This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
INVESTIGATING SCIENCE .. Chapter one: TIME, SPACE & MATTER If there is a thing which every intellect has to think, in this universe, that is God. What makes me say this is the beauty the world has. A beauty, that has kept the greatest minds of all time busy. Physicists are busy with beauty in the laws, of physics. The whole of the universe can be explained with a few handy equations. Mathematicians are amazed, because mathematics is the language of the universe. Biologists are stunned at the beauty of the human body. They are surprised with the nanotechnology in the cell. Even today, the world is surprising great minds every day, with a new recipe. Has all this beauty come by a blind chance or are we designed by someone to do something?? This question is purely scientific! In fact, all the science we study can be accounted to be answering this very basic question. With a set of theories that can be put to mathematical and experimental tests we can decide whether god exists or not. With an intellectually honest approach let us go behind the evidences. As Plato says follow the evidence wherever it leads . Today, we people of science believe that time space and matter is all that exists. We try to explain everything in this boundary. What the explanations we have are very convincing. We are indeed masters to explain this world in this boundary. Our explanation has been confined to this boundary and for it to be able to explain everything, it must be that only time, space & matter (tsm) exists. I.e. anything we know, must be time, or space or matter. So is TSM all that exists? Let us think of it. Einstein once said the most inconceivable thing about this universe is that it is conceivable . He was wondering at the order in the system, but when I read that, a bulb at a corner in my brain flashed! Conception ! We conceive things. So what is conception and ability to conceive? We are manifestation of material, so what does it mean to conceive? It is not a big deal that we do calculations. We process data, because even computers which are absolutely physical can do it, but that we are aware of it. a computer, can process data faster than us, perfect than us, but, the main difference is, that it is not aware of those things, their response to Data and instructions are purely and simply a matter of electrical pulses, circuitry & transistors.
I play a movie DVD in a DVD player, the player for no doubt is reading the data, but it has no meaning in for it .the player does not understand and enjoy the music it plays, but we humans do .
So, is our sense and ability to make sense, a mere action of nerves and brain? Are we no more than the neurological impulses? Maybe yes! Scientists are saying that, the sense of I or in general consciousness is a mere illusion created by neural action .neurology today has
advanced so much that , if I give you 2 buttons to hold it in two hands and tell to press any one, six seconds before you press one , I can tell which Button you are going to press! Our brain has D information off what we will do, before we do. So, this pre-determined thing appears to us like free will. Our speech is mere action of their part of our brains. Stop that part, we have no speech. Similarly we have identified parts which are responsible for sense of touch, taste, smell, sound, vision and the proper working of these parts, imply proper "sense". So "sense" is a mere action of parts of brain. But, what about the sense of I ? It is a part of brain that illumes us to be something other than the body. There are thousands of experiments that prove that the sense of I is an illusion.
Daniel dennet a popular philosopher, author of books like consciousness explained says, " e W should not be concerned with what makes up the so called mental phenomena, rather, we should be investigating the functions performed by these phenomena. a pain is something that creates an avoidance reaction; a thought is an exercise in problem solving. Neither is to the thought of as their private event taking place in some private place. Ditto with all other supposedly mental phenomena. Being conscious means performing these functions. Since these functions can be replicated by non-living systems (example a computer solves problems) there is nothing mysterious about consciousness. And certainly there is no reason to go beyond the physical."
But when I started "appreciating" these ideas, I found something mysterious. It all started because I can "appreciate" but not the computer. Computers are no doubt doing these processes, but while doing so, they are not "aware" of what they are doing!
But Sam Harris, a thought colleague of dennet defends "the problem, however, is that nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, the place it to be the bearer of that peculiar, Interior dimension that each of us experience as consciousness in his own case". The crystal clear conclusion of works by all these people is that, consciousness is an illusion, due to neural activity. We are no more than a heap of proteins and other chemicals. As physicist Gerald Schroeder points out, "there is no essential difference in the ultimate physical constituents of a heap of sand and the brain of an Einstein." Is very convincing so far, but the real mystery starts here. There would have been absolutely no problem with this explanation if we were just conscious! But we are conscious and conscious that we are conscious. We have defined consciousness to be illusion. Illusion is a wrong perception. So we have the ability to perceive that consciousness is illusion. The very first question I got after thinking that we are aware of our consciousness was that, "am I complicating things? Later I realized I am not, it is the fact. I will put down a sharp sentence, read it slowly and carefully.
It is not that complex. But I equally feel that we have best possible explanation. In fact too complex for today's science to explain and are hoping for explanation in future science. Steve elegantly set out the problem of subjective consciousness and asks where it is comes from and what's the explanation. you don't need refutation. Basically even our nerve impulses are electrical. If you honestly say that computer is conscious just because it has impulses and and just by switching off these parts you switch off concerned processes. We don't know. even this awareness of wrong perception is also an illusion! But this does not solve the problem! The perception of Inexistent as existent always requires a perceiver. Here the object neuron firings are perceived as consciousness. So do we mean to say that consciousness is true? We have nerve impulses. I have found no scientific rebuttals. I feel that these people are making it complex. But if you say that the computer is also a conscious that it is conscious. John serale. you enter a never ending chain of wrong perceivers. We may find new thinks that compose neurons and even go . and I will then say as dennet says "I don't believe in I". But electrical impulses do not seem to make computer conscious. We don't understand it. That is an honest thing to say and I echo it."Illusion requires three things. An object that is perceived as another and an observer. a critic of dennet says. I don't think any person with common sense will not dare to say this. He says "neither Steve Pinker law I can explain human subjective consciousness" he adds "in how the mind Works. he is honest enough to say 'beats the heck out of me'. Nevertheless he leaves it to dennet to explain it and dennet leaves it to Dawkins to explain evolution. I will definitely agree that consciousness does not exist. you need help. Even I feel that science will one day explain consciousness as a material phenomenon. whereas the computer has electrical impulses." Richard Dawkins acknowledges the reality of consciousness and the problem it has. The false belief that we are conscious must also be a false belief. As belief is also a conscious action. Though dennet and others reject that there must be a perceiver to have illusion. who is the perceiver? Who is having this illusion?" Illusion as told earlier means wrong perception." "I have purposely avoided any discussion of consciousness" says Wolpret. Then. "If you are tempted to functionalism. When you basically term this very perceiver as illusion. The only way to explain this state of consciousness in the boundary of times space matter is to say.
awareness. we believe in many things. There are facts. Knowledge. But strangely. It is against our experience. But this final destiny which functionalism has given us is insane. If you see words on a paper but not the pen. because. think of this "I believe in something which I perceive by my senses. believe in what we get from it (not always). By telling this we are showing ourselves that we have the ability to differentiate between illusion and true knowledge. we are differentiating illusion called consciousness into illusion and valid knowledge. Strictly speaking. So. According in to science and both perceptions are illusions. We believe in ourselves who exist to believe. When basically knowledge itself does not exist why do we wish to find proofs? When I see a tiny piece of rope in dim light I think it to be a snake. you can imagine that pen assuredly exists. So we know knowledge to be doing things. when we know what knowledge. one able to have perception)". basically snake is not what generates avoidance reaction that is fear. We have experienced ourselves from the day we are born. but I don't believe in having neither perception nor myself (conscious self. we have experienced ourselves more . I believe I have written this is. But the bottom line is that knowledge itself does not exist. We considered logic and our five senses as proofs. perception. and that the system reacts? So it differs from the other perception which is a relief reaction? No. just neural activity. in science are in search of truth.to the very basic explanation of matter. consciousness are all basically the same tea put in different cups. Believe in our senses. consciousness creates we must definitely infer existence of consciousness. it is the knowledge of the snake that is creating fear. the proofs are defined as means a valid knowledge. because I may stand in a pitch dark room which has many snakes. we cannot deny its existence. I have seen it myself" when you don't believe in 'myself' there is truly no one to believe anything. is still there matter and we know. It is illogical. nothing called beliefs or facts exist. By science we are implying all these things to be neural manifestation which are supporting the body in its struggle for existence. Many people say that having illusion is an evidence of unguided natural process having created us. But when I switch on the light I learn that it is not snake but rope instead. The same is the case here. snake really does not exist to cause fear. And to decide something as true or fact we demand proofs. I don't understand who the hell is getting eluded every time? If you now feel that I am telling nonsense. The ultimate proof for anything would be "I trust it. So. it cannot be conscious. We believe ultimately that we are capable to perceive and believe. or by valid logic we don't accept things. I get no fear. By defining consciousness as an illusion due to neural activity we have other problems too! These problems are indeed serious! We. Unless we can know something by our senses. So what is the difference between these two? Can we say that snake is a threat to system s well being. but unless I come to know them. So both of us believe in facts. We generally know them not to be attributes of material. but whatever we find. Trusting ourselves lies at the bottom of trusting anything else. Implying. You believe you are reading this.
"my body" why do we have to say that these are wrong to say? Mathematician William Dembski says "materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that. We know them not to have any neurology in their body. In spite of the problems I have. you still remain with many problems. . it no more remains a property that only humans have. just because you agree. you must expect nerve systems and brain to have consciousness. You must follow whatever evidences say. The problem. Science is not support to materialism it is searched for truth. When you define consciousness as their complex neural phenomena. I will talk about evolution of consciousness in the next chapter. but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry. I don't understand why. keeping our eyes closed. we still have where he problems. we are not the body. Why should we be confined to time space matter boundary when we have the best possible evidence for anything saying that we are conscious. so I am seeing this world with that colored glasses called pre-determination. No brains! But still they are conscious. Granted that even animal consciousness is a neural phenomenon. That is not exact the case. You might now say that I am predetermined of consciousness being other than matter. leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins" Are we intellectually honest. Even animals are conscious. and the whole world is colored for me. even if I agree that. in saying that time space matter is all that exist and everything must be explained in that? Is it not a kind of the pre-determination? When you are predetermined of something you have no place in any kind of scientific study. We say "my hand". The ultimate problem begins when we come to know that plants are also conscious. When I know me myself no one can ever contradict that I don't exist. therefore. let us discuss only whether consciousness is simply firing of neurons. But science today is doing marvels! It is snatching away consciousness from us. We are conscious beings and we must have no problem to accept that as scientific. but for now. Many scientists have problems to accept that we are conscious beings. very small creatures that are guessed to have been formed in the beginning of the life tree are also conscious. and the actual content of these signs as has become corrupted. is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to a promote a materialistic worldview.than anything else we have experienced ourselves when we say "I". explaining consciousness as neural activity. I have shown you sincere evidences and will continue to show you more evidences.
Yet there are scientific experiments to show that plants are conscious. they've no readings on the graph paper. When he hooked the plants to electrodes. and poly graphs. because they stress human thinking and emotional reactions. In 1966 Cleve Backster rigged a dracaena cane plant up to a polygraph test in order to work out its rate of water consumption. In other words it faints. Surprisingly he noted immediate reaction. I will narrate you a few of the experiments. generally registering tension responses as a sudden increases in pitch and tranquility as lowered to pitch state.The question of consciousness in plants is often dismissed as absurd and is neglected greatly. whenever a person detects a direct to his well-being he produces a physiological response. But philosophers are interested in animal and human consciousness and are trying to explain them in terms of neural impulses. The principle behind this is same as that used in a lie detector. and then someone chose one of the vegetables to be dropped into boiling water. So this part is quite less-explored. It was as if they had fainted at the moment the woman had knocked at the door. One day Cleve had an appointment with a woman who wanted to observe some of his plant demonstrations. in some manner perceived the threat to its safety.e. I. Baxter wondered if plants would react to a threat to its safety and decided to try burning one of its leaves. There is an instrument called polygraph. The frightened plants had picked up this information and fainted at sensing danger from her. Before he could even locate a match to light.e. He could leave a plant alone for the length of time and sit in a bar. backster started a succession of experiments that He believed showed th the at. The polygraph detects these signals and converts the galvanic response to an audio signal. the recording pen went wild! It was clear that the land had. . the one selected registers on the graph a sudden upward sweep followed abruptly by a straight line indicating unconsciousness. the plants began to exhibit normal patterns on the graph. Biologists think of client consciousness as a philosophical problem. i. He has also done research with vegetables. From this point on. he wished to see how long it would take for the plant to receive the benefits of water. Electrodes were attached to 3 different kinds of fresh vegetables. In talking with her he discovered that her job was to collect plants and bake them in the lab to get their dry weight. Scientists like JC Bose and Cleve Backster have conducted great experiments with crescographs. Immediately after she left. talking with friends and the polygraph test would measure the ups and downs in the conversation that backster was experiencing. or more a topic for theologians. client was in tune with his emotions.
that plants do in fact move in order to preserve their lives. One of the many reasons. The fact that plants act simply in preservation. If the prop is moved. although this is part of it. Hashimot sent thoughts of adding 2 and 2 o together to the plant. the res onse was p measured and went through the cassette player emitting a high pitched hum! This hum changed in mould depending on the thoughts Mrs. When Mrs. . He set up an apparatus that turns the graph in polygraph to audible sound. at least some plants do move and not just as an instinctive reaction. which crawls down autonomously towards organic matter as it goes. it needs to find props with which to hold itself up. Some of these can be imagined to be instinct and nothing more but. when ants are coming towards them t steal their nectar and so have o mechanisms to close up when they approach. There is a type of fungus called slime mould. The very basic concept of choosing in which direction we will walk is something we define as a conscious choice And the plants don't seem to make this choice. much better than a human trying to kill one. He also showed that they didn't like having their blossoms plucked. why plants are denied consciousness is their lack of ability of movement. Using this method Hashimoto has also shown that plants can count.Since Backster s original experiment in 1960s pliant electrophysiology has advanced a great deal and simplified tone emitting devices are now commercially available which validate the concept of instantaneous bio communication. Dr. there are plants that exhibit signs of movement much more similar to our own that could reflect autonomous behavior. suggests to many that it is simply an instinctive reaction aimed at self-preservation and there is no conscious thought behind it. and then planted a vine at the closed end. A laboratory researcher created a maze like structure with several blind alleys. It will always creep towards the nearest support. This indicates that Backster s research is replicable. The only way for the vine plant to reach the light was to correctly navigate its way through the maze. As a climbing plant grows up a wall. even with the aid of a fly Swatter. Bose believes that the reservation al moment exhibited in all plants show that they each have a free will of their own. The vine made its way out without making a single error. ability to count and other calculations cannot be reduced to instinct. with very sensitive research equipment. A sundew plant will grasp at a fly with incredible accuracy. Hashimoto sent to the plant. Ken Hashimoto heard about Backster s experiments and he with the help of his wife was able to actually have conversation with plants. The sunflower plants found in the Mississippi Valley called silpitium lacinatum have leaves that correctly indicate the points of a Compass. In 18th century. Sir Jagdish Chandra Bose has been able to show. Carl von Linne. then we would now have two accept that there is no real difference between the plant world and the animal world. If this was his only qualifier. Hashimoto sent thoughts of love and affection. the grandfather of modern botany declared to the world that the only way in which plants differed from animals and humans was in their lack of movement. When Mrs. Some plants seem to know. Plants have also shown that they have intelligence. the plant will change the direction to accommodate to the new support. the electron make representation of it emitted four short bursts on the tape. it will grow towards hidden support and entirely ignore areas where there are no supports. However. In reality.
we lack a definition of life. How did fast life come? Even today. struggle for existence come out spontaneously? We know by the experiment of Sir Louie Pasture that life cannot come spontaneously. just as explaining them in humans and animals. Two of Backster s experiments show this. matter exists anyway it existed during the big bang! It existed when stars were born. A small undigested. time etc else we would not say "I had the great sleep yesterday"). But what it can never answer is what it means to be conscious! Is it a struggle for existence? As told in earlier. you need to explain how it evolved. it exists since the time we can imagine. Why should matter take the form of proteins with so many complex stages and finally struggle to exist when it has nothing to worry ! There is life and it is definitely not the body or the functions of the body. it is there in very simple of the simplest organisms to the most complex of all. though we explain consciousness in terms of neurology we are incomplete. Undoubtedly there is struggle for existence. cell division. definitely explain how plants become conscious. humans! Even a small ant is conscious! Touch it. He once used six students to do an experiment. organ systems everything! But we must be clear that.One thing that always hinders me to accept materialism is that. all these account for existence of a dead body! Can any scientist today define life? Definitely not as respiration. We cannot imagine time when matter did not exist. I have few more points to tell that contradict the existing explanation of consciousness and the demands conscious beings. it absolutely has no need to fear! It exists even when people are termed dead ! It exists in some states now. cell. Think of it practically. I feel that life can be defined as state of being conscious (even in sleep we will be aware of ourselves. in some other state later! I don't understand what people mean by life and struggle for existence. Granted that science can explain formation of am ino acids. it will bite you! Every tiny creature known today has a wish to survive. life comes only from preexisting life. Matter absolutely has no need to take complex forms and struggle thereon to exist! The blob of proteins exist anyway. genes. There is consciousness in plants with no nerve system. He had them all choose a piece of paper on one of which was written "murder". heartbeat etc! Very first life did not have them! So. Why should any organism just struggle to exist? Why should matter struggle to exist? Matter exists anyway! How on earth could amino acids become conscious? How did the very first conscious life come to existence? Can life a conscious matter which can reproduce. when Earth born. how it originated. organs. when there were supernova explosions. Science will one day. it existed when sun was born. it exists beyond that. They were all told that if they had received this piece is a paper. they would go into a room which had 2 . there exists no such theory that can do this job! But before going to discuss that. when all that exists is matter! If you have to explain consciousness. hard to break piece of meat in my stomach that is making me uncomfortable is the presence of memory and ability in plants to perceive things that happen at a distant physically obstructed place. proteins.
So did this consciousness evolve from matter? Darwin guessed that few chemicals dissolved in a warm little pond when acted by sunlight. DNA has the information of how to make a protein from amino acids. because. "The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe. the plant went wild! It remembered seeing this student killing its fellow right in front of him. G and C. 273) Life means a Struggle for existence according to majority of scientists today. . There are compounds called amino acids. if any. when the murder came. The problem with explaining consciousness is not new and to science. When the five innocent students walked into the room. He imagined a unicellular life probably. After this had been done all the six students were asked to parade in front of the still living the plant and see what. There are 20 different kinds of amino acids in living bodies and the different sequential arrangement gives rise to different proteins. T. to have a wish to survive. the plant had shown violent reaction in the polygraph. which arranged in the form of a chain are called proteins. 1998. Darwin had very less to say about the evolution of first life and in fact nothing about consciousness but this one. Once when a plant in Backster s garden was attached to polygraph and backster in his home dropped boiling water into his sink. in those days a cell was known to be just a lump of carbon. It is made of four chemicals symbolically called A. arose through chance seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God" (Darwin as cited in Bowden.plants. killing all the microbes there. with our conscious selves. and trample on and kill one of them. A protein may have thousands of amino acids in its chain. response was given on the Polygraph test. But today we know more and we can ask more. there was little to no response from the plant. created life accidentally. These bases are arranged in a double helix structure in DNA. Even from days of Charles Darwin. But the struggle for existence means. They were not to tell anyone else that they had done it. however. It was a nice guess. father of theory of evolution by natural selection the problem is neglected.
Miller reported. pumped out the air and replaced it with methane. hydrogen and water. Researchers have concluded that ¢ ¡ . by sending an electric spark through a mixture of gases that they thought existed in early earth. A messenger RNA splits the DNA and the decoding of the DNA code begins and proteins are formed. the water was "deep red and a turbid". By the end of the week. It takes volumes to tell about a single cell.Illust tion of NA A pairs only with T and G only with C. He then heated the water and circulated the gas is past a high voltage electric spark to simulate lightning. ¥ ¦ ¤ £ Miller did not use oxygen in his mixture of gases and it becomes necessary because surely there would have formed no amino acids in presence of oxygen. ammonia." (Jonathan Wells this experiment appeared to show how life began on earth but it has many problems. one strand can be guessed accurately when we have the other one. But nearly all geochemists today agree that early earth s atmosphere had sufficient amount of oxygen. So when the helix is split. This is a layman peep into a cell. He removed some of it for chemical analysis and identified several organic compounds. These included glycine in hand alanine. "Miller assembled a closed glass apparatus in Urey s laboratory. How did this all complex cell evolve In early 1950s Stanley Miller and Harold Urey produced some of the chemical building blocks of life amino acids. two simplest amino acids found in proteins.
the chances of getting the right combination of hundred amino acids by random molecular shuffling are infinitesimal. If miller s experiment is repeated using a realistic simulation of the earth s primitive atmosphere. it is very far away from demonstrating emergence of life. The significance of this phenomenon to molecular biology and origin of life is that. the problems exist as strong as ever! The majority of compounds formed in the experiment are poisonous to life and life could not exist. required amino acids to be formed. L-alanine will rotate the plane polarized light in the opposite direction to D-alanine. but from gases released by earth s own Volcanoes. There is a controversy on how much the amount of oxygen was obtained in prebiotic earth due to photo disassociation. A Typical small protein contains about a hundred amino acids. who has done extensive research in biochemistry. it is not credible to suppose they formed by chance alone. Hydrogen.early earth's atmosphere was not derived from interstellar gas clouds. There were no conclusions other than controversies. If the order is changed even slightly. molecules of identical but mirror image Structures. Dr Awe see eng. which release primarily water vapor. In the case of stereo isomers of the amino acid alanine. If the words of a normal are jumbled up. Clearly. strung together in a specific order as instructed by the gnome. They reached a near consensus that the primitive atmosphere was nothing like the one miller used. Scientists know that ultraviolet rays from sun causes disassociation of water vapor into hydrogen and oxygen in the upper atmosphere. stereo isomers. All of the 10 power 130 ways in which hundred amino acids of 20 verities can be arranged. Mixtures of organic compounds synthesized in Urey-Miller type of experiments always consist of racemic (equal amounts of left and right handed) mixtures. director of clinical research at Singapore general hospital. leaving behind heavy oxygen. Most compounds isolated from natural sources are able to rotate the plane of polarized light a characteristic number of degrees from any specific substance. The situation is analogous to the content of the book. It is interesting to note that even if the experiment is granted the atmosphere it requires. the protein s function may be compromised or rendered totally in-effective. how did they turn to proteins? Popular astrophysicist Paul Davies says "the problem is actually far worse than described." Even if we agree. Biochemical and evidence from rocks were also inconclusive. Certain substances will selectively transmit light rails vibrating only in a specific plane-plane polarized light. nitrogen and trace amounts of hydrogen. Only a minute fraction of all possible word combinations makes biological sense. only an exceedingly tiny subset of combinations will be biologically functional. Even neglecting this. this is called for photo -disassociation. Smithsonian institution paleobiologist Kenneth towe reviewed the evidence in 1996 and concluded that the early earth very likely had an atmosphere that contained free oxygen . it fails. carbon dioxide. They saw no reason to believe that ancient volcanoes were different from modern ones. possesses such optical activity. says ordinary light consists of waves vibrating in all possible directions perpendicular to its path." Amino acids left to . Why biological systems utilize exclusively laevorotatory (left handed) amino acids and dextrorotatory (right handed) sugars remains unfathomable. even if the entire volume of observable universe was filled with primordial soup. Since a functioning cell requires thousands of different proteins. But geochemists soon reached a conclusion on the oxygen issue. nonsense is very likely to result. being light escapes.
but via digital software. life is more than just complex chemical reactions. How did this ingenious coded system evolve? Even though scientists will explain the formation of A T G and C molecules. paint. is now thought to be the first step in origin of life. However. all of these theories must hold to the illogical conclusion that the material used to transmit the information also produces the information itself. So. logic tells me that the information contained within the genetic code must be entirely independent of the chemical make-up. digital television and so on are far more efficient than their analogue counterparts. but a Quaternary coding system to store bits of information. for example. RNA that is used by all living cells in the process of making proteins. For a genetic instruction to be successful there has to be a molecule milieu capable of interpreting the message in the genetic code. As a simple illustration. by using. information cannot come out of thin air Darwinism cuts in only when life has got going. Others argue that external self organizing forces created the first DNA molecule. In fact the clause can be written in binary code. A close chemical relative of DNA. the information house to make proteins from amino acids. However. It is well known that digital computation. The problem of how meaningful or semantic information can emerge spontaneously from a collection of mindless molecules subject to blind and purposeless forces present a deep and conceptual challenge. So another way of looking at the problem of biogenesis is to ask how the molecular hardware wrote its own software. DNA needs the whole suit of complex proteins to make copies of itself and so DNA could not have originated before proteins and could not have been the first step in the origin of life. he says "what about the origin of genetic information itself? Where did the specific bits of information stored in the genome of the first living cell come from? After all. Scientist Paul Davies puts this beautifully. Paul Davies continues "most theories of biogenesis have concentrated on the chemistry of life.e. not a binary. independent of the medium. Genetic instructions are not merely information per se (as arises in. the formation of content of the clause "nature and design" has nothing to do with the writing material used. they have to mean something. or crayons. Life went digital at the dawn of time.react on their own will never make the specific polypeptides chains that life needs. processing and replicating system. Related to this puzzle is the problem of how digital control emerged from an analogue process. There is a great buzz in the scientific community and lots of money is bet on . I. You definitely need DNA. digital data storage and digital cameras. mores code or smoke signals but the message remains the same. Although I am not a scientist. the central process of life-DNA and RNA instructing proteins-takes place not directly through "hard-wired chemical bonds. thermodynamics and statistical mechanics) but represent a form of semantic information. There is obviously no relationship between the information and the material base used to transmit it. Explaining how ink is formed is different from explaining how information is stored with writings from that ink. whether ink. Some current theories argue that self organizing properties within the base Chemicals themselves created the information in the first DNA molecule. chalk. The cell is also an information storing. digital radio. The cell uses digital information to communicate between nucleic acids and proteins. The flow of information from DNA and RNA to proteins via a coded information channel is effectively the way engineers use digital control to boost the fidelity of electronic devices. they are nowhere near to explaining how information evolved. We need to explain the origin of this information and the way in which the information processing machinery came to existence. It is important to realize that a gene is a set of coded instructions for the manufacture of a protein according to precise recipe. we cannot appeal to Darwinian evolution to explain how life began.
to date. RNA!!) into the test-tube. but it is simply put forward as a theory which explains how existing life sustained and changed forms to become human. the design of the universe requires a designer. has demonstrated how RNA could have formed before living cells were around to make it.000. Take a needle and prick the membrane of the cell and leak out all the contents of the cell (including DNA. Do anything. with its several powers. having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one. and that. CHAPTER TWO: EVOLUTION? Just as a watch requires a watchmaker. or better say impossible information system in DNA. drop a living cell into it. take as many as light years of time as you wish. basically." Harold morowitz. appears to be a aware of such problems and ended his most fundamental scientific work. DNA. the origin of species with the following words "there is grandeur in this view of life. organ systems everything adds up to a dead body but where is life? Given any condition can anyone make a well developed dead human body. and are being evolved. whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity. the theory of evolution does not tell anything about the origin of life. declared that odds of any kind of spontaneous generation were one chance in 10 to the power 100. "Ribosome" has a very complex structure and one who knows it cannot do justice to himself when he says that it came to existence by chance . a renowned physicist from Yale University and author of origin of cellular life . argued William Paley. alive? Highly respected Charles Darwin.it! It is a favorite jockey of materialists! But no one.000. No one has ever showed how first life came to exist and even if I can peep into future. organs. and natural . So. Now. and think o f someone explaining how the components of cell can be naturally synthesized. which has a solvent which makes ideal conditions for existence of life. from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been.000. But if we can demonstrate that we are product of a mere blind chance. RNA. tissues. Well known Louise pasture has disproved spontaneous generation with very simple experiments and showed that life comes only from life. proteins. This state is billions of times more life permitting than any imagined prebiotic soup. cells. I will give you a problem that must scratch your head. which of course is at the pinnacle of evolution. Take any kind of equipment you need. including the most improbable. "take a test-tube. Can you bring life from that dead cell? it is impossible! The blob of amino acids. may be that is why Darwin named his book origin of species rather than origin of life ! This theory does not tell anything about the evolution of information in DNA or anything like that.
i. I was again satisfied to have found answer for Behe s argument. It was one small argument that destroyed my well thought atheistic belief. the bacteria must be truly simple . jaw evolution from wild fox to dogs. we now understand that a simple bacterium has a microscopic outboard motor! These microscopic motors can run at hundred thousand rpm (these individual pats come into focus when magnified 50. continue transitional skull forms from ape to human. I consider evaluating this theory quite elaborately. But something was going wrong. a flagellum. "the purpose of purpose Etc. Through 21st century magnification technology. These people are trying to oversimplify the existing thing and gift it to natural selection and label made by the Blind watchmaker . "root of all evil . we don't need God. I felt. variations in pigeons. huge blue whale fossil with two tiny leg bones. With sufficient access to true evidence.000 times using electron micrographs). as I myself believed in materialism due to this theory. nevertheless they can stop at a microscopic dime! In fact it takes only a quarter turn for them to . Though I have showed even this theory to be limited and require an intelligent creator. anyone can make out what is right. and was greatly influenced by Richard Dawkins. drive shaft. The first few organisms like bacteria. these small creators must be utterly simple. So. Darwin's theory. were very much simple and he imagined that to have developed into complex things. Darwin thought. So at the bottom of Darwin's tree of life.e. I am a lay man. that I turned atheist. demonstration of retinal blind-spot. after downloading from a torrent. "the four Horsemen . The similarity in the embryos of different kinds of animals. Anyone can tell a story of how that flagellum evolved. says that natural selection cannot take huge leaps at a time. But I think you need common sense. the very next day I found Kenneth Miller. and a propeller. but science today has revealed so much about the complexity of a bacterium so much that volumes will fill it. "Richard Dawkins" is the name which used to generate a jolt of current in my body! Two years ago I was googling about God and I accidentally found "the God delusion". and 1997 BBC horizon documentary "Blind watchmaker". but there are no evidences for these intermediate stages. no scientist. but it has to take small Progressive steps to reach a "Mount improbable". all were simply astonishing! I then went on to watch the full series of "growing up in the universe". rather than science to evaluate a theory. but it was the day I watched genius of Charles Darwin . So. rotator. a complex structure like an eye cannot evolve in a single step but has to take many intermediate steps. After reading Behe s argument of irreducible complexity.selection. I read few pages of it. God is out of job! We don't have to believe in Him. "the irreducible complexity of bacteria flagellum". if Darwin s theory is true. u-joint. Let's not look at the whole bacteria now. These made my atheistic believes strongest ever. The flagellum consists of 40 different parts including a stator. but briefly look at its motility mechanism. The bacteria flagellum is what propels a bacterium through its microscopic world. explaining evolution of bacteria flagellum in a YouTube video. for evolutionary theory to be true.
natural selection. believe that this extremely bottom element of an insignificant tiny simple bacterium has indeed come by a blind chance. Eastman and Missler) Darwin considered Hackle s drawings of embryos. with my common sense. The bacterial flagellum is only one among many thousands of intricate. thousand times faster than a Cray supercomputer and with more connections than all the computers.stop.000 rpm in the opposite direction!! The flagella motor is water-cooled and a hardwired into a sensory mechanism that allows the bacterium to get feedback from its environment! Even with the 21st century technology and nanotechnology. Jonathan Wells a biologist at Cambridge University has written a book called "icons of evolution". a miraculously efficient hydraulic pump that no engineer could dream of producing? Think of human brain! It's a legitimate computer system. How can we logically explain the random development of complex systems like heart. shift in gears and start a rotating 10. we can't imagine making a micro machine like this. phone systems and electronic appliances on the entire planet. Illustration: heckles embryos . (Creator beyond space. Darwinism requires simplicity to start with. After all we have a sense of "achievement" just by becoming able to magnify and see it. here I will put few of his words in this heckles embryo case and other icons or evolution. but advance in science has shown that simplicity is nowhere for Darwinism to start. well-designed molecular machines. I absolutely give up! I can no more. which show that many class of animal kingdom actually are very same in their embryo stages and Darwin had every reason to believe that one species was descended from another.
cartilaginous fishes."Whether or not heckle was guilty of fraud. reptiles. At the end of cl eavage. Writing in the March 2000 issue of natural history. the cells begin to move and re-arrange themselves in a process known as "gastrulation" it is responsible for establishing the animals general body plan and for establishing the animal s general body plan and for generating basic tissue type and organ system British embryologist Lewis Wolpret has written that "it is not a birth. omitting jawless and cartilaginous fishes entirely. The earlier stages are much different . Furthermore to represent amphibian he used salamander rather than a frog.. which looks very different . . it first undergo spare a process called "cleavage" during which it subdivide into hundreds or thousands of separate cells without growing in overall size. bony fishes. deliberate deception-there is no doubt that his drawings misrepresent vertebrate embryos. marriage. from less than 1 mm to almost 10 mm. he chose only those embryos that came closest to fitting His theory. British embryologist Michael Richardson noted in 1995 that vertebrate embryos vary tremendously in size. When an animal egg is fertilized. Yet a survey of the five classes reveals that this is not the case. Although there are seven classes of vertebrates (jawless fishes. First. yet heckle portrayed them all as being the same size . then the various classes would be most similar during cleavage and gastrulation.. that is. birds and mammals) heckle showed only five. but gastrulation which is truly the important event in your life. Yet only after cleavage and gastrulation does a vertebrate embryo reach the stages which heckle labeled the first ! If it were true (as Darwin and Heckle claimed) that vertebrates are most similar in the earliest stages of their development. or death. a mphibians. Stephan jay Gould noted that heckle "exaggerated the similarities by idealization and omissions" and concluded that his drawings are characterized by "inaccuracies and outright falsification" heckel s drawings however omit the earliest stages entirely and start at a point of midway through development.
as we see them. Look at a few honest statements of Darwin.Illustration: true stages in embryos Fossil records I always wondered. do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature confusion instead of the species being. well-defined?" He continues "but as by this theory. the paintings of transitional forms from ape to humans cemented them! So is this fossil evidence so effective? Darwin himself had problems with his theory and fossil record. innumerable . "firstly. why if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine graduations. why can't we see even a small bird like a sparrow develop even a tiny piece of muscle for better living ? And e every time I got this idea. if evolution is true.
Century and more has passed since Darwin wrote these words. he determined to get the definitive answers from top museums themselves. according to the father of the theory himself. No! This is not the case. natural history vol 5 1997) Read the second point most recent. so. evolution s erratic pace . looking not to any one time. Our museums now contain hundreds of millions of fossil specimens (40 million alone are contained in Smithsonian Natural History Museum). successive. "lastly. If Darwin theory were true.. We can only show few skulls which appear to be transitional forms between fox and dogs etc. confessed. slight modifications. it must happen! What actually do today s paleontologists say about fossil records? Luther S underland saw the problems with the fossil record. The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism. 1) Statis. We see none!! Even the late Stephen Jay Gould. Prof of geology and paleontology at Havard University and leading spokesman for evolutionary theory prior to his death. (Gould. it appears all at once and fully formed.most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. if my theory be true. specie does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestor. now if there is something more than absolute break down. again. so one or two skulls will tell you nothing! When blind chance can produce this wonderful human body. must assuredly have existed why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain. 2) Sudden appearance-in any local area. we should see at least tens of millions of unquestionable transitional forms. but note that Darwin asks for "numberless intermediate varieties linking closely together all species of same group"." He continues. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same when they disappear. The revolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have the data only at the tips and nodes of their branches. why can't the holes in the jaw be due to a blind chance? I thought. my theory would absolutely break down. and this. perhaps is the most obvious and the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory. we may have discovered transitional forms that the theory requires today. Darwin says if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have formed by numerous. and then read what Darwin said.. Carefully note that Darwin says if complex organs existed. numberless intermediate varieties linking closely together all the species of the same group. Sunderland interviewed five respected museum officials. recognized authorities in their fields of study. The rest is inference. the Field Museum of natural . 21st century evolutionist Gould makes. according to Darwin. including representatives from the American Museum. why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of earth?" He concludes the problem saying. however reasonable not the evidence of fossils. "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.transitional forms must have existed. but to all time. what fossil records show is not sudden appearance of organs or organ systems but entire specie! So.
The British Museum of natural history boasts the largest collection of fossils in the world. Gould and American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils . when asked why he had not included a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. I would certainly have included them. in zoology. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The deficiencies are real. Today there is no such thing as the theory of evolution. Ph. Chromosome number two in human genome is found to be that.. senior paleontologist at the British Museum and editor of a prestigious scientific journal. "show a photo of the fossil form which each type of organism was derived" I will lay it on the line-there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. if I knew of any. you say that I should at least. Orangutan and other apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes. they will never be filled." But still. In fact Patterson wrote a book for the British Museum of natural history entitled "evolution". Isaac Asimov. and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to scarcity of material. Though . fossil or living. Paterson responded. and the British Museum of natural history. says "my attempts to demonstrate evolution began experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. So. The fossil record is now complete that it has been possible to construct new classes. Herbert Nilsson. Sunderland interviewed. He was unable to give a single example of macro evolutionary transition." y Are we really great apes? Any proofs for that? 98% of human and ape s genes are same.history Chicago. but where would he get the information from? I could not. the most notorious of which is the presence of gaps in the fossil record. None of the five officials were able to offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that document the transformation of one kind of plant or animal into another. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations. Paterson is a well-known expert having an intimate knowledge of the fossil record. Ernst Mayer and others have presented evolution as no longer a theory but proven fact. we must be able to find a chromosome that is formed by attaching 2 chromosomes. It is the fact of evolution. evolutionist. "Since Darwin.. A famous botanist. Dr Ernst Mayer. it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists. Dr Colin Paterson. Carl Sagan. and a professor at Lund University in Sweden." David B Kitts. common ancestry passes the genetic test.D. So if common descent has to be true.. "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transition in my book . but humans have 23 pairs of them. in an evolutionary trade journal wrote "despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of seeing evolution. honestly provide it and if I were to leave it to artistic license. every knowing person agrees man descended from the apes. head curator of the Department of geology at the Stovall Museum. professor of emeritus of Havard University writes. in humans. N. would that not mislead the reader?.
Michael day. So. and give it a long face. according to this logic give birth to flies! Let us look at genetic evidence and "mutations" in coming pages. See a few ancestors of humans and how scientifically they are 'painted' in our textbooks. according to Lewin. one famous fossil skull. anatomists. I had seen only ape to human transition paintings. Piltdown man was hyped as the missing link in publications for over 40 years. Ram Apithecus was widely recognized as a direct ancestor of humans. age to you on something none of us has seen and so.e. agreement is hard to find in 1995 science writer James Shreve reported that he had "talked to 150 scientists. geneticists. i. Science has revealed Genomic equivalence. walker said. archaeologist. So similarity in genes has very less to do with the similarity in the structures. or you could tuck it in making the face shorter how you held it really depended really on your perception. this theory has very less to do with the existence of God. and if you held it another. we must. there are problems with ape to human evolution. I wondered.. But what if the genes of the fossils were also analyzed and based on the similarity they show.one agrees common ancestry to be true. you could hold the upper jaw forward. yes. But still. if you held it one way. that s what we get from genomic equivalence. It was very interesting to watch what people did with it. but for now let us put genetics aside and discuss fossil evidence. Identical genes do not control an identical characteristic. paleoanthropologists in other words are story tellers. changed its appearance dramatically depending on how the upper jaw was connected to the rest of cranium. not a single photograph of true fossils! Why was that? Jonathan Wells says "the fossil evidence is open to many interpretations because individual specimens can be reconstructed in a variety of ways . geologists. If our developmental genes are so similar to those of other animals. the fossils are reshaped? Arguing on fossils. Far exceed what can be inferred from the study of fossils alone and in fact place a heavy burden of interpretation on the fossil record. however.a burden which is revealed by placing fossils into pre-existing narrative structures. and Richard leaky were studying the two sections of skull 1470 . it looked like one thing. Thus. have the same amount of DNA and the same nucleotide sequence. discovered in 1972 in northern Kenya. Discovery of genes like ultrabithorax in various animals including flies and humans deepens the problems. It is now established that he was merely an extinct type of orangutan. it looked like som ething else. . the genomes of all or most of the somatic cells within a multicellular organism are essentially the same.. we can argue anything. the problem with biogenesis clearly demands a creator. Lewin reports that Leaky recalled the incident too. He was a fraud based on a human skull cap and an . dating experts and sometimes it seemed I had come away with 150 different points of view. Wells continues "when it comes to reconstructing entire individuals or the history of human evolution. Roger lewin recounts an occasion when paleoanthropologist Alan walker. (Paleontologist Missia Landau says ) Themes found in recent paleoanthropological writing . the differentiation of cells does not (usually) involve changes in the nucleotide sequence of DNA.
Homo habilis is now generally considered to be comprised of pieces of various other types of creatures such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus and is not generally viewed as a valid classification. Philip signor and Peter Sadler "the single most spectacular phenomena evident in the fossil record is the abrupt appearance and diversification of many living and extinct phyla near the beginning of Cambrian Fossils of Cambrian period . Australopithecus africanus and others are also considered Homo erectus. "Cambrian explosion . steady of the inner ear. But even human fossils which date exactly to this date are found throughout the world suggesting coexistence. and bones have shown that she was merely a pygmy chimpanzee that walked a bit more upright than some other apes. single celled organisms had to exist. the brain size with a range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that she was just like current Homo sapiens. According to paleontologists James Valenti e. Homoerectus has been found all over the world. only lower class. However. These findings uproot the Darwin s tree of life. skulls. simple. Java man was based on a sketchy evidence of a femur. She was not on her way to become human. skullcap and teeth found within a wide area over a one-year period. Australopithecus or Lucy has been considered missing link for years. a period in the history of earth is considered Cambrian (around 600 to 500 million years away from now) during this period according to the theory of evolution. Stanley n Acuremic. with a proportionately smaller head and brain cavity. is now accepted that the alleged posture was due to disease and that Neanderthal is just a variation of humankind. He is smaller than the average human of today. However. there is a great mystery. Neanderthal man was traditionally depicted as a stooped ape-man. These are serious threat to Darwin's branching tree pattern. It turns out that the bones were found in an area of human remains and now the femur is considered human and the skullcap from a large ape. In addition to all these problems with fossil records.orangutan's jaw! Nebraska man was a fraud based on a single tooth of a rare type of pig. But recent findings have shown that not just multicellular organisms but vertebrates and other higher classes of the animal kingdom existed.
the predictions of evolution require specific types of changes. but the kind of mutations that generally create resistance is totally different from the kind of mutation required to create new things. Therefore despite the great claims that have been made. club feet. bacteria have been described as an excellent model for studying the process of evolution. What is more. does it fails to offer any predictive value to the theory. a mutation (any changes in DNA sequence) of the gene will not break through the barrier of the species of the kind. but Waves of mutations would hit the whole group or colonies. In reality. The genes of an organism carry the code that determines the appearance and the character of that organism. colorblindness.Genetic mutations: driving carts of evolution? Every organism has a set of genes and half of the genes of that organism come from each parent. But few humans in Africa are known to have developed a resistance to HIV. not just individuals here and there. A mutation is basically a gene that has an abnormality in relation to its normal configuration. including antibiotic resistance would fit within this definition. Such transfer of resistance genes is common. And evolutionists almost universally maintained that any change in genotype (or even phenotype) is an "evolutionary change". Accounting for many . ease of laboratory analysis and the wide diversity of laboratory generated mutants that can be obtained. However. bacteria as are known to have developed resistance to antibiotics and 1000s of such benefits are also observed. one means by which bacteria can acquire antibiotic resistance is via horizontal gene transfer of antibiotic resistant genes. any biological change of an organism. Evolution scientists tell us that these mutations happen by the millions and in groups. This accounts to the identity of each individual's genome. hemophilia. it is imperative to question whether acquisition of antibiotic resistance is a valid example of evolutionary change that supports the predictions of evolutionary theory (that is theory of common descent with modification) horizontal gene transfer. As such. Aren't they results of mutations? They are indeed. Acquiring resistance to a specific antibiotic provides a clear benefit to the bacterium when exposed to that antibiotic. evolution is often described simply as change our change in the infrequency over time. Turner's syndrome and 1000s of such tragic afflictions. not just so-called beneficial mutations . any change that appears to provide a so-called 'beneficial' adaptation is commonly seen as a driving force of evolution . In humans they cause Diabetes. This definition does not specify the type of change (such as deleterious versus beneficial). While chromosomes are obtained from two parents. Under the title "is bacterial resistance to antibiotics an appropriate example of evolutionary change?" Kevin Anderson writes "because of their rapid rate of replication. Down s syndrome. and promoting them up the ladder of evolution. Thus. the acquisition of antibiotic resistance is commonly cited as an example of evolutionary change . The combination of the genes causes the variation of individuals within the species. The abnormalities can then be passed to successive offspring. becoming more complex and ordered each time. mutations are extremely dangerous and are creating havoc on the human race and other living creatures. changes in the chromosomes happen and the genetic code allows an overwhelming variety within the species of the kind.
As such. But. With the onset of industrialization. This as I will show reflects great design. Over the next hundred years the dark form of peppered moth became more and more predominant. despite the fact that sickle cell anemia is essentially fatal. While horizontal acquisition of resistant gene is "beneficial to those bacteria exposed to a given antibiotic. not removal of genetic information. however. The crescent shaped abnormal blood cells prevent the symptoms of certain strains of malaria. Another argument used exhaustingly to propound belief in evolution is the story of the peppered moth of Birmingham. through the process of common descent with modification credit it can account for the origin and a diversity of life on earth. The Industrial Revolution in that area brought with it a massive darkening of the bark on surrounding trees. The dark peppered moth was able to blend in better with its surroundings and thus escape its predators. These lighter colored moths eventually reached the point of extinction. A depletion of the gene pool results in a loss of genetic information. A rare dark a form of peppered moth was known to exist. the gene pool progressively depletes to the extent that only dark peppered moths exist in that area. . And so. fever. it fails to provide a genetic mechanism for the origin of any antibiotic resistant genes in the biological world. such gene transfer does not account for the origin of the diverse variety of these genes.examples of resistant bacteria. However it is accepted that the enormous variations within the species of moth allows it to have different shades. usually fatal anemia marked by the presence of crescent shaped red blood cells and by episodic pain in the joints. Upward evolution of one species into another requires an addition of ordered genetic information. the evolutionists grasp on this one mutation from billions to try to show it to be an improvement of the previous. Evolution. The typical cliché used to overkill in support of genetic mutation is the sickle cell anemia. leg ulcers and jaundice. the mere shuffling of pre-existing genes between organism via gene transfer does not provide the Necessary genetic mechanism to satisfy this prediction. In the late 1860s the peppered moth was pale in color. horizontal gene transfer merely involves the transfer of resistance genes already present in the bacterial word. a hereditary. T appears to be a clear his demonstration of natural selection.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?