True frogs… Ageing… False theories…

New research shows, in contrast to expectations, ‘the rapid global range expansion of true frogs was not associated with increased net-diversification.’ (1)

And the examples of problems in the current evolution theory (Theory of Evolution – ToE) do not end here. As Charles Darwin explained, natural selection results in the fittest individuals for a given environment surviving to breed and pass on their genes to the next generation. The more fruitful a trait is at promoting reproductive success, the stronger the selection for that trait will be. In theory, this should give rise to individuals with traits which prevent ageing as their genes could be passed on nearly continuously. Thus, despite the obvious facts to the contrary, from the point of evolution ageing should never have happened. This evolutionary contradiction has been debated and theorized on since the 1800s. And no theory up to now has been able to explain why we age. (from an evolutionary perspective).

The hypothesis of antagonistic pleiotropy (AP) of George C. Williams tried to give us a rational explanation for how ageing can arise in a population through evolution. Williams proposed that natural selection enriches genes promoting reproductive success but consequently ignores their negative effects on longevity. And he postulated that this is only true when those negative effects occur after the onset of reproduction. Essentially, if a gene mutation results in more offspring but shortens life that’s fine. This is because there can be more descendants carrying on the parent’s genes in a shorter time to compensate. Accordingly, over time, these pro-fitness, pro-ageing mutations are actively selected for and the ageing process becomes hard-wired into our DNA. The process of autophagy seems to be such a process which offers some benefits while at the same time promoting the… death of the organism. (2)

READ ALSO:  Religion and Science Unification in Arabic – توحيد الدين والعلم – من أجل علم ديني

It is said that one counter-example is enough to change a theory. And the true frogs question basic, fundamental parts of current theory of evolution. The existence of genes promoting our death also questions fundamental axioms of the renowned biology theory. The question why are those age-provoking mutations selected if they promote death is left unanswered – no matter how much the scientists dealing with the theme want us to believe the contrary. Just describing a mechanism (how these mutations promote aging while also offering some benefits) does not mean that we have explained the why these mutations fit in the greater picture of ToE. And it is fairly exciting to see a man thinking through everything except the things which oppose his beliefs in such a blatant way…

The proponents of ToE do forget one basic characteristic of every scientific theory: That they are made and designed by humans. And it seems that the evolution theory is not made to evolve…

Counter examples do not flourish. Or bare offsprings.

Because they die before reaching adulthood.

The environment of the ToE is not suitable for them.

So no matter what the evidence are…

No matter how many counter-examples we discover…

Still, the theory stays as is.

Dinosaurs still exist.

Just look around.

No, not outside the window.

But inside the book which say they don’t.

At the end, not everything can die.

But only those which had once upon a time been alive.

Comments (


%d bloggers like this:
Verified by ExactMetrics