I had a crush with the machines in Antarctica, machines drilling ice down the earth’s throat across the crust to recover ice that was frozen several thousands of years prior to now. Scientists try and separate the air bubbles that get caught in this recovered ice. These air bubbles serve as an infallible source in determining the quantity of carbon dioxide in air when these bubbles got trapped.
It’s really amazing to see how scientists work on fossils, how they try to squeeze in every last micro piece of information from recovered fossils. Unlike English language, DNA is a word that is limited in its choice of letters to 16, more so DNA is further crippled with an additional constraint of a threshold set by nature i.e. DNA is a word with no more than 4 letters. Simple mathematics tells us, DNA can’t make more than 64 words (technically words are ‘codons’). These 64 words between themselves share 21 synonyms comes as no respite to the all burgeoning plight of DNA in voicing out. The 21 meanings that all these 64 words share between themselves in a DNA dictionary are technically called amino acids. 21 such amino acids strung together form a protein. Proteins are in turn strung together, thousands or millions of these proteins strung together make a distinguished DNA.
This is just the tip of the ice berg. DNA shows an incredible predilection in replicating itself, aided perpetually by its design. (Cut the DNA into two across its length, you will be staring incredulously at two pieces with an overwhelming similarity.) Journey of replication begins in embryo of the mother. Different cells at different parts of the embryo replicate in different numbers albeit in harmony to the entirety eventually forming limbs, head and other body parts. As the embryo grows, so does the number of DNA (technically, DNA replications precede embryo growth, in fact all the mutations and replications spearhead the growth.)
A good analogy: DNA is like fire in its replication. Fire once started, keeps replicating itself, forming itself (fire) perpetually, provided the supply of carriers doesn’t come to a halt. This analogy which best served the scientists in explaining evolution, they would themselves agree doesn’t even come closer to explaining the incredibly faster rate of replication in the realm of DNA.
DNA is the fire, we (living beings) are the carriers. But, there is a catch. What started the fire(or DNA) ? Forest fires come as no surprise to us. Dried leaves, scorching sun, unbelievably demonic winds serve both as the catalysts in perpetuating fire and also in starting the fire. No. Evolution unlike forest fires can’t be based on unsupportive claims, unseen and pure chance based observations. Evolution can’t be conjectured, not because it’s liable to critical judgment but because it’s beautiful, it’s gradual, it’s incremental and it’s quite painfully slow.
For our convenience, imagine cutting DNA across its length (convenience, because this imaginative feat can both in its implementation and its furtherance is absurd.). What we now see are two RNAs.RNA unlike DNA is not supported in its design for replication, but shows no sign of reluctance in mutations. There is no 20% RNA formed, 50% RNA formed, whatever is formed is 100% RNA formed, because even 1 protein chain (amino acids strung together forming proteins) shows an unbridled courage and indomitable spirit in getting mutated. So, all that’s needed for this forest fire (DNA) is one protein chain (RNA), and there is no force in nature that has shown any sign of overpowering DNA and stopped it. That’s just evolutionally incorrect and demeaning to consider.
Well, how did the first protein form? I seek your indulgence in letting me take you on a time machine, lets travel back in time, 5 billion years prior to now. Only carbon was in its pure form in atmosphere. Oxygen which boasts to have claimed the building base on which all the human beings stake their dear life was in its reduced form (as nitrous oxide, and other oxides that you can come up with). Conditions on land were neither appropriate nor supportive for a single protein to form. As is expected, the first protein formed in the heart of the sea, what made it? Carbon, water, ultra violet radiations from the sun and of course the amiable hospitality of the sea. Why then? Why not before? There is a simple explanation to this. Earth (15 billion yrs old now) took first 10 billion yrs to cool down and carbon present in the atmosphere along with earth took 10 billion yrs to escape into its pure form. There is a catch again? Why didn’t oxygen escape into its purest form before carbon did? Chemical structure of oxygen has an answer to this. I won’t go into the details though, suffice to say, oxygen demands for hot environment to escape out from its reduced form, which brings us to the next step in evolution. Amoeba (unicellular) and other multicellular aquatic plant forms inhaled carbon dioxide and exhaled oxygen. Oxygen was a mere by product exhaled out of the first living forms on this planet. Oxygen was poisonous for those first living forms on our planet. Soon, some of the living forms outplayed the poisonous effects of oxygen, first such living form being green bacteria. They first succeeded in battling the effects of oxygen, not to mention the generations of green bacteria that made the endeavor only to finally relent to the omnipresent poisonous gas oxygen (DNA learning from its mistakes mutated and replicated conveniently to battle oxygen so the next generation would be more capable in battling oxygen, the next still better and so on). This green bacterium later evolved into inhaling the poisonous oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide. Why? Because evolution is all about making the most from the prevailing conditions. Genes (or DNA) in the green bacteria figured out that the living forms inhaling carbon dioxide outnumber the living forms inhaling oxygen (technically zero, when green bacteria figured this out) and so undeniably green bacteria would stand a better chance in evolving if they had to battle oxygen or inhale oxygen for that matter. So they did. This audacious endeavor paid rich dividends to the form of life on this planet.
It’s really amazing to hear people refusing to accept the theory of evolution staking their frivolous arguments on the powers of observation of zoologists and archaeologists. These arguments have invariably made the gentlemen studying evolution apoplectic. This controlled indignation led them into prescribing a zoological treatise in the history of our planet. Evolution doesn’t happen by chance, it’s a labyrinth of gradual, selective and incremental mutations and replications of the genes.
Explanation: The tale of green bacterium has a certain attached significance in the history of our planet. once the first protein formed in the sea, single cellular life forms with the aid of sunlight and water (these being the only resources available back then) evolved into multicellular forms (chloroplasts). Chloroplasts were the first multicellular life forms that made their food with the aid of photosynthesis. For the first 500 million yrs, chloroplasts served as the basic building blocks for all the life forms. With the advent of life forms(green bacterium) that had the nerve to inhale the poisonous gas oxygen, things began to take a different path. It must not be inconceivable to the readers in learning that it took another 500 million yrs (approx) for the micro organisms (those relied on metabolism) to evolve into sponges, jelly fish and later into other aquatic forms.
I would like to imagine metabolism powered life forms preceding photosynthesis powered life forms on our planet. Well, that’s outrageous, egregious and preposterous, nevertheless a good way to end one’s life in the ‘insitu’ stage. Let me throw light upon the paradox of oxygen letting carbon precede it in escaping out into the purest form. Scientists have insurmountable evidence to believe that carbon once escaped into the pure form combined to form complex carbohydrates, providing sustenance for the formation of chloroplasts which eventually trapped more sunlight thereby increasing the temperature on our planet clearing ground for oxygen to escape from its reduced form. Well, if temperature is the only rationale behind this, why then did oxygen show unreasonable reluctance in escaping out while the planet was hot enough. Well, this did happen, except of course was not granted a decent welcome, because what use is oxygen without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. A single protein would have immolated itself in the presence of free oxygen rendering it virtually lifeless until of course carbon escaped later heating the atmosphere on our planet (remember the ice age, planet got cooled down inexorably) and making it more amenable to the life forms.
Evolution unlike religion answers questions rather than ascribing the answer to the powers of an imaginative, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient god. I will illustrate this briefly. Why female and male? Ask the advocates of religion, you would invariably end up turning insensitive to their replies. ‘son, don’t ask questions relating to god? Its blasphemous.’
Many microorganisms are just organisms, neither male nor female. For our convenience, lets deal with mammals. A female lays eggs, feeds and takes care of the infant.. why does a female need a male for? Female is limited in its ability to reproduce. A female can lay only limited number of eggs in its life time, more so the female invests all its resources in these limited eggs. Certainly, the genes in the female body are not pleased to learn that in their attempt to find themselves in the next generation, they are not acting wisely. A lot is at stake if for the reasons unfathomable, eggs don’t hatch or if eggs are eaten up by predators. Evolution answered the predicament with the creation of a gene pool i.e. male and female. Male unlike female had sperms ( several times smaller than eggs) and male unlike female was not limited in its ability to produce sperms. A typical male produced sperms outnumbering eggs in several thousands and millions. Female in return to the favor of creating, expected the male to invest equally in the child (by taking care of the child, protecting it from predators). One might argue that a male has nothing to gain from this. Hell no. Genes in the body of a male would find themselves in many other bodies of the succeeding generations. let me throw some light on a potential paradox here. Evolution could as well see through the large number of unnecessary males (a typical male has virtually infinite sperms compared to the limited eggs of a female) by retaining only the most capable males and discarding those unnecessary males .Genes in these potential possibilities for discarding bodies would anyways not find themselves in the next generations considering no female would mate with an incompetent and weak male, because genes in the female body would obviously want to make child bodies that are competent and strong, as only these children would stand a chance in mating, producing more bodies, there by making more carriers for the genes. Imagine an unbalanced gene pool inclined towards the females (more females, less males). There would be no reason for any male to take care of every child he has with every other female as the balance is tilted in favor of the males. This results in disparity in the investments by a male and female on the child. Evolution sees through this imbalance and the gene pool is always balanced. Gene pool cannot for the same reasons be unbalanced with gene pool inclined heavily towards males (more males, less females), because then there would be more males with no chance of mating and the genes in these bodies would never find themselves in the next generations.
Isn’t this beautiful. The quasi existential idea 'God' unlike Charles Darwin failed to deliver on his promises. Idea 'God' has served it's purpose in fostering a sense of communal harmony among people, but this imaginative faith started backfiring quite some time back. History tells us those tales. I would love to believe in a china tea pot circling round the earth. If god can exist, so can my tea pot and oh well a saucer.
To quote a famous writer "if one person suffers from delusion, its called insanity, if many people suffer from delusion, its called religion"
Idea 'God' is a misfire of our species and I believe that evolution would see through all these delusions or in other words the carriers of this delusion. This delusion killed more people and its absurd effects outnumber the ugly and pretentious advantages.
To quote another famous author "God is a highly imaginative, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, misogynistic, infanticidal, patricidal, genocidal, pestilential, capricious and malevolent bully."
Comments