">phyletic gradualism</i>, which sought out the gradual transitions between species in the fossil record.” [22]. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black;"></span></i></b><br />
<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black;">Usefulness of a structure to other species <o:p></o:p></span></i></b><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">“Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species; <span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of, and profits by, the structure of another</span>” [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 <span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">exclusive good of another species</span>, 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. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black;">Extinction of old species <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">“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. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black;">Descent with modification<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div><span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">‘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]. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">The ‘similar genes’ found in two species need not be an indicator of a common ancestor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For instance, a paper published in <i>PloS Biology</i> in 2006 </span><span lang="EN" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN;">says:</span><span style="color: black;"> “</span><span lang="EN" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN;">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.”</span><span style="color: black;"> [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]. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">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 <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">vis a vis</i> 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.</span><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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]. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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]. <o:p></o:p></span></div><span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In reality none of the predictions of the theory has been found true.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">The picture that emerges from the foregoing discussion is that <span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">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.</span> 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 <span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">the evolutionary tree is just a figment of evolutionists’ imagination</span>. 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]. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">New Scientist</i> also had covered these aspects in detail in its 2962 issue (January 21, 2009).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>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. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><strong>c) Species problem<o:p></o:p></strong></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">“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 <span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience</span> 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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mayden identifies 24 species concepts [31]. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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 <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Systema Naturae</i> 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). <o:p></o:p></span></div><span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">It is clear that the theory of evolution has no scientific basis. Its predictions have failed and its assumptions have proved wrong. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>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]. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black;">Darwin’s confessions<o:p></o:p></span></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="storyauthor"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Although evolutionists blindly believe in Darwinism, Darwin himself tells us the grave shortcomings of his theory. </span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">“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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">This, of course, is a wholly incorrect expression</span>…” [1, p. 111]. Darwin wrote later in his another book, <i>The Descent of Man</i> that: “I admit…that in the earlier edition of my <i>Origin of Species</i> 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]. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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 <i>The Origin of Species</i>, 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].<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p></o:p></b></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black;">References</span></b><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">1. Darwin, C. 1859. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Origin of Species</i>. Bantam Books, New York (1999). <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">2. Dobzhansky, Th. 1937. <i>Genetics and the Origin of Species</i>. Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 2<sup>nd</sup> Ed., 1941; 3<sup>rd</sup> Ed, 1951. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">3. Lovtrup, S. 1987. <i>Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth. </i>Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">4. Interspecific competition in lotic fish communities; <a href="http://www.soton.ac.uk/%20~ajhd/research.html"><span style="color: black;">http://www.soton.ac.uk/ ~ajhd/research.html</span></a>. Accessed May 27, 2002. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">5. Ronald Logan. “The suppressed ideas of Kropotkin on Evolution”. <a href="http://www.trufax.org/research/Kropotki.html"><span style="color: black;">http://www.trufax.org/research/ Kropotki.html</span></a>. Accessed May 28, 2002. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">6. <a href="http://www.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/PopEcol/lec11/inter.html"><span style="color: black;">http://www.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/PopEcol/lec11/inter.html</span></a>. Accessed May 27, 2002. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">7. Carl Sagan, F.H.C. Crick, and L. M. Mukhin in Carl Sagan, ed., <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence </i>(CETI) (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1973) pp. 45-46; cf., Emile Borel, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Probabilities and Life</i> (New York: Dover, 1962), chapters one and three. Cited from: Ankerberg, J. and Weldon, J. <span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">What is the Probability of Evolution Occurring Solely by Natural Means? – Part Two. </span><a href="http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/%20PDFArchives/science/SC3W1201.pdf"><span style="color: black;">http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/ PDFArchives/science/SC3W1201.pdf</span></a>. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">8. Ankerberg, J. and Weldon, J. <span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">What is the Probability of Evolution Occurring Solely by Natural Means? – Part Two. </span><a href="http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC3W1201.pdf"><span style="color: black;">http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC3W1201.pdf</span></a>. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">9. Meyer, S.C. 2004. </span><span class="bodytext1"><span style="color: black; font-size: 9pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington</i> 117(2):213-239. <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">10. Conway Morris, S. 1998. Early Metazoan evolution: Reconciling paleontology and molecular biology. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">American Zoologist</i> 38 (1998):867-877. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span class="bodytext"><span style="color: black;">11. Meyer, S.C., Ross, M., Nelson, P. and Chien, P. 2003. The Cambrian explosion: biology's big bang. Pp. 323-402 <i>in</i> J. A. Campbell & S. C. Meyer, eds., <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Darwinism, Design and Public Education.</i> Michigan State University Press, Lansing. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">12. Ohno, S. 1996. The notion of the Cambrian pananimalia genome. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.</i> 93:8475-8478. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">13. Smith, J. M. 2000. <span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">Population genetics revisited. </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i>Nature</i> <span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">403</span>:594-595. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">14. Chicurel, M. 2001. Can organisms speed their own evolution? <i>Science</i> 292(5523):1824-1827.].<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">15. Cairns, J., Overbaugh, J. and Miller, S. 1988. The origin of mutants.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i>Nature </i>335: 142-145. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">16. Gould, S. J. 1985. Not Necessarily a Wing. <i>Natural History</i>, October, pp. 12-13. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">17. Cohen, I.L. 1984. <i>Darwin Was Wrong:A Study in Probabilities. </i>New York: NW Research Publications, Inc., p. 209. Cited at: <a href="http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/origins/quotes/%20natural.html"><span style="color: black;">http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/ origins/quotes/natural.html</span></a> Accessed on February 9, 2005. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">18. Macnab, R. 1978. Bacterial Mobility and Chemotaxis: The Molecular Biology of a Behavioral System. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">CRC Critical Reviews in Biochemistry</i> 5(4):291-341. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <strong><span style="color: black; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">19. Weinreich, D. M., Delaney, N. F., DePristo, M. A. and Hart, D.L. 2006.</span><span style="color: black;"> </span></strong><span style="color: black;">Darwinian evolution can follow only very few mutational paths to fitter proteins. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Science</i> 312(5770):111-114. DOI: 10.1126/science.1123539. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">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. <a href="http://home.planet.nl/~%20gkortho37.htm"><span style="color: black;">http://home.planet.nl/~ gkortho37.htm</span></a>. Accessed May 18,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>2002. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">21. Field Museum Bulletin January, 1979. Cited from: <span class="header1">The Evolution Exegesis - Darwin's Doubts. Edward Atkinson </span><a href="http://www.theedwardwebsite.com/series/evolution/evolutiondarwinsdoubts.%20html"><span style="color: black;">http://www.theedwardwebsite.com/series/evolution/ evolutiondarwinsdoubts. html</span></a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Accessed 8-3-2006. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">22. Prothero. D.R. 1992.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Punctuated equilibrium at twenty: a palaeontological perspective.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i>Skeptic</i> 1(3):38-47. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">23. <a href="http://users.ren.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/T/Taxonomy.html"><span style="color: black;">http://users.ren.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/T/Taxonomy.html</span></a>. Accessed on April 25,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>2003. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">24. </span><span lang="EN" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN;">Rokas A, Carroll SB (2006) Bushes in the tree of life. </span><i><span lang="PT-BR" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: PT-BR;">PLoS Biol</span></i><span lang="PT-BR" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: PT-BR;"> 4(11): e352. DOI: </span><i><span lang="EN" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN;"><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040352"><em><span lang="PT-BR" style="color: black; font-style: normal; mso-ansi-language: PT-BR; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">10.1371/journal.pbio.0040352</span></em></a></span></i><i><span lang="PT-BR" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: PT-BR;">.</span></i><span lang="PT-BR" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: PT-BR; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">25. Crawford, D.J. 2000. Plant macromolecular systematics in the past 50 years: one view. <i>Taxon</i> 49:479-501. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">26. Gaunt, S.J. “Evolutionary developmental biology: Homologous regulatory genes and processes. doi: 10.1038/npg.els.0001064. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">27. Koch, A.L. “Bacterial origins”. doi: 10.1038/npg.els.0000445. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">28. Pennisi, E. 1999. Is it time to uproot the tree of life? <i>Science</i> 284:1305-1307. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">29. Woese, C. 1998. The universal ancestor. <i>Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.</i> 95:6854-6859. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">30. Whitfield, J. 2004. Born in a watery commune. <i>Nature</i> 427:674-676, News Feature. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">31. Mayden, R. L. 1997. in <i>Species: The Units of Biodiversity</i>, 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. <i>Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.</i> 102 (suppl. 1):6603-6607. (Also see: EEOB 208: Process of Evolution. <a href="http://www.tulane.edu/~eeob/Courses/Heins/%20Evolution/lecture6.html"><span style="color: black;">http://www.tulane.edu/~eeob/Courses/Heins/ Evolution/lecture6.html</span></a> Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Accessed November 22, 2004). <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">32. Hannah Newman. <a href="http://searchlight.iwarp.com/articles/evolution.html"><span style="color: black;">http://searchlight.iwarp.com/articles/evolution.html</span></a> Accessed February 9, 2005. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">33. Darwin, C. 1871. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Descent of Man</i>. Vol 1, p. 152. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">34. <span class="header1">The Evolution Exegesis – Darwin’s Doubts. Edward Atkinson.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">35. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation</i>, N.C. Gillespie, p. 2.].<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span class="header1"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">36. Charles Darwin, Letter to Jeremy Bentham, <i>in</i> Francis Darwin (ed.). <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Charles Darwin, Life and Letters</i>, Vol. 3, p.25. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> 37. Wahid, P.A. 2007<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">. Darwinism: Science Made to Order</i>. Adam Publishers, New Delhi.<o:p></o:p></div></div>P.A. Wahidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13917883281952189981noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3330936458721599762.post-52515628150992616912012-02-01T00:01:00.000-08:002012-02-01T00:01:29.065-08:005. Pseudoscientific Theories to Promote Atheism: Theories of Origin of Life<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">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 <a href="http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com/"><span style="color: blue;">http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com</span></a>). </span><span style="color: black;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Prebiotic soup theory<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">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 <i>chance</i> 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. </span><span style="color: black;">“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]. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="color: black;">Gene-first model<o:p></o:p></span></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>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 <i>et al</i>., 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]. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="color: black;">Metabolism-first model </span></b><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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. <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Hot springs</st1:city></st1:place> 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]. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="color: black;">Panspermia theory</span></b><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">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. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"></span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><strong>Problems with the theories<o:p></o:p></strong></span></div><strong> </strong><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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]. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">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]. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">A high temperature origin of life (80<sup>o</sup> to 110<sup>o</sup>C) was widely favoured because hyperthermophiles which grow at temperatures between 80<sup>o</sup> and 110<sup>o</sup>C are claimed to be the oldest organisms on the earth, although there are dissenting opinions [18]. The atmospheric models depicting an early warm (approximately 85<sup>o</sup> to 110<sup>o</sup>C) earth support this theory. Still higher temperature origin (350<sup>o</sup>C in submarine vents) was also proposed. However, the instability of nucleobases (adenine, uracil, guanine, cytosine and thymine) at temperatures much above 0<sup>o</sup>C 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 0<sup>o</sup>C) rather than a warm one (around 85<sup>o</sup> to 110<sup>o</sup>C) can only be considered, if origin of life involving these nucleobases is assumed [18]. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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]. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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 <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mycoplasma genitalium</i>, a parasitic bacterium with the smallest genome for any free-living cell. The group constructed synthetically the genome of the organism and named it <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mycoplasma genitalium</i> 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, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">it proved that genome cannot produce life</i>. 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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>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 <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">rooh</i> as the cause of life in verses</span>15:28-29<span style="color: black;">). Further none of the so-called ‘theories of origin of life’ proposes how life originated. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">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 <i>may have</i> existed when life originated. This atmosphere <i>could have</i> produced a variety of bioorganic compounds with yields comparable to those obtained from a strongly reducing atmosphere. A small amount of CO<sub>2</sub> <i>could have </i>allowed the primitive Earth to freeze. This could mean that CO <i>would have been</i> more stable in the atmosphere than previously thought because of the reduced vapor pressure of water. Methane and ammonia <i>would have been</i> also more stable and <i>could have</i> contributed to the synthesis of bioorganic compounds. CO<sub>2</sub> is <i>likely to have been</i> present, but it <i>might not have been</i> 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 t<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">here is not an iota of evidence to hypothesize life’s origin from non-life! </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">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? <o:p></o:p></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black;">References<o:p></o:p></span></b></div><span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">1. Cleland, C.E. abd Chyba, C.F. 2002. Defining life. <i>Origins of life and evolution of the biosphere </i>32(4): 387-393. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">2. Robinson, R. 2005. Jump-starting a cellular world: Investigating the origin of life, from Soup to networks. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">PLoS Biol</i> 3(11): e396. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">3. Miller, S.L. and Urey, H.C. 1953. Production of some organic compounds under possible primitive Earth conditions. <i>J. Amer. Chem. Soc.</i> 77:2351. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">4. Wald, G. 1979. The origin of life. <i>In</i> Life: Origin and Evolution, Readings from Scientific American, W.H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco, p. 47-56. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">5. Gilbert, W. 1986. Nature (<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">London</st1:city></st1:place>) 319:618; taken from Sowerby, et al. 2001. <i>Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA </i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>98:820-822. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">6. Joyce, G.E. and Orgel, L.E. 1993. <span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">in</span> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The RNA World</i>, eds. Gesteland, R.F. and Atkins, J.F. Cold Spring Harbor Lab. Press, Plainview, NY, pp. 1-25. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">7. Parsons, <st1:place w:st="on">I.</st1:place>, Lee, M.R. and Smith, J.V. 1998. Biochemical evolution II: Origin of life in tubular microstructures on weathered feldspar surfaces. <i>Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA</i> 95:15173-15176. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">8. Smith, J.V., <st1:city w:st="on">Arnold</st1:city>, F.P., Jr., Parsons, <st1:place w:st="on">I.</st1:place> and Lee, M.R. 1999. Biochemical evolution III: Polymerization on organophilic, silica-rich surfaces, crystal-chemical modeling, formation of first cells, and biological clues. <i>Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA</i> 96:3479-3485.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">9. Wachtershauser, G. 1994. Life in a ligand sphere. <i>Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA </i>91:4283-4287. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">10. Wachtershauser, G. 1990. <i>Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA</i>, 87:200-204. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">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. <i>Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B</i>, published online, doi:10.1098/rstb.2002.1183 (2002). <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">12. Bernal, J.D. 1967. <i>The Origin of Life</i>. Weidenfeld and Nicholson, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">London</st1:city></st1:place>. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">13. Cairns-Smith, A.G. 1982. Genetic Takeover and the Mineral Origins of Life. <st1:placename w:st="on">Cambridge</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Univ.</st1:placetype> Press, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">New York</st1:state></st1:place>. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">14. “Clays aided first life”. Astrobiology Magazine, <a href="http://www.astrobio.net/news/%20Topic3.html"><span style="color: black;">http://www.astrobio.net/news/ Topic3.html</span></a>. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">15. Crick, F.H.C. and Orgel, L.E. 1973. Directed panspermia. <i>Icarus </i>19:341. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">16. Smith, J.V. 1998. <st1:place w:st="on"><st2:givenname w:st="on">Biochemical</st2:givenname> <st2:middlename w:st="on">evolution</st2:middlename> <st2:sn w:st="on">I.</st2:sn></st1:place> Polymerization on internal, organophilic, silica surfaces of dealuminated zeolites and feldspars. <i>Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA </i>95:3370-3375. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">17. Devincenzi, D. ed. Final Report, Astrobiology Workshop at NASA <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Ames</st1:city></st1:place> Research Centre, December 1996. Available at Astrobiology Workshop website. Cited at: <a href="http://www.panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm"><span style="color: black;">http://www.panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm</span></a>. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">18. Levy, M. and Miller, S.L. 1998. The stability of the RNA bases: Implications for the origin of life. <i>Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA</i> 95:7933-7938. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">19. Landweber, L.F. 1999. Testing ancient RNA-protein interactions. <i>Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA</i> 96:11067-11068. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">20. Shapiro, R. 1999. Pre-biotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin of life. <i>Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA</i> 96:4396-4401. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">21. <a href="http://www.astrobio.net/news/article428.html"><span style="color: black;">http://www.astrobio.net/news/article428.html</span></a>. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Accessed April 25, 2003. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">22. Orgel, L.E. 2000. Self-organizing biochemical cycles. </span><i><span lang="PT-BR" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: PT-BR;">Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA</span></i><span lang="PT-BR" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: PT-BR;"> 97(3):12503-12507. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span lang="PT-BR" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: PT-BR;">23. Bhandari, N. 1998. </span><span style="color: black;">Life beyond earth. <i>Curr. Sci</i>. 75:991-994. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">24. Gibson, D.G. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">et al</i>. 2008. Complete chemical synthesis, assembly and cloning of a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mycoplasma genitalium</i> genome.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><em>Science</em> 319 (5867):1215-1220. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: black;">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. <i>Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA</i> 99(23): 14628-14631. <o:p></o:p></span></div></div>P.A. Wahidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13917883281952189981noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3330936458721599762.post-47939398596925821092012-01-31T23:47:00.000-08:002012-01-31T23:50:49.994-08:004. Pseudoscientific Theories to Promote Atheism: Molecular Gene (Genome) Scientifically Untenable<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">For nearly six decades now biologists have been promoting the idea that a chemical molecule, DNA, encodes biological program. There is sufficient evidence to show this perception is wrong. Listed below are a few important questions on this issue. If anybody would like to answer the question(s), please give the response indicating the serial order of the question. Comments are subject to moderation, if necessary. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">I particularly call upon <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Pharyngula</i> blogger </span>P.Z. Myers, Associate Professor, University of Minnesota Morrris, to respond to the challenge posted here. He countered in a derogatory manner my articles published elsewhere in his two posts at <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Pharyngula</i> dated March 29, 2010 and December 13, 2010. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Going by his posts against my articles, he appears to claim excellent knowledge of molecular gene – the only person in the world who can tell what it is! Could you please tell the world how you define molecular gene? </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">I also specially invite <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Secular Outpost</i> blogger Taner Edis (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Secular Outpost</i> Dec. 11, 2010) and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Improbable Research</i> blogger Marc Abrahams (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Improbable Research</i> Dec. 14, 2010) to respond to the challenge. They are also very much annoyed by my questioning the concept of molecular gene in the light of Quranic revelations. <o:p></o:p></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">The world does not expect the scientific community and science media to go against belief systems without scientifically examining the veracity of Scriptural revelations. Taking recourse to such unscientific method will only help diminish the trust of the public in scientific community. The scientific community and science media are creating a furor against God and religion without any scientific basis. Now here is the golden opportunity for you to prove what you say is correct. If there is a grain of truth and honesty in what you say, take up this challenge. The challenge is as follows. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">The Quranic revelations of nonmaterial basis of life challenge the molecular gene and genome (see post 4 at <a href="http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com/">http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com</a>). These revelations are falsifiable and hence scientific community cannot mislead the world by<span style="color: black;"> saying these are unscientific assertions. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">These revelations imply that it is impossible to create life from non-life chemically <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">without involving a living cell or organism at any stage of the experiment</i>. The revelations also declare that it will not be possible to restore life to a dead cell (or organism) through pure chemical means. That is the challenge.<o:p></o:p></b></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">A lot of work is now going on in many universities and institutes to chemically synthesize life. All these attempts have so far failed; in future also the result will not be different. That is what the Scriptural revelations predict. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">Secondly I have posed several questions against the molecular gene. If it is possible to provide satisfactory answers, please do that. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">The Quranic challenge can provide answer to the biggest question ever – is there God or not? If scientists succeed in creating life by chemical synthesis without using a living cell during the experiment or in bringing a dead cell back to life by chemical means, that will be the end of God. Until then, God exists. Insofar as the Quranic challenge is falsifiable, the argument of no God has no meaning in the true scientific tradition until it is proved wrong. A falsifiable statement is a scientific theory. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Unless and until scientists create life without the help of living cell, the molecular gene theory stands unproven. Most importantly it proves God exists. The existence of God can be questioned by scientists only if they succeed in creating life from non-life thereby falsifying the Quranic revelation. Until then, scientific community’s shout against God is meaningless and unfounded.</b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">Questions against the molecular gene concept are givne below.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black;">1. Molecular gene (genome) – violation of chemical fundamentals <o:p></o:p></span></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">DNA (genome) is a chemical molecule. Its structure encodes chemical information which is deciphered in terms of its physical and chemical properties. Biologists say in addition to that its structure also encodes genetic program (biological information). Thus the genome is treated as constituting the genetic program responsible for the heritable characteristics and biological functioning of organism. An organism is thus reduced to mere bundle of molecules like any other chemical substance. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">Even if superimposition of biological information over chemical information (constituted by the chemical structure) is taken for granted, it should conform to the well-established chemical fundamentals. By this canon biological information encoded by the genome should be specific to the structure. But in reality, the genome defies this chemical principle in several ways. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">a) Changes in the phenotype of an individual during ontogenetic development and post-developmental stage reflect change of biological information content of the genome (originally carried in the zygote) with time. A genome even creates two or more phenotypically different biosystems (e.g., larva and butterfly) in several species (Figure 1). </span><span style="color: red;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: red;">How can a chemical molecule (i.e., genome in the zygote) encode information that changes with time? <o:p></o:p></span></i></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: red; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">If DNA encodes biological program, its constituent elements C, H, N, O and P should also encode genetic information at some preliminary level. This means other compounds of these elements in some combination should also exhibit signs of life. But why does this not happen? </span><span style="color: red;">Is it not strange that there is only one molecule (DNA) in the whole universe that can encode genetic information?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></i></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: red; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">If C, H, N, O and P do not encode genetic information, how does their combination acquire that information and where does the information come from? <o:p></o:p></span></i></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">b) DNA is supposed to encode only information required for protein synthesis. Accordingly, protein-coding DNA is recognized as ‘the gene’. Protein synthesis is not the whole story of “life”. An organism requires information for the synthesis of numerous other substances during its life, development of body structures and their functions, behaviour, instincts, etc. The members of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Homo sapiens</i> also have intelligence, consciousness, feelings and freewill. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: red;">How can DNA encode genetic information required for instincts, feelings, consciousness, likes and dislikes, etc.? Do biologists think protein is the sole basis of life?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></i></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">c) </span><span lang="EN" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN;">It has been observed that a</span><span style="color: black;">n overwhelming 95% of DNA consists of non-coding DNA in eukaryotes and about 5% is constituted by the coding-DNA (or the genes). The non-coding DNA (ncDNA) is referred to as “junk DNA”. Though structurally comparable to coding DNA, surprisingly, the so-called junk DNA does not encode identical biological information (or vice versa). <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: red;">How can this be explained based on chemistry? <o:p></o:p></span></i></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">d) It is believed that mitosis produces daughter cells with identical genome. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: red;">If the genomes of the cells in a body are identical, all the cells should carry identical information. But we find the tissues are structurally and functionally different. How can the tissues with identical genome (biological information) exhibit variable anatomy and function? <o:p></o:p></span></i></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">e) Recently, it has been shown that the genomes of different tissues are not identical [1]. This discovery sprang from an investigation into the underlying genetic causes of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). The researchers found major genetic differences between blood cells and tissue cells of the same individuals. The finding calls into question one of the most basic assumptions of human genetics that DNA in every cell in the body is identical to every other cell. Apart from that, “This discovery may undercut the rationale behind numerous large-scale genetic studies conducted over the last 15 years, studies which were supposed to isolate the causes of scores of human diseases. Except for cancer, samples of diseased tissue are difficult or even impossible to take from living patients. Thus, the vast majority of genetic samples used in large-scale studies come in the form of blood. However, if it turns out that blood and tissue cells do not match genetically, these ambitious and expensive genome-wide association studies may prove to have been essentially flawed from the outset.” [2]. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: red;">How is it possible for the genome of a parent cell (e.g., zygote) to create different genomes in the daughter cells? Is it not a clear proof that the genome does not constitute the biological program? Is this not enough to prove genetic information of the organism exists independently of the genome structure and it is according to that, cell structures including genome are produced? If genome is not identical in different tissues, how is it possible to determine the genome of the individual? Similarly when the genomes of male and female or different castes (polymorphs) are different, how is it possible to determine the genome of the species? <o:p></o:p></span></i></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">f) Studies at the molecular level fail to demonstrate the expected correspondence between genome and phenotype. The most spectacular example of this is the morphological dissimilarity between human being and chimpanzee despite a 98.7% similarity in their DNA [3]. Although evolutionary biologists speak of genomes of chimp and man as being almost identical to support of their argument of human evolution from an animal, and for establishing chimpanzee as the closest animal ancestor of human being, they have not enumerated so far the identical phenotypic characters in human and chimp in terms of anatomy, physiology, development and other biological features. In fact there is none! A chimp is not even 0.1% human being or a human being 0.1% chimp</span>.<span style="color: black;"> <span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">A human being differs from chimp in every aspect and at every point of the body. The only similarity between chimp and man is in the DNA</span>! The differences in traits, characteristic behaviour, instincts and capabilities between human (<i>Homo sapiens</i>) and chimpanzee (<i>Pan </i>sp.) are far greater than the small degree of sequence divergence (1.3%) could account for (Figure 2). <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">The chimp-human comparison is a case of similar genomes but dissimilar phenotypes. The reverse case is also known. <i>Caenorhabditis elegans </i>and <i>C. briggsae </i>are physically very similar organisms. It takes an expert to distinguish them. The two have near-identical biology, even down to the minutiae of developmental processes. Surprisingly, however, their genomes are not so similar. <i>C. elegans </i>has more than 700 chemoreceptor genes when <i>C. briggsae </i>gets on by just 430. There are also many genes unique to each of them [4]. Another anomaly is the lack of correspondence in the number of genes (taking for granted the meaninglessness of gene identification) with complexity of the organism. For example, fruit flies have fewer coding genes than roundworms, and rice plants have more than humans [5]. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: red;">Are these not departures from the expected genome configuration (i.e., genetic information)-phenotype relationship? Secondly gene counts are also widely published in the journals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the gene is not definable, how can it be counted? If single genes do not determine the phenotypic characters, what meaning is there in gene counts? <o:p></o:p></span></i></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">g) Many insects exhibit alternative morphologies (polyphenisms) based on differential gene expression rather than genetic polymorphism (differences in genes themselves). One of the best understood insect polyphenisms is the queen-worker dimorphism in honey bees. Both the queens and the workers are females but morphologically distinct forms. Besides, the queen is fertile whereas the worker is sterile. Studies conducted with the bee species <i>Apis mellifera </i>revealed that numerous genes appeared to be differentially expressed between the two castes [6]. The seven differentially expressed loci observed in the study belonged to at least five distinctly different functional groups. The queen and the worker castes in honey bee provide an unfailing proof of natural existence of similar genomes exhibiting dissimilar phenotypes.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: red;">How is it possible for similar genes (chemical structures supposed to be encoding similar information) to express differently? <o:p></o:p></span></i></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">h) “Pseudogenes are similar in sequence to normal genes, but they usually contain obvious disablements such as frameshifts or stop codons in the middle of coding domains. This prevents them from producing a functional product or having a detectable effect on the organism’s phenotype…. The boundary between living and dead genes is often not sharp. A pseudogene in one individual can be functional in a different isolate of the same species… and so technically is a gene only in one strain…. there are other pseudogenes that have entire coding regions without obvious disablements but do not appear to be expressed.” [7]. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: red;">How can a chemical structure function as gene in one strain and fail to function similarly in another strain? Can it be explained chemically?<o:p></o:p></span></i></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">i) The variation observed in the use of triplet codes among organisms is another issue. Like the pseudogene this aspect is against chemical fundamentals and remains unexplained. The degenerate nature of the biological code implies several triplets coding per amino acid. Further, two amino acids have only one mRNA codon each; AUG for methionine and UGG for tryptophan. Hence 59 degenerate triplets code 18 amino acids; these 18 have two to six synonymous codons each. Choices between synonymous codons are not random; some codons in the set specific to an amino acid are used more than the others [8]. The ‘genome hypothesis’ which tries to explain the variation in codon use states that codon use is species-specific, i.e., each genome or type of genome shows a particular pattern of choices between synonymous codons. Thus overall codon usage differs between taxa; but codon bias is also influenced by other factors like gene length, gene expressivity (the amount of protein made per gene), environment and lifestyle of the organism [9]. The codon bias gives rise to the paradox whether protein evolution determined DNA sequence or DNA commanded protein evolution. Many such dilemmas remain in molecular evolution. The origin of bias in codon and anticodon frequencies<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>continues to elude researchers [8]. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: red;">Are these not departures from chemical principles? How can these be explained?</span></i><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">j) There are many kinds of DNA repairs. Rosenfeld gives a detailed account of the self-healing strategies of the ‘master molecule’. If a base is put in wrong place during replication, there are enzymes to correct the mistake.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Purines, without any errors and without any damages drop out by the thousands every day presumably due to wear and tear of existence in the chromosomes only to be promptly replaced by insertases. A base can spontaneously undergo change. A cytosine, for example, will lose an amino group and become uracil. Uracil is perfectly at home in RNA but not in DNA. The enzymes called uracil glycosylases recognize the uracil, remove it and replace it with a new cytosine. Suppose that an error has occurred in one of the DNA strands say, a T has been put across from a G, where a C really belongs. This would give rise to two strands one with a G and the other with a T. The enzymatic apparatus ‘knows’ that cannot be correct, but how does it know whether to replace the C with a T on one strand, or the C with an A on the other? If the replacement takes place not on the right strand, the result would be either death of the cell or a mutation. How does it know which is the authentic original? [10]. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: red;">How can a chemical structure (DNA) be <span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">aware of</span> the change in its elemental composition and arrangement? How can it detect the ‘wrong’ one and ‘correct’ it with the genetic information encoded by it? <o:p></o:p></span></i></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black;">2. Phenomena of life and death remain unexplained in biology<o:p></o:p></span></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">a) Although biology is science of life and DNA is hailed as the blue print of life, biologists have not yet been able to define either the gene or “life”! The reason is very clear – DNA does not encode biological program. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: red;">If biologists cannot define molecular gene or “life”, what justification is there to still think that material gene is the driving force of life? </span></i><span style="color: black;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">b) Another important fact that goes against the material gene is both dead body and its living counterpart are materially identical (including genome) but yet the dead body does not show any sign of life. Even if the genome undergoes certain changes at death, repair of those mutations should bring the dead cell or dead body back to life. A fundamental feature of chemical molecule is that it cannot lose its properties assigned by its structure. The genome appears to be an exception to this rule also. Going by the present concept of particulate genetic program, a cell carrying the genome should invariably show life properties. However a dead cell with its genome remaining intact fails to exhibit “life” clearly indicating the genome does not encode the biological program. When I put this question to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nature</i> (Scitable), I received the least expected silly answer from its expert, which is no answer to my question at all. The Scitable answer [11] is reproduced below: <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">“Questions like yours about life and death spurred the earliest scientific inquiry and keep the field moving forward. It is possible for the genome to be intact in dead cells. For example, think about your local library: at night, nothing is going on and none of the books can be checked out, but all the books would still be there. Similarly, the genetic code is still present in dead cells; however, the absence of certain key biochemical processes, such as transcription and translation, makes reading the code (like checking books out from a library) impossible. Death can be understood at two levels: at the level of the organism and at the level of the cell. In the first case, death arrests all key biochemical processes. No key enzymes are available to translate mRNA and no amino acids are linked to create polypeptide chains. But in the second case death can also help other cells in the same body. This process is called programmed cell death (or apoptosis) and involves a series of biochemical events leading to changes in cell shape followed by cell death. These changes in cell shape include blebbing, which occurs when a portion of the cytoskeleton separates from the plasma membrane and creates an irregular bulge called a bleb. This is like the locking of a door — a change in cell structure arresting cell activity. The cell membrane also loses symmetry and detaches from the cytoskeleton, which leads to cell shrinkage, nuclear fragmentation, chromatin condensation, chromosomal DNA fragmentation, and the eventual damaging of the cell’s genome. All these processes make it harder for the cell’s transcription machinery to read the genetic code, just as locked doors make it difficult for us to check out books from the library at night. A second type of cell death can actually damage neighboring cells, like a fire in the library that spreads to the bookstore across the street. This type of cell death is called necrosis and results from acute cellular injury or infection. Cells undergoing necrosis eventually burst and release their cellular contents, which can damage neighboring cells and induce inflammation. You’re right: the genetic code is essential for all life. But key proteins required to read the genetic code stop working in dead cells. Despite the great wealth of information contained within the genetic code, a genome alone doesn’t lead to the creation of proteins that serve as the basis of life.” <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">Clearly there is no answer to the natural irreversible cessation of all biological activity (death) at some point of time during the life of an organism with all its material contents including genome intact. Since biologists believe an organism is nothing more than a chemical substance and every atom of the material is present in the dead body as it were before death, how is it </span>possible to explain the cessation of biological activity of the organism (i.e., death) based on molecular gene concept. The phenomenon of death remains unexplained in biology even today. Further, t<span style="color: black;">he body starts decaying immediately after death. </span>What makes the body resistant to microbial decomposition prior to death or susceptible to decay after death when the body has not undergone any change in its material constituents is also equally unexplainable. Clearly no chemical structure(s) in the cell encodes or constitutes the genetic program but the program exists independently of any chemical structure as stored information as in computer. <o:p></o:p></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: red;">Can biologists offer valid scientific explanation for this anomaly to defend their assumption that DNA encodes biological program? To put it differently, how can a cell or body exist in two mutually exclusive (live and dead) states with no change in their material constituents?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></i></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black;">3. The molecular gene remains undefinable <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">a)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although molecular biologists freely use the term “gene” and claim identification of genes for various characters and diseases, the “gene” remains unknown to them even today. According to <span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">geneticist Peter Portin,</span> “The gene is no longer a fixed point on the chromosome, producing a single messenger RNA. Rather, most eukaryotic genes consist of split DNA sequences, often producing more than one mRNA by means of complex promoters and/or alternative splicing. Furthermore, DNA sequences are movable in certain respects, and proteins produced by a single gene are processed into their constituent parts. Moreover, in certain cases the primary transcript is edited before translation, using information from different genetic units and thereby demolishing the one-to-one correspondence between gene and messenger RNA. Finally, the occurrence of nested genes invalidates the simpler and earlier idea of the linear arrangement of genes in the linkage group, and gene assembly similarly confutes the idea of a simple one-to-one correspondence between the gene as the unit of transmission and of genetic function....” [12]. Other leading</span><span lang="EN" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN;"> scientists like Thomas Fogle and Michel Morange also concede that there is no longer a precise definition of what could count as a gene [13, 14]. </span><span style="color: black;">The objective of genomic research is to ultimately understand the relationships between heritable units and their phenotypes. But it appears that genome concept would not deliver that information. The genome organization is extremely complex. Genes reside within one another, share some of their DNA sequences, are transcribed and spliced in complex patterns, and can overlap in function with other genes of the same sequence families. “Today, in the era of genomic sequencing and intense effort to identify sites of expression, the declared goal is to search for genes, entities assumed to have physical integrity. Ironically, the sharper resolving power of modern investigative tools make less clear what, exactly, is meant by a molecular gene, and therefore, how this goal will be realized and what it will mean”, observes </span><span lang="EN" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN;">Fogle [13]. </span><span style="color: black;">These findings clearly expose the meaninglessness of the concept of molecular gene (genome).</span><span lang="EN" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: red;">When the “gene” remains unknown to biologists, what justification is there in using the molecular gene concept to explain biological attributes and functions? <o:p></o:p></span></i></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">b) Horace Freeland Judson writing in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nature</i> notes: “The phrases current in genetics that most plainly do violence to understanding begin “<i>the gene for”</i>: the gene for breast cancer, the gene for hypercholesterolaemia, the gene for schizophrenia, the gene for homosexuality, and so on. We know of course that there are no single genes for such things.” [15]. Yet we find even now in every biology journal the term “gene” is used in general sense as well as to indicate specific characters. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: red;">Although biologists find there is no single gene responsible for an attribute or disease and the journal editors accept it, the same people continue to publish the term “the gene for” even now. If there is no single gene for a character, why papers suggesting “the gene for” continue to be accepted for publication? Will the use of the term “the gene for” not corrupt science and mislead the people?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></i></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: red;">The findings in molecular biology given above not only invalidate the molecular gene (genome) but also prove Wilhelm Johannsen’s warnings against material gene (i.e., the gene should not be treated as material, and there is no single gene for each<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>character) correct. Despite this, biologists ignore Johannsen’s non-physical gene and continue to stick to the molecular gene concept. Even after sixty years of worldwide research in molecular gene and genomics, the field of genetics remains as it was fifty years ago. What we have today in the name of molecular biology et al. is unscientific least worthwhile biological information. What justification is there in not rejecting the physical gene?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></i></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black;">References<o:p></o:p></span></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">1. Gottlieb <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">et al</i>., “BAK1 gene variation and abdominal aortic aneurysms”, <em>Human Mutation</em> Vol. 30, 2009, pp. 1043.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>DOI: 10.1002/humu.21046. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">2. DNA not the same in every cell of body: Major genetic differences between blood and tissue cells revealed,” ScienceDaily (July 16, 2009). <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">3. Wells, J. Homology in Biology: A Problem for Naturalistic Science. By Jonathan <a href="http://www.trueorigin.org/homology.asp"><span style="color: black;">http://www.trueorigin.org/homology.asp</span></a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Retrieved 24 November 2001. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">4. M. Blaxter, M. 2003. Two worms are better than one. <i>Nature </i>426:395-396. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">5. W.W. Gibbs, W.W. 2003. The unseen genome: Gems among the junk. <i>Scientific American</i> 289, November 2003, pp. 46-53. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">6. Evans, J.D. and Wheeler, D.E. 1999. Differential gene expression between developing queens and workers in the honeybee, <i>Apis mellifera. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.</i><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"> </span>96:5575-5580. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">7. <strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">Snyder, M. and Gerstein, M. 2003. </span></strong>Genomics: Defining genes in the genomics era. <em>Science</em> 300:258- 260. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">8. Grantham, R.L. Codon usage in molecular evolution. doi: 10.1038/npg.els.0001806. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">9. Grantham, R. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">et al</i>., 1981. Codon catalog usage is a genome strategy modulated for gene expressivity. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nucleic Acids Res.</i> 9:43-47. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">10. Rosenfeld, A. 1981. Master molecule heal thyself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i>Mosaic</i> 12(1). <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">11. <a href="http://www.nature.com/scitable/my-discussion/474"><span style="color: black;">http://www.nature.com/scitable/my-discussion/474</span></a>. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">12. Portin, P. 1993. The concept of the gene: Short history and present status. <i>The Quarterly Review of Biology</i> 68:173-223. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN;">13. Fogle, T. 2000. The dissolution of protein coding genes in molecular biology. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">In </i>Peter Beurton, Raphael Falk, and Hans-Jörg Rheinberger, <em>The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution. Historical and Epistemological Perspectives</em><em><span style="font-style: normal; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">,</span></em> Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 3-25. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN;">14. Morange, M. 2000. The developmental gene concept: History and limits. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">In</i> Peter Beurton, Raphael Falk, and Hans-Jörg Rheinberger (eds.), <em>The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution. Historical and Epistemological Perspectives</em><em><span style="font-style: normal; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">,</span></em> Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.193-215.</span><span style="color: black;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">15. H. F. Judson, H.F. 2001. Talking about the genome. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nature</i> 409:769. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div></div>P.A. Wahidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13917883281952189981noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3330936458721599762.post-54998723214623318992012-01-31T23:34:00.000-08:002012-02-01T00:25:25.353-08:003. Pseudoscientific Theories to Promote Atheism: Steady State Cosmology<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">To scientists who do not assign any purpose to the universe, its origin is an accident. Nevertheless, the scientific community gives a lot of significance and spends a lot of time to find out how that accident occurred! A lot of theories have been proposed on the way. Whenever they develop a theory more convincing and suitable, they also find that it implies the need of Creator. This is the case with big bang theory. That is something unthinkable and unacceptable to them; so they sidelined that theory initially and tried to develop another one. Thus they developed a theory to explain the big accident with lot of fanfare. That was steady state theory. However, to their dismay they found that the theory could not be supported by evidence. So they had to reluctantly reject it. Thus as of today, the theory that indicates the need of Creator survives and all others remain in hiding. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;"></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">In 1917, Albert Einstein described the universe based on General Theory of Relativity, which inspired many scientists including Russian mathematician Alexander Friedmann. Much of today’s cosmology is based on Friedmann’s solutions to the mathematical equations in Einstein’s theory. In 1922 and 1924, Friedmann published papers that used solutions to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, to predict the expansion of the universe. The general theory of relativity implied a non-static universe which was however modified by Einstein himself by introducing a cosmological constant into the theory to bring in anti-gravity effect and thereby avoiding the prediction of a non-static universe. It was perhaps that Einstein was so much influenced by the then prevalent view of a static universe that he made such a modification. Einstein regretted this modification later stating that it was the greatest blunder in his life. On the contrary, Friedmann preferred to explain the non-static implication of the theory in an elegant manner. Friedmann’s models predicted that all galaxies were moving away from each other. In other words, the universe has been expanding ever since it began. His models thus indicated that the galaxies were at some point of time (between ten and twenty thousand million years ago), together and compressed into a tiny mass of infinite density. This point of infinite density is known in physics as “singularity” to which Cambridge astrophysicist Fred Hoyle gave the fashionable epithet ‘big-bang’ [1]. Time had a beginning at the big bang. Later, Roger Penrose, a British physicist and Stephen Hawking showed that the general theory of relativity implied that the universe had a beginning and possibly, it would have an end too [2]. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a shadow of doubt that our universe had a beginning. Before that there was nothing. Scientific proofs validating </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">predictions of the big bang model have been obtained. Direct scientific evidence to the predictions made by Friedmann’s models came in 1924, when the American astronomer Edwin Hubble demonstrated that ours (Milky Way) was not the only galaxy; there were some hundred thousand million galaxies spaced far between. The spectral analysis of the radiations coming from them revealed that most galaxies were redshifted, that is, they were moving away from us. In other words, the universe was expanding (which the Quran referred to in verse 51:47). <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Another prediction of the theory was the existence of a cosmic background radiation. This also has been proved correct. The strongest evidence supporting this prediction came in 1965 when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson of the Bell Laboratories, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.A.</st1:country-region></st1:place>, reported the presence of a microwave radiation (3 K radiation) pervading the whole universe. The universe was hot and dense in the beginning which implied an ionized plasma (which the Quran mentioned as ‘smoke’ in verse 41:11) where matter and radiation were inseparable. As the expansion and cooling of gas cloud continued, a stage was reached when the radiation (photons) decoupled from the matter. It would have been cooled now to 2.7 K. This radiation is believed to be the relic of the big bang and the one which Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered [3]. <span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">A third proof in favour of the hot big bang model is the relative abundances of light elements. The abundances of deuterium (<sup>2</sup>H), tritium (<sup>3</sup>H), helium (<sup>4</sup>H) and lithium (<sup>7</sup>Li) in the universe are consistent with the predicted reactions occurring in the first three minutes following the big bang. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The big bang theory implied divine intervention since there was a beginning for the universe. The Catholic Church officially announced in 1951 that the big bang theory was in accordance with the Bible [2]. </span><span style="color: black;">While discussing the big bang model, Stephen Hawking wrote: “Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.…There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a big bang. The proposal that gained widest support was called the steady state theory….Another attempt to avoid the conclusion that there must have been a big bang, and therefore a beginning of time, was made by two Russian scientists, Evangenii Lifshitz and Isaac Khalatnikov, in 1963.” </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[2]. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">In 1949 Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold (two Austrian scientists) along with British astronomer Fred Hoyle proposed the steady state model. According to this theory, the universe does not evolve or change with time. There was no beginning in the past and there will be no change in the future. This model is based on the perfect cosmological principle which states that the universe is the same everywhere on the large scale, at all times. This theory attracted a lot of attention as it avoided the big bang event and hence a beginning for the universe which implied divine hand. The steady state universe postulates creation of matter out of vacuum so that the perfect cosmological principle (i.e., density is constant) is satisfied. The theory held the centre stage for nearly two decades. The prediction of continual matter creation from nothing is a violation of the law of conservation of the mass and energy. Added to that, discovery of the cosmic microwave background strengthening the validity of the big bang cosmology came as a fatal blow to the theory [4]. There are, however, efforts to revive the theory. The Quasi-Steady State Cosmology proposed by Fred Hoyle, Jeffrey Burbidge, and Jayanth V. Narlikar is such an attempt in order to allow for the evolution of the cosmic microwave background temperature and to explain the faint radio sources in a universe that is always the same over the very long term. All these have been, however, found to be inconsistent with the observations [5]. Thus the big bang theory, which upholds existence of God, remains as the acceptable theory in cosmology despite the efforts of atheist lobby to overthrow it. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">References<o:p></o:p></span></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">1. <a href="http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/Resources%20/Education/classes/astro88/0088u23.htm"><span style="color: black;">http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/Resources/Education/classes/astro88/0088u23.htm</span></a>. Accessed May 13, 2004. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">2. Hawking, S. 1988. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes</i>. Bantam Press, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">London</st1:city></st1:place>. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">3. <a href="http://ssscott.tripod.com/BigBang.html"><span style="color: black;">http://ssscott.tripod.com/BigBang.html</span></a> <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">4. <a href="http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Eduction/cosprinc.html"><span style="color: black;">http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Eduction/cosprinc.html</span></a>. Accessed May 13, 2004. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">5. <a href="http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm"><span style="color: black;">http://www.astro.ucla.edu/ ~wright/stdystat.htm</span></a>. Accessed May 13, 2004. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div></div>P.A. Wahidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13917883281952189981noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3330936458721599762.post-21824564625153746462012-01-31T23:27:00.000-08:002012-02-01T21:48:18.211-08:002. Promotion of Atheism in the Garb of Science<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Modern science (read it as scientific community) describes the universe as a system originated by itself by chance with no purpose to serve. Origin of life on this planet is hypothesized as ‘emergent phenomenon’ (with no evidence whatsoever for such phenomenon) that occurred through chance encountering of chemical molecules in a primitive aqueous milieu. Evolution of biological species is also treated as chance event via modification of the existing species and not creation by God. There are several theories advanced to explain all these phenomena as products of chance. </span><span style="color: black;">Today, atheist lobby in the scientific community has established its unquestionable hegemony and authority in scientific arena. It is atheist scientists who shape science and decide its future. Obviously the product comes out wrapped in atheism. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;"></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black;">Religion-science controversy </span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black;"></span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The rivalry between religion (more correctly, theism) and science is centuries old. The</span><span style="color: black;"> controversy, which started between the Christian Church and scientific community, reached its peak in 1859 following the publication of Darwin’s book <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Origin of Species</i>, which proposed the theory of chance-driven evolution of organic beings demolishing the need for Creator God. The fight </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">still goes on unabated. </span><span style="color: black;">A resolution passed by the National Academy of Sciences, USA, in 1981 states: “Religion and science are separate and mutually exclusive realms of human thought whose presentation in the same context leads to misunderstanding of both scientific theory and religious belief” [1]. </span>A declaration signed by 67 national academies of science under the united banner of the Interacademy Panel on International Issues blasted the scriptural teaching of biology as a potential distortion of young minds (“World science academies hit back at creationists”, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Cosmos News</i>, June 22, 2006).<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Several verbal battles and confrontations </span><span style="color: black;">between the clergy and scientists had taken place in the past. Scopes case or ‘monkey trial’ of 1925 in the USA marked the beginning of legal battles. After the Scopes trial, the laws banning the teaching of human evolution remained in effect for more than 40 years. But teaching students about Darwin’s general principle of evolution with reference to non-human organisms has never been illegal in the United States. In 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned an Arkansas state law banning the teaching of evolution. And in 1987, it ruled against balancing evolution lessons by teaching creationism.<span class="MsoPageNumber"> </span><span class="style1">Attack on evolution is however on the rise once again in the USA. </span>School boards in Kansas, Pennsylvania and other states had either restrained the teaching of evolution in science classes or introduced alternative explanations that were essentially religious in character. Creationism took a different form under the new name “intelligent design” (ID). Teaching of ID in classrooms was legally challenged in 2005. Intelligent design lost the legal battle because the court ruled the idea was not scientifically sound (“US judge rules against Intelligent Design”, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Science</i>NOW Daily News, December 20, 2005).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">Evolutionists even go to the extent of ridiculing scientists who believe in God and religion. When biochemist Michael Behe questioned Darwinism in his book <em>Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution</em> in defense of intelligent design, evolutionists countered: “</span><span style="color: black; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun;">Behe’s knowledge of evolution is suspect. His knowledge of his own area of science is suspect. And the same is true when he moves into philosophy and theology.</span><span style="color: black;">” [2]. Pierre P. Grasse is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the twenty eight volumes of <i>Traite de Zoologie</i>, author of numerous original investigations, and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic. But when he made a frontal attack on all kinds of “Darwinism” by building a detailed and strong empirical case against it in his book “<i>L’Evolution du Vivant</i>”, Darwinists called him wrong. Grass has not gone wrong due to ignorance but as a well-known neo-Darwinist Dobzhansky observed, “the most distinguished of French zoologists did not understand the rules of scientific reasoning!” (exclamatory mark added) [3]. This remark speaks volumes about how evolutionists look at the critics of Darwinism. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">Geneticist Francis Collins who headed the famous Human Genome Project has also come under attack of the atheist lobby recently. Collins is a staunch believer in Christianity. When he was appointed the director of the </span><span lang="EN" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN;">US National Institutes of Health, the scientific community could not tolerate it. An article published in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nature</i> deplored it. “The recent nomination of Francis Collins to direct the US National Institutes of Health does more than raise the question of the agency's future direction. It poses another question. Can a scientific career go hand in hand with religious belief? Put another way, can a great scientist be deeply religious? Collins is well known as one of the architects of the Human Genome Project. He has also achieved notoriety as a highly respected scientist with deep-seated religious beliefs. An evangelical Christian since the age of 27, Collins detailed his views on reconciling religion and science in his 2006 book <span class="i1"><em>The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief</em></span>…. And in a 2006 <span class="i1"><em>Time</em></span> magazine debate with noted atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins, Collins suggested that God could on rare occasions choose to "invade the natural world in a way that appears miraculous" — a peculiar outlook for a biologist.” [4]. When Collins published a religion book in 2010, there was again uproar in scientific circles. “</span><span style="color: black;">National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins is again riling some scientists by publicly sharing his religious beliefs – this time by publishing a new book about faith. A debate has broken out in the blogosphere about whether Collins is misusing his position with a collection of essays on religion that he compiled. When Collins took the helm of NIH last summer, many assumed he would curtail such activities. For example, he resigned from a foundation he started to explore religion and science. It took some people by surprise when a <a href="http://www.prweb.com/releases/belief/02/prweb3638044.htm"><span style="color: black; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">press release</span></a> appeared on Tuesday from Harper Collins (the publisher) announcing <i>Belief: Readings on the Reason for Faith</i>, which addresses the question "Is there a God?" It follows a 2006 book in which Collins described how he became an evangelical Christian.” [5]. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">The stand of science journals in this issue is surprising. Scientists and science media<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>should not be biased against theism. In the eyes of scientific community a scientist is no longer scientist if he is a believer in God! Although atheists declare there is no God, they appear to be the most scared lot about God. Even more surprising is the self-assumed role being played by science journals. The world has not authorized science media to be the custodian of science. Science should advance on the track of truth unaffected by any other consideration or bias. Unfortunately this is not the case. Science is what atheist lobby decides. This has undoubtedly corrupted the domain of science as is evident from the plight of several areas in science. We shall be discussing this issue later. The world should come out in the open against this biased attitude of the scientific community. What the world want is unbiased (neither for nor against God) science. The scientific community is misleading the public by propagating several theories of no scientific merit. A dispassionate analysis will reveal the deplorable situation in science particularly biology. Science is no longer factual as it used to be. It has become a commercial enterprise as any other sphere of human activity. Biology is the most affected area by pseudoscience.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Hidden agenda of the atheist lobby<o:p></o:p></span></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">It will not be difficult to find there is deep-rooted, well-organized conspiracy going on to promote atheism through science. In this context, it is necessary to distinguish technology-oriented domain of science from technology-not-oriented (or non-tech for short) domain. Scientific knowledge in the technology-oriented domain is self-correcting and directional as otherwise the targeted technology will not result. This domain has therefore factual content. On the other hand, the non-tech domain lacks mechanism for self-correction. Since this space does not contribute to the development of technologies, it does not attract much attention and remains not of immediate concern to people. Obviously, this domain can be easily manipulated and is being manipulated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is the non-tech domain of science that nurtures theories against theism. People have immense trust in science and scientific community because science generates technologies for every kind of human requirement and they believe science is nothing but facts. It is this trust placed on the scientific community by the public, scientists exploit covertly. </span><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">There are several theories that have been planted by atheists in the non-tech space of science to promote atheism. Some of these are steady state cosmology (see post 3), molecular gene (genome) concept (see post 4), theories of origin of life (see post 5), and worse than all Darwin’s theory of evolution (see post 6). These theories sow the seeds of suspicion in the minds of people about theism. And through science atheists plan to demolish God and religion. The Creator puts it: </span>“…And they (i.e., the unbelievers) plotted and Allah too plotted. And Allah is the best of plotters” (Q. 3:54)<span style="color: black;">. It appears from this Quranic statement that in all probability Allah’s strategy is to prove His existence scientifically through atheist scientists. Failure of steady state cosmology, controversy over Darwin’s theory, hollowness of theories of origin of life, scientific inadequacies of molecular gene (genome) concept (see post 4), and failure of attempts to create life from non-life indicate point to that. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Despite their inherent inadequacies and weaknesses, these theories are retained as scientific theories by the powerful forum-controlling atheist lobby with the sole intention of imparting credence to atheism and thereby labelling theism as blind irrational doctrine. This is not advancement of science but promotion of atheism in the garb of science. Entry of such pseudoscientific theories in science not only takes science in the wrong direction but more importantly misleads people. Non-recognition of such theories will not affect scientific and technological advancement. It will only help purify science.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black;">References <o:p></o:p></span></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">1. Johnson, 1994. Science and Creationism: A View from the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">National</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Academy</st1:placetype></st1:place> of Sciences. 1984<span style="color: black;">; cited in: </span>Johnson, P.E. 1994. Darwinism and theism. Chapter 4. <span style="color: black;">In <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Darwinism: Science or Philosophy.</i> Eds</span>. J. Buel and V. Hearn, Foundation for Thought and Ethics, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Richardson</st1:city></st1:place>.<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><span style="color: black;">2. <a href="http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/ruseirredcomplex.html"><span style="color: black;">http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/ruseirredcomplex.html</span></a><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Accessed February 9, 2005. <o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">3. Johnson, P.E. 1994. Darwinism’s rules of reasoning. <i>In</i> Darwinism: Science or Philosophy. (eds.) J. Buell and V. Hearn. Foundation for Thought and Ethics, Richardson, USA. Chapter-1.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;"></span><span style="color: black;">4. </span><span lang="EN" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN;">Russo, G. 2009. Balancing belief and bioscience. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nature</i> 460(654) | 10.1038/nj7255-654a. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN;">5.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span style="color: black;">Kaiser, J. 2010. <span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-font-kerning: 18.0pt;">NIH director ruffles feathers again with new religion book. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Science NOW Weekly</i></span> February 25, 2010. <o:p></o:p></span></div></div>P.A. Wahidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13917883281952189981noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3330936458721599762.post-59576294773352994742012-01-31T23:02:00.000-08:002012-01-31T23:17:24.637-08:001. Irrationality of Atheism vis-à-vis Scientific Validity of the Quran and Theism<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #b06900; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Abstract:</span></b><span style="color: #b06900; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> The truth about theism is it is true. The truth about atheism is it is untrue. Both these truths are scientifically confirmable. The scientific community opposes God without subjecting the Scriptural revelations to scientific scrutiny. They also promote atheism without proving it scientifically. How can they promote atheism when scientific facts are against it? This article exposes the hollowness of atheism from scientific standpoint and brings out clearly the scientific foundation of the Quran and theism, and hence Islam. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #b06900; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The argument that there is no God is neither testable nor falsifiable. The assertion does not leave any prediction either for verification. It is also against well-established scientific facts. The first thing we learn in physics is energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Since energy which makes up the whole universe does not have the ability of autogenesis, there is no scientific rationale behind the argument that the universe originated by itself. On the contrary it proves the universe was created. Further the big bang theory points to a beginning for the universe and time. These provide strong scientific indicators of the existence of Creator God. The argument that life originated accidentally as emergent phenomenon is also not supported by natural evidence or experimental proof. The Quran reveals that life is nonmaterial phenomenon but scientists argue it is material phenomenon. Molecular gene (DNA) is considered the blueprint of life. In fact all the experiments conducted so far to create life from non-living materials have failed proving the validity of the Quran. Atheism is thus relegated to mere hypothesis or more correctly fantasy. Atheism is superstitious to the core; it does not even qualify as scientific theory. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #b06900; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Further proof of God comes from the validation of several Quranic revelations through scientific discoveries. This also proves the divinity of the Quran and the religion Islam. The fact that the Quran is amenable to scientific explanation adds to the authenticity of the Scripture. The history of science reveals yet another proof of God through failure of every theory (e.g., steady state cosmology, Darwin’s theory of evolution, etc.) that questions the existence of God or contradicts the Quran. </span><br />
<br />
</div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Introduction </span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"></span></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">History reveals that ever since the arrival of man on Earth, he has been worshipping some natural or supernatural power as God. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The archaeological investigations of ancient ruins had unearthed from almost every site, idols supposed to be representations of their gods and goddesses. These evidences give clear evidence of the theistic outlook of people in the early days of human history. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">This indicates that man is by default believer in God. The information about God is there in his biosystem. It is because of that man is inclined to think of God. Atheism is a recent development most likely an offshoot of irrational beliefs and practices being followed in the name of religion. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The biggest irony in this era of science and technology is the lack of concern for rationality of the belief systems. Religious beliefs and practices have never been subjected to scientific analysis. Although man is bestowed with intelligence and wisdom, rarely does one use these qualities in religious matters. The general notion is that religion is one’s belief and it does not require rational analysis. This blind approach of people towards religion has favoured mushrooming of diverse faiths, cults and human gods. Religion, whatever that word means to you, has become the most superficially and indifferently held belief although it is revered by the believer. That way religion has become a mockery in the guise of devotion to God. The followers of a religion with not so much as fact-finding analysis yet believe that their religion is the correct one and the others wrong. It is also not possible for the follower of a religion to defend his belief against another religion. That being the situation, it is not surprising to see many people consider God and religion as human inventions. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is also partly responsible for the increase in self-styled rationalists, atheists and agnostics. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="color: black;">According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Centre in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (July 9, 2009), atheism (the godless religion) is the preferred belief system of most scientists. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">“Is there </span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN;">God or not?” is the biggest question before human intellect for which scientifically acceptable answer has to be found. </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Although no scientific basis has been proposed for either theism or atheism, the scientific community’s declaration of war against theism is uncalled for. When they declare theism as blind doctrine, they</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN;"> <span lang="EN">themselves uphold atheism blindly. </span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">They put theists on the defensive asking for proof of God while they themselves remain covertly silent about proof of no God. </span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN;">Neither camp has shown preparedness for an impartial and dispassionate evaluation of their respective beliefs to arrive at the truth. The attitude of the scientific community to label every religion as irrational without verifying the Scriptural content is also unscientific. This attitude of scientists to keep religion at bay from the ambit of scientific scrutiny only helps proliferation of irrational beliefs and rituals in the society. Both theistic and atheistic doctrines should be subjected to scientific scrutiny to ascertain their validity. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The religion Islam and its Scripture, the Quran, are subjected here to scientific verification vis-à-vis atheism. </span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN;">A</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> detailed discussion of these issues may be found elsewhere [1]. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN;">Scientific methods adopted<o:p></o:p></span></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The idea of scientific verification of belief in God or no God and religion may seem impractical at first sight. However, it is not as unwieldy as we think. At least three scientific methods can be used for the purpose. One is to compare and contrast the created system (the universe) vis-à-vis divine objective. It may be noted in this context that the Quran is the only source that reveals to us the divine purpose of creating man and universe. Correspondence between the purpose of creation and the created system will provide proof of the validity and divinity of the Quran. Such an analysis had been done and the results were presented in post 8 at </span><a href="http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: blue;">http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">. The amazing correspondence between the divine objective and the created system presented therein provides live proof of the divinity and validity of the Quran and hence God. These results will not be further discussed here. <o:p></o:p></span></div><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Another method is to test or falsify the Scriptural revelations. True, we cannot test </span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN;">the question of God or no God through direct experimentation. We </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">do come across several such situations in science where it is impossible to carry out experiments to prove or disprove a theory directly. Theories relating to origin of the universe, origin of life, evolution of biological species, etc., belong to this category. In such cases, the approved scientific method is to prove or falsify the predictions of the theory. The very same approach can be adopted here also. In this case the Scriptural revelations form the predictions. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The general view about the Quran is that it is just a religious book. But it contains, besides religious matters, substantial information relating to man, the organizational and functional aspects of the universe, purpose of creation, and fate of man and the universe. The Quranic verses relating to the universe are mostly falsifiable revelations which can be treated at par with scientific theories. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Falsifiability was introduced by Karl Popper as the criterion to judge and characterise a scientific theory [2]. The criterion of falsifiability distinguishes a scientific theory from pseudoscience. It can be applied to any assertion or ideology. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">In the case of the Quran, scientific validity of the revelations can be assessed based on their conformity with proven scientific facts. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Once the validity is confirmed, the revelations become scientific facts.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Application of this criterion to judge the authenticity of the Quranic revelations might be called into question as scientific theories are likely to change over time. This argument is true only for theories developed to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">explain</i> natural phenomena. The falsifiable revelations in the Quran, as we shall see, are not explanations of natural phenomena but phenomena themselves. Therefore, a change in scientific explanation will not affect the scientific merit of the Quran. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">A third method is to examine the amenability of divine revelations to scientific interpretation. Amenability to scientific interpretation is a characteristic of factual information. For example, the Quran reveals to us the fate of the present universe and future events, which for obvious reasons are neither testable nor falsifiable. Nevertheless, it can be examined whether such revelations can be explained scientifically. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The results of analysis based on the latter two methods are summarized below.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Scientific proof of God and irrationality of atheism<o:p></o:p></span></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Atheism is neither scientifically testable nor falsifiable as it does not yield any predictions. In the true scientific tradition, therefore, atheism does not even qualify as scientific theory. In other words belief in atheism has no rational basis. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If atheism is false, theism is true. This is the clear scientific verdict. Several known facts about energy and universe also confirm existence of God. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">We know total energy content of the universe is conserved. It cannot be created or destroyed; it can only transform from one form to another. This is the fundamental nature of energy. The big bang theory reveals another facet of this truth. It tells us the universe had a beginning implying that it came into existence sometime in the distant past and before that, there was nothing. We also know energy cannot originate by itself. In fact this is one of the reasons for the rejection of steady state cosmology, which postulated continual production of matter</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"> out of vacuum so that the perfect cosmological principle (i.e., density is constant) on which the theory is based is satisfied. The steady state theory </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">was proposed to counter the big bang cosmology because of its divine connotations. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The prediction of continual matter creation from nothing by the theory is violation of the law of conservation of the mass and energy. There is no proof for autogenesis of energy or matter taking place in the universe either. These facts unambiguously established that energy does not have the ability to self-originate. That led to the rejection of the steady state theory. If energy cannot originate by itself, how did it originate? It had to be created. This is the only conclusion that can be arrived at scientifically. Yet scientists ridiculously argue that the universe originated accidentally by itself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It should be realized that the origin of energy was a one-time creation event in the history of the universe. Subsequently its quantum is conserved.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> These scientific facts clearly prove the existence of Creator for the universe. In other words, God is truth. Anybody who refutes God is refuting a scientific fact. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The question of origin of life on earth is also handled similarly by the scientific community. Biologists vehemently argue that diverse organisms evolved accidentally through random gene mutation followed by natural selection without knowing what “life” is and how it originated in the first place. They tell us life originated accidentally as emergent phenomenon when certain chemical molecules combined in a primordial aqueous milieu. This assumption also has no scientific basis as we do not have even an iota of evidence for the origin of life from non-life. Our rational conclusion should be therefore “life” was also created by God. It is indeed baffling to see why scientists deliberately resort to such irrational and unscientific explanations to mislead the public. If it is not for creating doubts about God in the minds of people, why do scientists create such false notions like autogenesis of energy and life? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">There may be several questions about nature of God for which we have no answers. It should be borne in mind however that none of those questions contradicts the above scientific conclusion that God exists. One question atheists used to ask is if there is God, who created that God? The created cannot be called Creator. The very question is irrational. God has no beginning, no end and lives forever. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Although atheists are prepared to believe that universe has no beginning, no end and no change </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">(e.g., steady state cosmology) for a system which is known to have no such property,</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"> they cannot accept these qualities for God! Why? Moreover we should also realize that the criterion that nothing can originate by itself but has to be created applies only to this universe. God exists outside of the universal system and hence this condition is inapplicable to God. On this count also the question of atheists how God came into being without being created is irrelevant as God is not part of this system. Further, our lack of knowledge about it does not in any way weaken the scientific conclusion that God exists. We also should always demand for scientific evidence and basis for any explanation that scientists concoct against God. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Scientific validity of the Quranic revelations </span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"></span></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Scientific validity of several Quranic revelations can be taken as proof of divinity of the Quran and Islam. It also forms another proof of God. This is akin to verifying the predictions of a scientific theory. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The Quran offers several falsifiable revelations relating to the universe and man. A few such Quranic revelations are considered here for sample. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">a) “Do you not see how He created seven skies in layers, and placed the moon as a light in them and made the sun a blazing lamp?” (Q. 71:15-16). </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">These verses distinguish the sun and the moon based on the nature of radiation coming from them. While the radiation coming from the moon is described as “light” (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">noor</i> in Arabic), the sun is described as “lamp” (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">siraj</i> in Arabic). The distinction is consistent with available scientific information on these two celestial objects. The sun being a natural nuclear fusion reactor generates light and is compared with a burning lamp. The moon on the other hand does not produce light by itself but only reflects the sun’s light incident on it. The revelations about the sun and moon are scientific facts. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">b) “It is He who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon; all swimming in their (respective) orbits.” (Q. 21:33). </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The orbital motion of celestial bodies is a well-established scientific fact. It is this fact the Quran reveals to us. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">c) </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">“With hands did We construct the sky: For it is We who create the vastness of space.” (Q. 51:47)</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">. “Do not the unbelievers see that the skies and the earth were joined together (as one unit) before We clove them asunder? We made from water every organism. Will they not believe then?” (Q. 21:30). <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">These two verses shed light on the formative stage of the universe as well as its post-evolutionary state. The universe before it got separated into components had existed as single unit in the distant past. The universe has also been expanding (i.e., increasing in space) since then. These Quranic revelations agree well with the expectations of big bang cosmology and </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Edwin Hubble’s observation of</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> expanding universe. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">d) “Does man think that he will be left free? Was he not a drop of sperm emitted? Then he became an embryo; then He designed and shaped him in due proportion. And from it (i.e., sperm drop) He made two mates – male and female (Q. 75:36-39). “That He created the two spouses – the male and the female – from a drop of (semen) when it is emitted.” (Q. 53:45-46). <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The verses reveal that it is the sperm that decides the sex of the human individual. This is a well-established scientific fact. Whereas female egg carries only X chromosome, it is the male sperm that supplies either X or Y to the zygote. The XX combination creates female and XY combination creates male.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Non-Muslim scientists (later embraced Islam?) </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Maurice Bucaille [3, 4], <span style="color: black;">French Catholic Christian physician, and Keith Moore </span>[5], anatomist at the University of Toronto, Canada, were the<span style="color: black;"> pioneers in bringing to light the agreement between many Quranic revelations and modern scientific findings. Their works started appearing in print from the latter half of 1970s. (It is not clearly known whether they had embraced Islam later). </span>Prof. Keith Moore discussed what the Quran said about the development of human embryo. He did it because he was astonished by the accuracy of the statements that were recorded in the 7th century AD before embryology was established [5]. <span style="color: black;">The agreement between the Quranic messages that were revealed in the seventh century before the advent of modern science and scientific discoveries made in the twentieth century is considered strong scientific proof of God and divinity of the Quran. In fact it is part of Allah’s scheme to prove the divinity of the Quran and His existence scientifically through atheists themselves as can be inferred from the verse 21:30 (quoted above), which addresses the nonbelievers. Further the verses 41:52-53 proclaims to the world: “Say: You see if the (Quran) is from Allah and you do not believe in it! Who is more astray than the one who is far opposed (to it)? Soon We will 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. 41:52-53). Islam bashers however do not accept the scientific merit of the Quran or the verses of scientific import it contains. The Quranic verses 41:52-53 appear to address such people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">e) The Quran is the only source that reveals to us God’s purpose of creating the universe and man. Man was created by God as His robot (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">abd</i> in Arabic) to serve Him (Q. 51:56). The present universe was created to provide infrastructure facility for testing human robots for their obedience to God (Q. 11:7). Earth is the habitat for man (Q. 2:29, 7:10, 27:61), which forms the venue (laboratory) of testing. The revelations relating to the purpose of creation are also falsifiable. Anyone who dispassionately examines this aspect will find the organization and functioning of the universe finely tuned to suit the stated purpose. For more information on the subject, see post 8 at </span><a href="http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: blue;">http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Falsifiable but not- yet- verified revelations<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Some of the falsifiable revelations in the Quran have not yet been subjected to experimental verification. They remain as scientific theories. These include revelation of the organization of the cosmic space as seven skies one above the other (Q. 67:3; see also Q. 71:15-16 cited above), the creation of earth as the first component of the universe (Q. 41:9-12), and creation of everything in pairs (or partners - <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">zouj</i> in Arabic) (Q. 51:49, 36:36). It is hoped that further advancement in science will throw light on these phenomena. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Another important falsifiable revelation (Q. 15:26-29) is the nonmaterial or intangible (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ghayb</i> in Arabic) nature of the cause of life - the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">rooh</i> or <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">nafs</i> (see post 4 at </span><a href="http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: blue;">http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> for more details). The <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">rooh</i> may be conceptualized as the non-molecular (or nonphysical) biological program or biosoftware (soul) responsible for life based on the computer model of organism [6, 7]. In biology, the material genome (DNA) is supposed to be the blueprint of life or the driving force of life. It is believed that DNA molecule encodes the biological program required for the development of phenotype and biological functioning of an organism. The Quranic revelation of nonmaterial <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">rooh</i> as the cause of life is against the material gene concept. The molecular gene is in deep crisis now though scientific community may not admit it (see post 4 of this blog).The Quran approves the nonphysical gene originally proposed by Wilhelm Johannsen in 1909. The problems associated with the molecular gene concept and the failure of experiments to create life from non-life (without involving a living organism) should be seen as indications of the truth of the Quranic revelation of nonphysical basis of life and existence of God. Molecular gene concept will also meet the same fate as steady state cosmology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Scientifically explainable revelations<o:p></o:p></span></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">There are also revelations in the Quran that can be explained scientifically. For example, end of the universe (Q. 7:187) followed by re-creation of the universe (Q. 21:104, 39:67) come under this category. The amenability of Quranic revelation to scientific explanation is also proof of their rationality. For more details, see posts 2 and 3 at </span><a href="http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: blue;">http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The foregoing discussion reveals the scientific basis of the Quran and Islam. More importantly, scientific validity of the Quran confirms the existence of God unequivocally. On the reverse logic, it also firmly establishes why atheism is irrational. It is an irony that of all the people, scientists who vow to accept only the rational opt for the most irrational atheism! The scientific foundation of the Quran is clear verdict of its divinity and universality. Only the most irrational will refute it. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">References <o:p></o:p></span></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">1. Wahid, P.A. 2007. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Scientific Foundation of Islam</i>,<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i>Adam Publishers, New Delhi, India. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">2. Popper, K. 1962. Science, pseudoscience and falsifiability. </span><a href="http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/critical_thinking/Science_pseudo_falsifiability.html"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: blue;">http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/critical_thinking/Science_pseudo_falsifiability.html</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Accessed 9-1-2010. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">3. Bucaille, M.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>2004. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Quran and Modern Science</i>. Published by Abdul Naeem (first published 1977). <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">4. Bucaille, M.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>1975. <i>The Bible, the Qur’an and Science</i><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"> </span>Translated from the French by Alastair D. Pannell and the author, (Islamic Call Society, Tripoli, 1976). <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">5. Keith Moore, K.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Developing Human</i> (5th Edition, with T.V.N. Persaud). <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">6. Wahid, P.A. 2006. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Computer Universe: A Scientific Rendering of the Holy Quran</i>. Adam Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi, India. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">7. Wahid, P.A. 2007. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">An Introduction to Islamic Science</i>. Adam Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi, India.<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div></div>P.A. Wahidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13917883281952189981noreply@blogger.com