If mutations are rare, how can there be enough new variability for evolution to occur; and if they are harmful, how can a better-adapted individual evolve?
LIFE lives as an indivisible unit whole. It is established by the fact that the characteristics of each species remain firmly preserved in the heredity material of DNA, which exists in the nucleus of each cell of the organism, and the same characteristics without any variations are passed on to the offsprings.
That life lives as an indivisible whole and can never change its DNA characteristics on its own or shift to another life unit can be imagined on the analogy of nucleus of an atom which firmly holds the structure of each element, and cannot change into the nucleus of the atom of another element. Just as the nucleus of a certain atom at the physio-chemical stage, if tampered by artificial means, reacts into a powerful explosion (agitation), similarly at the biological stage of life, the structure of DNA (the central Dogma of molecular genetics), if disturbed or mutilated by chance or due to malfunction at the time of replication, proves deleterious or lethal for the organism.
It reveals that each object, particle or atom at the inorganic stages and each individual at the organic stages strictly preserves it as an indivisible unit whole. Mutation is the result of a very rare mistake, which usually occurs in the DNA molecule while replicating. Mutations are, therefore, very rare; they are unnatural and deleterious. The question is: If mutations are rare, how can there be enough new variability for evolution to occur; and if they are harmful, how can a better-adapted individual evolve?
Biologists define species as a group of individuals all of which can potentially interbred with one another and strictly preserve their distinct characteristics. The following facts establish that nature is interested in preserving each species as an indivisible distinct unit of life:
* No species has ever engendered another species.
* If species are intercrossed, the offsprings are endowed with sterility.
This reveals that nature wants to prevent confusion. If species would have descended by evolving variations very slowly over a long period of time, as believed by Darwin, the animal kingdom would have been littered with intermediate organisms and confused the animal world. It establishes that each species was a sudden and special creation.
Darwin says variations develop slowly and gradually over a long period of time, and most of them become extinct because of lacking fitness and other unfavourable conditions. However, scientific research has shown that fossil records speak of sudden changes. No intermediary or transitional forms have been found in the geological strata. In other words, unbridgeable gulfs exist between the species.
These facts show that no species can ever break on its own the heredity material and change its distinct characteristics. Any change in its individuality is suicidal for it. Hence, the change, if any, must be totally new and sudden from the preceding one. Biologists accept that new species have emerged by a sudden total change in the DNA’s genetic material. They call it Emergent Creation. Even various evolutionists before Darwin, such as Geoffrey St. Hillarie in France and Robert Chambers in Britain, developed evolutionary hypotheses, which stressed that abrupt changes occur during embryological development.
Darwin believed that most of the variations occur due to changes in environment and adaptation of organisms with the climatic conditions prevailing in geographically distributed places, ecological niches, isolated islands, etc. In the first place, it should be noted that the higher life stage which appears at an infinite higher plan of consciousness cannot come down to the values lived in the preceding stages. Whenever the higher stage appears, it comes along with the infrastructure which could have the capability to dominate the fixed behaviour of the whole nature living beneath, and at the same time accomplish highest values of the rational stage.
At the very start of animal stage, amoeba survived not because of its adaptation with the external world. It survived because of its infrastructure, which had been computerized and laid under the higher plan of consciousness which dominated the conscious order of all the nature living outside it. The question is how could a higher life stage adapt the values of the stage which remains fixed at an infinite low and different plan of consciousness.
The higher stage could adapt the values of the lower stages only if it could come down from its higher state of consciousness. But in that case it would not be a higher stage. It would be living at the conscious level of the preceding stage at a higher degree, but not as a higher distinct stage laid on infinite higher plan of consciousness superseding conscious level of the whole nature living beneath. The higher stage cannot make adaptation even under the need of self-preservation, as it is apt to arrest the development of the stage completely.
Nature never tolerates such adaptations, and is apt to annihilate the creation if ever found slumbering or going tardy. Hence, what Darwin calls adaptation is nothing but improvement cleverly made by the higher stage to enable it to dominate without overthrowing the fixed behaviour of the world living outside it, and at the same time freely earn higher values of the stage.
According to one of the fundamental laws of the creative process, the environment, climatic conditions, geographically distributed places, ecological niches and isolated islands, etc, became eternally fixed simultaneously with the start of animal life on it. Hence, it was not the fixed behaviour of environmental conditions that helped evolve steady variations in animals. On the other hand, the fixed conditions of environment created obstacles in the smooth development of life. It was, therefore, the animal which cleverly improved its infrastructure without overthrowing the fixed behaviour of the world living outside it, and earned values of the stage free from impediments.
It is evident from the fact that at the top creative stage, Man has not adapted himself with the climatic conditions and environments, etc. He rather, very cleverly and intellectually, without overthrowing the fixed behaviour of the external world, harnessed those conditions for his own comforts. The real privilege of man is his self-consciousness. Similarly, the real aim behind the creation of the animal stage was the development of sense perceptions and not the development of physical forms. Hence, whatever the external conditions, those could never impede the animal’s innate urge of developing sense perceptions. In this regard, whenever the animal faced serious threats, nature was too ready to strengthen the animal life by emergent creation of species.
We know that under the creative law, simultaneously on starting of a higher creative stage, the forms and values of the preceding stage become eternally fixed. Hence, simultaneously on the start of animal life, all the forms and values of the plants at the vegetable stage became fixed. Similarly on accomplishment of sense perceptions in one of the leading animal species, which served as the physical organism of Man, the creation of higher animal species abruptly stopped and to whatever level each species, including human form had achieved sense perceptions, these became eternally fixed.
In this connection, it is interesting to note that when Darwin was asked that why none of the animals and plants of Egypt have changed during the last three or four thousand years, and have probably remained unchanged since the commencement of the glacial period, Darwin’s reply had been interesting. He argued that no modification in species since the glacial period has occurred because nature preserves the beneficial variations whenever they occur.
Similarly, in Chapter 7 of his theory, Darwin writes: “At the present day, almost all naturalists admit evolution under some form. Mr Mivart believes that species change through ‘an internal force or tendency’ about which it is not pretended that anything is known. That species have a capacity for change will be admitted by all evolutionists; but there is no need to invoke any internal force beyond the tendency to ordinary variability, which through natural selection would give rise by graduated steps to species. Mr Mivart is further inclined to believe that new species manifest themselves with suddenness and by modifications appearing at once.”
Mr Mivart’s belief that unless certain force or pressure for change existed in species, new species would not have emerged with sudden modification was spurned by Darwin as it established the creation of species by God, and demanded that no evidence of this innate pressure for change in species can be established. According to the creative theory, there always existed a strong innate pressure in each higher creative stage to earn and accomplish full values of the stage relative to conscious plan of the stage. Similarly, at the animal stage, great innate pressure existed in each species to accomplish sense perceptions under conscious plan of the stage. Hence, this is strong scientific evidence that the real cause of struggle of each species was the innate pressure to earn sense perceptions in line with those which ultimately animals accomplished in human species.
In our discussion, we have shown that each species has been a special and distinct creation of God. Similarly, human physical species is a distinct species, which is not a direct descendent of any other species. Moreover, since it is the only species in which nature has perfected universality of the sense perceptions in harmonious state, hence human physical species is not only perfect and exalted in all essentials, but is unparalleled in the whole animal world.
Darwin’s concept of nature is vague and shows his ignorance of the creative process of the universe. If we refer to the fundamental laws underlying creation of the universe in successive rational stages, we will find that simultaneously, on sealing of the preceding life stage and starting of a higher life stage on it, the preceding stages become immutably fixed. We give the name of nature to all these stages which become immutably fixed and continue to live with their forms and values beneath each higher stage. The higher stage intellectually and consciously dominates all the creative stages living beneath. Accordingly, the lower stages remain ignorant of the existence of higher rational stages over them. Hence, nature is not something which selects or dominates the higher life processes. Nature exists as a fine creative art with its eternally fixed values beneath each higher rational order.
Darwin’s theory deals with one aspect of nature, that is, animal life stage, which is only a segment of the whole nature we call it the universe. As against it, Engel has tried to establish evolution of the whole universe under classification of lower and higher forms of motion of matter. It is strange that both of these evolutionary theories rest on different hypothesis.
Darwin believed that evolutionary process is gradual and continuous as according to him, nature moves slowly and continuously; it does not make leaps. But contrary to Darwin’s hypothesis, Engels believed that the lower forms of motion changed into higher forms of motion by a sudden leap. Both of these theories, when examined under the fundamental laws of the creative process laid under modern scientific discoveries, proved to be unscientific, unrealistic and merely resting on speculations.
These facts give only a glimpse of the reality as witnessed by the scientific discoveries. It is strange indeed that notwithstanding the scientific discoveries which discard evolutionary materialistic concept of the universe, scientists and non-scientists alike seem to have accepted evolution in a sense a scientific religion and many have bent their observations to fit in with it.
With the introduction of the scientific era, it was hoped that speculative philosophy in the form of hypothesis, such as Engel’s “dialectical” leap and Darwin’s “natural” selection, would no longer be seriously entertained in the scientific field. It is, however, unfortunate that because of these speculative theories, specially since Darwin’s theory (Origin of Species) was published, the humanity for the last one-and-a-half centuries has had to suffer grievously both morally and spiritually.
The time has come when scientists must reconstruct scientific thought under the modern scientific discoveries as laid in the article. These laws, which are open to discussion, may lead us to new vistas and help discard many concepts laid on whims and caprices.
