The Perfect Freak : The Darwinian Human Ape

A protein Molecule

Protein Hi great Gramps!

Thanks gramps (above) – this is just a tribute to you because without you I would not have been formed – By the way I am also a product of millions of years of freak and anomalous molecular mutations which somehow or rather perfected me to the form that which I am now. So now am I a freak out of you or are you a freak preceding me?  This freaks me out alright but anyway the most important thing  is that the real ugly freaks (you know those green-purple monsters with eyes in their backsides and tentacles comin out of their noses that came out of chance mutation) died out due to natural selection. The perfected freaks like us humans and our later gramps, the monkeys (but of course now we respectfully call them the “great apes”) survived because the freak mutations somehow or rather turned out right despite the relatively short age of the earth (the mother of our greatest gramps) for such processes to miraculously happen despite being mathematically impossible. Wow, I’m a perfect freak who came from a long line of freaks and flukes like you who inturn were formed because of chance happenings within the universe! I wonder sometimes gramps, what chance event caused the big bang to happen?

This is only part of the evolution theory, which is a whole philosophical movement, that is conveniently and rather “unscientifically” used to fill the rather impossible intellectual gaps faced by secular-science and it’s proponents to complete an “objective” explanation of the origin of material existence of the universe. The theory of evolution is an ideological necessity arbitrarily constructed to justify a secular-materialist approach towards science and the search for truth. In other words, where secular-materialist science cannot complete the circle of knowledge, pseudo-scientific constructs like Evolution fill the gaps as neat and conveiently packaged explanations. If theistic creationism sounds like a some cheap B-grade fantasy flick so badly written that it makes “little red riding hood” look like rocket science then I have no pejorative offensive enough to describe the rationalisation behind the theory of evolution.

Why is this is a load of bull – well lets take a look just at the objective math of just one section of this philosophy of evolution alone (taken from this website by Harun Yahya’s “The Atlas Of Creation”)



The complex structure of the living cell was unknown in Darwin’s day and at the time, ascribing life to “coincidences and natural conditions” was thought by evolutionists to be convincing enough.

The technology of the 20th century has delved into the tiniest particles of life and has revealed that the cell is the most complex system mankind has ever confronted. Today we know that the cell contains power stations producing the energy to be used by the cell, factories manufacturing the enzymes and hormones essential for life, a databank where all the necessary information about all products to be produced is recorded, complex transportation systems and pipelines for carrying raw materials and products from one place to another, advanced laboratories and refineries for breaking down external raw materials into their useable parts, and specialised cell membrane proteins to control the incoming and outgoing materials. And these constitute only a small part of this incredibly complex system.

W. H. Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist, acknowledges that “The most elementary type of cell constitutes a ‘mechanism’ unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man.”105

A cell is so complex that even the high level of technology attained today cannot produce one. No effort to create an artificial cell has ever met with success. Indeed, all attempts to do so have been abandoned.

The theory of evolution claims that this system-which mankind, with all the intelligence, knowledge and technology at its disposal, cannot succeed in reproducing-came into existence “by chance” under the conditions of the primordial earth. To give another example, the probability of forming of a cell by chance is about the same as that of producing a perfect copy of a book following an explosion in a printing-house.

The English mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made a similar comparison in an interview published in Nature magazine on November 12, 1981. Although an evolutionist himself, Hoyle stated that the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.106 This means that it is not possible for the cell to have come into being by coincidence, and therefore it must definitely have been “created”.

One of the basic reasons why the theory of evolution cannot explain how the cell came into existence is the “irreducible complexity” in it. A living cell maintains itself with the harmonious co-operation of many organelles. If only one of these organelles fails to function, the cell cannot remain alive. The cell does not have the chance to wait for unconscious mechanisms like natural selection or mutation to permit it to develop. Thus, the first cell on earth was necessarily a complete cell possessing all the required organelles and functions, and this definitely means that this cell had to have been created.

Proteins Challenge Chance


So much for the cell, but the theory of evolution fails even to account for the building-blocks of a cell. The formation, under natural conditions, of just one single protein out of the thousands of complex protein molecules making up the cell is impossible.

Proteins are giant molecules consisting of smaller units called “amino acids” that are arranged in a particular sequence in certain quantities and structures. These units constitute the building blocks of a living protein. The simplest protein is composed of 50 amino acids, but there are some that contain thousands.

The crucial point is this. The absence, addition, or replacement of a single amino acid in the structure of a protein causes the protein to become a useless molecular heap. Every amino acid has to be in the right place and in the right order. The theory of evolution, which claims that life emerged as a result of chance, is quite helpless in the face of this order, since it is too wondrous to be explained by coincidence. (Furthermore the theory cannot even substantiate the claim of the accidental formation of proteins, as will be discussed later.)

The fact that it is quite impossible for the functional structure of proteins to come about by chance can easily be observed even by simple probability calculations that anybody can understand.

For instance, an average-sized protein molecule composed of 288 amino acids, and contains twelve different types of amino acids can be arranged in 10300 different ways. (This is an astronomically huge number, consisting of 1 followed by 300 zeros.) Of all these possible sequences, only one forms the desired protein molecule. The rest of them are amino-acid chains that are either totally useless or else potentially harmful to living things.

In other words, the probability of the formation of only one protein molecule is “1 in 10300“. The probability of this “1” to occur is practically nil. (In practice, probabilities smaller than 1 over 1050 are thought of as “zero probability”).

Furthermore, a protein molecule of 288 amino acids is a rather modest one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting of thousands of amino acids. When we apply similar probability calculations to these giant protein molecules, we see that even the word “impossible” is insufficient to describe the true situation.

When we proceed one step further in the evolutionary scheme of life, we observe that one single protein means nothing by itself. One of the smallest bacteria ever discovered, Mycoplasma hominis H39, contains 600 “types” of proteins. In this case, we would have to repeat the probability calculations we have made above for one protein for each of these 600 different types of proteins. The result beggars even the concept of impossibility.

Some people reading these lines who have so far accepted the theory of evolution as a scientific explanation may suspect that these numbers are exaggerated and do not reflect the true facts. That is not the case: these are definite and concrete facts. No evolutionist can object to these numbers. They accept that the probability of the coincidental formation of a single protein is “as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter without making any mistakes”.107 However, instead of accepting the other explanation, which is creation, they go on defending this impossibility.

This situation is in fact acknowledged by many evolutionists. For example, Harold F. Blum, a prominent evolutionist scientist, states that “The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability.” 108

Evolutionists claim that molecular evolution took place over a very long period of time and that this made the impossible possible. Nevertheless, no matter how long the given period may be, it is not possible for amino acids to form proteins by chance. William Stokes, an American geologist, admits this fact in his book Essentials of Earth History, writing that the probability is so small “that it would not occur during billions of years on billions of planets, each covered by a blanket of concentrated watery solution of the necessary amino acids.”109

So what does all this mean? Perry Reeves, a professor of chemistry, answers the question:

When one examines the vast number of possible structures that could result from a simple random combination of amino acids in an evaporating primordial pond, it is mind-boggling to believe that life could have originated in this way. It is more plausible that a Great Builder with a master plan would be required for such a task.110

The chemical structure of even a single cythochrome-C protein (above left) is too complex to be accounted for in terms of chance—so much so, in fact, that the Turkish evolutionist biologist professor Ali Demirsoy admits that the chance formation of a single cythochrome-C sequence “as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter without making any mistakes.”

If the coincidental formation of even one of these proteins is impossible, it is billions of times “more impossible” for some one million of those proteins to come together properly by chance and make up a complete cell. What is more, by no means does a cell consist of a mere heap of proteins. In addition to the proteins, a cell also includes nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, vitamins, and many other chemicals such as electrolytes arranged in a specific proportion, equilibrium, and design in terms of both structure and function. Each of these elements functions as a building block or co-molecule in various organelles.

Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University and a DNA expert, calculated the probability of the coincidental formation of the 2000 types of proteins found in a single bacterium (There are 200,000 different types of proteins in a human cell). The number that was found was 1 over 1040.000.111 (This is an incredible number obtained by putting 40,000 zeros after the 1)

A professor of applied mathematics and astronomy from University College Cardiff, Wales, Chandra Wickramasinghe, comments:

The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it… It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.112

Sir Fred Hoyle comments on these implausible numbers:

Indeed, such a theory (that life was assembled by an intelligence) is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.113

The reason Hoyle used the term “psychological” is the self-conditioning of evolutionists not to accept that life could have been created. The rejection of God’s existence is their main goal. For this reason alone, they go on defending irrational theories which they at the same time acknowledge to be impossible.

Left-handed Proteins

In nature, there are two different types of amino acids, called “left-handed” and “right-handed”. The difference between them is the mirror-symmetry between their three dimensional structures, which is similar to that of a person’s right and left hands.

Let us now examine in detail why the evolutionist scenario regarding the formation of proteins is impossible.

Even the correct sequence of the right amino acids is still not enough for the formation of a functional protein molecule. In addition to these requirements, each of the 20 different types of amino acids present in the composition of proteins must be left-handed. There are two different types of amino acids-as of all organic molecules-called “left-handed” and “right-handed”. The difference between them is the mirror-symmetry between their three dimensional structures, which is similar to that of a person’s right and left hands.

Amino acids of either of these two types can easily bond with one another. But one astonishing fact that has been revealed by research is that all the proteins in plants and animals on this planet, from the simplest organism to the most complex, are made up of left-handed amino acids. If even a single right-handed amino acid gets attached to the structure of a protein, the protein is rendered useless. In a series of experiments, surprisingly, bacteria that were exposed to right-handed amino acids immediately destroyed them. In some cases, they produced usable left-handed amino acids from the fractured components.

Let us for an instant suppose that life came about by chance as evolutionists claim it did. In this case, the right- and left-handed amino acids that were generated by chance should be present in roughly equal proportions in nature. Therefore, all living things should have both right- and left-handed amino acids in their constitution, because chemically it is possible for amino acids of both types to combine with each other. However, as we know, in the real world the proteins existing in all living organisms are made up only of left-handed amino acids.

The question of how proteins can pick out only the left-handed ones from among all amino acids, and how not even a single right-handed amino acid gets involved in the life process, is a problem that still baffles evolutionists. Such a specific and conscious selection constitutes one of the greatest impasses facing the theory of evolution.

Moreover, this characteristic of proteins makes the problem facing evolutionists with respect to “coincidence” even worse. In order for a “meaningful” protein to be generated, it is not enough for the amino acids to be present in a particular number and sequence, and to be combined together in the right three-dimensional design. Additionally, all these amino acids have to be left-handed: not even one of them can be right-handed. Yet there is no natural selection mechanism which can identify that a right-handed amino acid has been added to the sequence and recognise that it must therefore be removed from the chain. This situation once more eliminates for good the possibility of coincidence and chance.

The Brittanica Science Encyclopaedia, which is an outspoken defender of evolution, states that the amino acids of all the living organisms on earth, and the building blocks of complex polymers such as proteins, have the same left-handed asymmetry. It adds that this is tantamount to tossing a coin a million times and always getting heads. The same encyclopaedia states that it is impossible to understand why molecules become left-handed or right-handed, and that this choice is fascinatingly related to the origin of life on earth.114

If a coin always turns up heads when tossed a million times, is it more logical to attribute that to chance, or else to accept that there is conscious intervention going on? The answer should be obvious. However, obvious though it may be, evolutionists still take refuge in coincidence, simply because they do not want to accept the existence of “conscious intervention”.

A situation similar to the left-handedness of amino acids also exists with respect to nucleotides, the smallest units of the nucleic acids, DNA and RNA. In contrast to proteins, in which only left-handed amino acids are chosen, in the case of the nucleic acids, the preferred forms of their nucleotide components are always right-handed. This is another fact that can never be explained by coincidence.

In conclusion, it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt by the probabilities we have examined that the origin of life cannot be explained by chance. If we attempt to calculate the probability of an average-sized protein consisting of 400 amino acids being selected only from left-handed amino acids, we come up with a probability of 1 in 2400, or 10120. Just for a comparison, let us remember that the number of electrons in the universe is estimated at 1079, which although vast, is a much smaller number. The probability of these amino acids forming the required sequence and functional form would generate much larger numbers. If we add these probabilities to each other, and if we go on to work out the probabilities of even higher numbers and types of proteins, the calculations become inconceivable.

Correct Bond is Vital

The amino acid molecules that make up proteins must be linked to each other in a so-called “peptide bond”, which is only one of the many possible types of bonds found in nature. Otherwise, the resulting amino acid chains would be useless, and no proteins would be formed.

The difficulties the theory of evolution is unable to overcome with regard to the development of a single protein are not limited to those we have recounted so far. It is not enough for amino acids to be arranged in the correct numbers, sequences, and required three-dimensional structures. The formation of a protein also requires that amino acid molecules with more than one arm be linked to each other only in certain ways. Such a bond is called a “peptide bond”. Amino acids can make different bonds with each other; but proteins are made up of those-and only those-amino acids which are joined by “peptide” bonds.

A comparison will clarify this point. Suppose that all the parts of a car were complete and correctly assembled, with the sole exception that one of the wheels was fastened in place not with the usual nuts and bolts, but with a piece of wire, in such a way that its hub faced the ground. It would be impossible for such a car to move even the shortest distance, no matter how complex its technology or how powerful its engine. At first glance, everything would seem to be in the right place, but the faulty attachment of even one wheel would make the entire car useless. In the same way, in a protein molecule the joining of even one amino acid to another with a bond other than a peptide bond would make the entire molecule useless.

Research has shown that amino acids combining at random combine with a peptide bond only 50% of the time, and that the rest of the time different bonds that are not present in proteins emerge. To function properly, each amino acid making up a protein must be joined to others only with a peptide bond, in the same way that it likewise must be chosen only from among left-handed forms.

This probability of this happening is the same as the probability of each protein’s being left-handed. That is, when we consider a protein made up of 400 amino acids, the probability of all amino acids combining among themselves with only peptide bonds is 1 in 2399.

Zero Probability

As can be seen below, the probability of formation of a protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids is “1” over a number formed by placing 950 zeros next to 1, which is a number incomprehensible for the human mind. This is a probability only on paper. Practically speaking, there is zero chance of its actually happening. As we saw earlier, in mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 in 1050 is statistically considered to have a “0” probability of occurring.

A probability of “1 over 10950” is far beyond the limits of this definition.

While the improbability of the formation of a protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids reaches such an extent, we can further proceed to push the limits of the mind with higher levels of improbability. In the “haemoglobin” molecule, which is a vital protein, there are 574 amino acids, which is more than the amino acids making up the protein mentioned above. Now consider this: in only one out of the billions of red blood cells in your body, there are “280,000,000” (280 million) haemoglobin molecules.

The supposed age of the earth is not sufficient to allow the formation of even a single protein by a “trial and error” method, let alone that of a red blood cell. Even if we suppose that amino acids have combined and decomposed by a “trial and error” method without losing any time since the formation of the earth, in order to form a single protein molecule, the time that would be required for something with a probability of 10950 to happen would still hugely exceed the estimated age of the earth.

The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that evolution falls into a terrible abyss of improbability even when it comes to the formation of a single protein.

Is There a Trial and Error Mechanism in Nature?

Finally, we may conclude with a very important point in relation to the basic logic of probability calculations, of which we have already seen some examples. We indicated that the probability calculations made above reach astronomical levels, and that these astronomical odds have no chance of actually happening. However, there is a much more important and damaging fact facing evolutionists here. This is that under natural conditions, no period of trial and error can even start, despite the astronomical odds, because there is no trial-and-error mechanism in nature from which proteins could emerge.

The probability of an average protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids being arranged in the correct quantity and sequence in addition to the probability of all of the amino acids it contains being only left-handed and being combined with only peptide bonds is “1” over 10950. We can write this number which is formed by putting 950 zeros next to 1 as follows:10950 =

The Probability of a Protein Being Formed by Chance is Zero

There are 3 basic conditions for the formation of a useful protein:

First condition: that all the amino acids in the protein chain are of the right type and in the right sequence

Second condition: that all the amino acids in the chain are left-handed

Third condition: that all of these amino acids are united between them by forming a chemical bond called “peptide bond”.

In order for a protein to be formed by chance, all three basic conditions must exist simultaneously. The probability of the formation of a protein by chance is equal to the multiplication of the probabilities of the realisation of each of these conditions.

For instance, for an average molecule comprising of 500 amino acids:

1- The probability of the amino acids being in the right sequence:

There are 20 types of amino acids used in the composition of proteins. According to this:

– The probability of each amino acid being chosen correctly among these 20 types

= 1/20
– The probability of all of those 500 amino acids being left-handed at the same time = 1/20500= 1/10650
=1 chance in 10650

2- The probability of the amino acids being left-handed:

– The probability of only one amino acid being left-handed = 1/2

– The probability of all of those 500 amino acids being left-handed at the same time

= 1/2500 = 1/10150
  = 1 chance in 10150

3- The probability of the amino acids being combined with a “peptide bond”:

Amino acids can combine with each other with different kinds of chemical bonds. In order for a useful protein to be formed, all the amino acids in the chain must have been combined with a special chemical bond called a “peptide bond”. It is calculated that the probability of the amino acids being combined not with another chemical bond but by a peptide bond is 50%. In relation to this:

– The probability of two amino acids being combined with a “peptide bond”

= 1/2
– The probability of 500 amino acids all combining with peptide bonds = 1/2499 = 1/10150
= 1 chance in 10150

TOTAL PROBABILITY = 1/10650 X 1/10150 X 1/10150 = 1/10950
  = 1 chance in 10950


The calculations we give on page across to demonstrate the probability of the formation of a protein molecule with 500 amino acids are valid only for an ideal trial-and-error environment, which does not actually exist in real life. That is, the probability of obtaining a useful protein is “1” in 10950 only if we suppose that there exists an imaginary mechanism in which an invisible hand joins 500 amino acids at random and then, seeing that this is not the right combination, disentangles them one by one, and arranges them again in a different order, and so on. In each trial, the amino acids would have to be separated one by one, and be arranged in a new order. The synthesis should be stopped after the 500th amino acid has been added, and it must be ensured that not even one extra amino acid is involved. The trial should then be stopped to see whether or not a functional protein has yet been formed, and, in the event of failure, everything should be split up again and then tested for another sequence. Additionally, in each trial, not even one extraneous substance should be allowed to become involved. It is also imperative that the chain formed during the trial should not be separated and destroyed before reaching the 499th link. These conditions mean that the probabilities we have mentioned above can only operate in a controlled environment where there is a conscious mechanism directing the beginning, the end, and each intermediate stage of the process, and where only “the correct selection of the amino acids” is left uncontrolled. It is clearly impossible for such an environment to exist under natural conditions. Therefore the formation of a protein in the natural environment is logically and technically impossible. In fact, to talk of the probabilities of such an event is quite unscientific.

Since some people are unable to take a broad view of these matters, but approach them from a superficial viewpoint and assume protein formation to be a simple chemical reaction, they may make unrealistic deductions such as “amino acids combine by way of reaction and then form proteins”. However, accidental chemical reactions taking place in an inanimate structure can only lead to simple and primitive changes. The number of these is predetermined and limited. For a somewhat more complex chemical material, huge factories, chemical plants, and laboratories have to be involved. Medicines and many other chemical materials that we use in our daily life are made in just this way. Proteins have much more complex structures than these chemicals produced by industry. Therefore, it is impossible for proteins, each of which is a wonder of creation, in which every part takes its place in a fixed order, to originate as a result of haphazard chemical reactions.

Let us for a minute put aside all the impossibilities we have described so far, and suppose that a useful protein molecule still evolved spontaneously “by accident”. Even so, evolution again has no answers, because in order for this protein to survive, it would need to be isolated from its natural habitat and be protected under very special conditions. Otherwise, it would either disintegrate from exposure to natural conditions on earth, or else join with other acids, amino acids, or chemical compounds, thereby losing its particular properties and turning into a totally different and useless substance.


6 Responses to “The Perfect Freak : The Darwinian Human Ape”

  1. Diganta Says:

    Thanks for all the information. But does all these sum up to ‘God created them’? Like the right-handed Amino acids, a living cell or any chemical compound required to generate life …
    Secondly, even if theory of evolution is gone, the newer theories are very unlikely to focus on ‘God created life’ hypothesis. They’ll extend the theory to an extent to explain the incompleteness of the current theory. One such effort is taken by the people who work on genetics.

  2. iqbaldinho Says:

    Agreed. The foundational failure of the Theory of Evolution does not necessarily beg the theory of deliberate design by default.
    But I’m a firm believer that if any theory is right it will point to some sort of a creator behind the works. But my intention here was to point out that to believe in the theory of evolution at the end of the day is a matter of faith. And faith by definition has no requirement to appeal to reason or logic – a blasphemy in science. When secular-science commits the cardinal sin of being irrational or illogical in it’s propositions or theories it contradicts itself.
    The thing that really bothers me is that it comes across very strongly as objective fact and this is misleading. Fact is the Evolution Theory, which is THE standard foundational basis secular science, requires faith [gasp!] to believe in it. And we have the secular scientific community itself – that dismisses the creationist philosophy as irrational sentimental nonsense – subscribing to such irrational theories.
    The problem with science today is that it needs a basis over which to rest it’s fantastic scientific discoveries and observations. Subscribing to a belief of random events as the cause for the creation of all that exists provides a justification for science that finds a basic need to perpetuate in it’s secular materialistic direction.
    Theocentric belief systems are bound by no objective criteria.
    The Theory of Evolution is no different from theocentric belief systems in that they both require faith to believe in them. It is totally different from say having to believe in the scientific fact that at the speed of light of 299,792,458 m/sec matter ceases and time freezes.
    Einsten was once known to have remarked “I do not believe that God plays dice with the universe”. He had serious doubts about any scientific construct that conveniently pins it’s explanation on chance happennings.
    If objective science can give a better theory that satisfies it’s own standards then it will be a different story. But science, since Newton through Einstein to the present day, has been consistently opening up a can of worms that throws established scientific notions into disarray because the observed reality cannot be properly married to objective proof. It just gets stranger with every advancement or discovery. One such example is the seemingly purposeful encodings within the genes. It baffles even the greatest scientific minds and the theory of evolution is a poor explanation by any scientific standard. It’s like one step forward and two steps back. Eventually scientists end up vehemently defending the insanely remote possibilities against reasonable probabilities. And that requires faith to believe in.

  3. Diganta Says:

    Thanks for writing up such a huge response. Now come to the points of Newton, Einstein and Darwin. What you have enlisted here, is nothing but the ‘gap’s of theory of evolution. If you want to know ‘gap’s of theory of gravity and theory of relativity, I can give you even larger list. So, why do you think that gravity and relativity are correct and evolution is wrong, after all people ‘believe’ in them based on the evidences available. What do the scientists gain to accept Darwin’s theory? Science is also open to alternative theories to explain gravity and general relativity. Please go through the wikipedia page of gravity for the listing of alternatives.

    How can you negate the evidences already gathered in the form of fossils and genetics? You must have any alternative theory to explain them …

    “I do not believe that God plays dice with the universe” – was the comment made by Einstein with respect to the Uncertainty Principle, that is till date accepted as it can, at best, explain the phenomenons observed. So, Einstein is proved wrong till date. In Science, Einstein is not God, so we can reject the theory he proposed since we don’t get evidences to support him.

    Science is a process that collects evidences and tries to come up with the best theory that suits the evidences. Some theories can be tested by evidences directly – like Earth rotates around the sun, and some are non-tested, like theory of gravity and evolution. But, the evidences match the theories ‘the most’, hence we accept them.

    If you really believe that some sort of creator has created the life on Earth, you have to bring evidences in favor of that. If you really believe in that, do try it out …

  4. Diganta Says:

    BTW, most of the gaps you’ve mentioned are gaps in ‘creation of life’. Darwin’s theory doesn’t discuss ‘creation of life’ but he discussed ‘creation of species’ through evolution. ‘Creation of life’ is still debated one, and people do try to collect evidences in favor of their theories …

  5. iqbaldinho Says:

    I’m sorry I have to give another long answer but your questions are too tempting for me to pass by it.
    If you are talking about “Evidence” and “proof”, you should realise that they are thorny subjects. Euclid held that every proof relies on at least a few assumptions (or postulates) and which, by definition, cannot themselves be proven. Set the standard of proof high enough and absolutely nothing at all can be proven (the “socratic syIndrome”). That’s because you either hit an intellectual brick wall or be faced with the problem of infinite regression.
    Subscribing to assumptions in science is akin to having faith. As our powers of perception are limited we cannot really say if something is an absolute truth – truth is relative to the strength of our ability to perceive. If the seemingly infinite universe is a relative barometer what we perceive and could perceive is next to nothing.
    The human condition is thus a subjective condition. What we think can only appeal to our like – reality could be something else altogether. So we need to know, understand and acknowledge our severe limits and thus it makes no sense to regard theism with disdain just because it does not appeal to logic and reason. Even if (and a big “if”), any of the premises of theism can be disproved, it still remains as only an anthropological opinion of the existence of a non-material transcendental reality (i.e. “God”).
    What I’m trying to say is that we really can’t be too sure of anything however good may be the evidence or however airtight the proof is. At the end of the day everything is subjective and value based opinion because the proof is not absolute and the evidence is subjective.
    Even Einstein’s theory of relativity IS, in a way, a value based opinion. Our acceptance of it as fact is only because we are in consensus as to what constitutes proof in order to determine something as fact. We only need a single evidence pointing out that the speed of light is not always constant at certain parts of the universe to throw his formula into total disarray.
    For all we know we could have proved nothing and known nothing and could be totally wrong about the universe.
    But you have to start somewhere right? At the most fundamental level you have to believe in some calculated assumption or premise to advance further into meaningful scientific discovery.
    If the fundamental assumptions are weak, then the scientific discoveries proceeding from such assumptions are weak. The best proof of biological diversity is speciation. The best proof of speciation is biological evolution. The best proof of biological evolution is the origin of life i.e the random marriage of DNA and amino acids. So far none of these has been soundly established to academic standards. Scientists who believe in such theories and actively advocate it are no different from church pastors selling the idea of God.
    So for the theory of evolution to stick Darwinists must resolve the origin of life problem besides proving the origin of species theory. The origin of species will be foundationally sound if proof of the origin of life could be established in its favour.
    The TOE fundamentally assumes the occurrence of minute biological variations over geologic timescales (with “evidence” of course) as an explanation for the cause of distinct biological speciation. Do gradated biological variations cause an entirely new species? The evidence for such an hypothesis is highly controversial –even now.
    Charles Darwin did not have the benefit of the technology that we have now such as carbon dating and genetic engineering technologies. During his time in the 1800s it was common belief among the learned, that life basically developed from the simple to the complex. Darwin sort of provided the evidence for such a hypothesis. And it just stuck. It seemed pretty reasonable then. It is anybody’s guess how he would have believed if he were alive now.
    So the scientific method – offers one way to reach an opinion – not truth.
    The real issue here is which is a better opinion.
    Based on observed realities (we assume here again), the origin of life hypothesis more or less failed at least in the mathematics. This logical evidence is very telling of it’s unacceptability. The origin of species doesn’t look so good either because of this.
    I can’t be so sure about the Theory of Evolution (“TOE”) as being acceptable to the standard of academic requirement.
    As with Einstein’s quote about quantum uncertainty, I hold it to be a principled statement of fundamental assumption where Einstein proceeded from and arrived at answers to his scientific inquiries. Notwithstanding the strange fact that the mathematics of quantum mechanics actually work at a practical level – the principles behind it violated how Einstein fundamentally perceived reality. The uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics violated this fundamental principle in him. Though he said it in specific reference to quantum uncertainty, it showed clearly how he believed reality to be and hence my reference to it.
    By the way you might find it interesting that Charles Darwin was a Christian?

  6. Diganta Says:

    First you have tried to prove that “Truth is relative” and I accept that. You cannot have an absolute truth. Now let me come to a case study – proof of Earth is round. Before Copernicus, there were separate Greek, Indian and Arab scientists who tried to tell this, but it was not accepted by the society. But, after Gallileo and Magelon ‘proved’ that it is round, learned people did accept it. But do you know what they provided were not ‘proof’s. They were all proved only once an artificial satellite took photographs of the Earth, being round and rotation around it’s axis. How long did it take to reach from theory to ‘absolute proof’? It’s about few hundred years. Evolution will get proved but it will take time. Or it will be disproved if there were no genetic similarities between humans, chimpanzees and mouse.

    You have talked about human limits. I accept that and also remind you that human limitation can be in TOE, in theory of gravity or theory of relativity. But, it is very unlikely that the new theory will outright reject the older one. Assumptions are behind everything, gravity or TOE or even Earth is round.

    Darwin was a devout Christian and a scientist also. Probably he was not sure of the implications of his discoveries. And what he discovered, did not have much proof in his days. But, nowadays, even a new branch of science, like genetics has sufficient proof to establish it.

    One big aspect of Science is the capability to predict things, that thologists cannot do. That’s why science has been able to change human life in last few hundred years. TOE gives us the ability to predict and understand – especially about the germs and the viruses – to be able to fight them. Scientists love them because it gives them an unique ability to predict new germs … something that the creator God cannot.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: