Genome Research Refutes Evolution!

Periannan Senapathy sena at genome.com
Thu Feb 23 09:44:12 EST 1995


	First, let me thank the moderator of the sci.bio.evolution 
forum for posting my message and for setting the record straight:  
that I am not a creationist. Certainly I am not.

	In fact, I have been a staunch admirer of Darwin for a
number of years.  I was extremely interested in the question of
how the very first ancestral living cell, considered to be the
mother of all life on earth, had originated from inanimate matter. 
There was a big gap between the findings of chemical evolution
and the origin of the first genes and the genome of the simplest
possible living cell.  I was so deeply interested in this question
that I intensely studied the problem of the origin of genes using
computer simulations at NIH.  Once I worked out how the genes
and the genome of the simplest possible living cell could originate
from the primordial soup, I realized that evolution theory was
unnecessary to explain the origin and diversity of organisms on
earth.  The very same mechanism that could explain the origin of
the first cell could indeed explain the origin of not only many
single celled organisms, but also many multicellular creatures
directly and independently in the primordial soup.  It is the
eukaryotic genes and the eukaryotic cells that are far more
probable than the prokaryotic genes and cells.  Thus my theory
offers a mechanism as to how the genes and genomes of not only
single-celled organisms but also multicellular organisms  -- with
widely varying anatomies -- could originate directly in the
primordial pond.

	Regarding the name calling and derogatory remarks:  I
can certainly understand why some people are angry and
indignant.  Having been a staunch evolutionist myself, I could
have been easily on your side -- instinctively thinking that any one
opposed to the theory of evolution must be either a creationist or,
at the least, stupid.  I am certainly not surprised nor angry.  I
simply invite people to take an objective look at the new theory.  It
has been formulated purely based on systematic scientific research
of several years and of sound methodologies.  I am confident that
you’ll finally agree that even in the face of apparent proof for
evolution -- the presence of similarities in gene sequences and
protein sequences among distinct organisms and apparent
similarities in the biochemistries and cellular machineries -- that
the theory of the independent birth of organisms does work to
explain the scenario of organisms, rooting all their similarities to
the common pool of genes in the primordial pond and to other
explainable fundamental phenomena.

	Concerning the objections of some people, presumably
from the paleontology quarters, that I am a molecular biologist but
not a paleontologist:  Yes, of course, it is true that I am a trained
molecular biologist, and that I have no formal training in
paleontology.  But once I got the idea that basic evolution theory
was wrong and that the independent origins of numerous creatures
from a common pool of genes in a single primordial pond was the
answer, I took advanced courses in paleontology to understand the
field further.  I have studied paleontology since then, now for
more than a decade, and find that the basic fossil record (e.g. that
numerous distinct creatures originated suddenly and
simultaneously in a geological instant:  the phenomenon termed
Cambrian explosion) supports my theory strongly.  I challenge
any paleontologist to offer a genetic mechanism that could bring
forth all these numerous unrelated organisms in a such a short
span of time.  Please note that Stephen J Gould and Niles
Eldredge themselves say that traditional evolution theory
obviously fails to explain the Cambrian explosion, and have
proposed "punctuated equilibrium".  But, again, this does not
offer a genetic or molecular mechanism, and, in fact, it does not
work when scrutinized at the gene level.

	The question of life’s origins is truly a multidisciplinary
one:  encompassing many fields including molecular biology,
statistics & mathematics, paleontology, and zoology.  I also
studied zoology, including invertebrate zoology, and found that
there are indeed numerous distinct organisms that are totally
unrelated.  Please note that zoologists themselves conclude that
these creatures are unrelated, except that they have to say that
these unrelatable creatures must have somehow evolved from one
another, merely to fit the evidence to the prevailing evolutionary
paradigm.  

	Again, I thank you for this opportunity to present and
defend my new theory.  I hope this post will encourage a more
thoughtful debate, and I look forward to responding to your future
comments.

Thanks for your time,

Periannan Senapathy

http://www.fullfeed.com/genome/




More information about the Mol-evol mailing list