Thank you!

My job related responsibilities proved to be an obstacle to me to keep up with the rapid pace of this discussion that is spiraling in different dimensions. I am still enjoying the insight and knowledge that it brings to me. There are very good points, which I variably agree and others; somewhat difficult for me to subscribe to. This evening I have the pleasure of reading 3 scholars before writing anything: Farzana, Akber and Rafi. So, here we go again! I do not like to write long but bear it with me if it turns out to be a little long please.

I am not sure what does it mean that I place too much importance on diversity of life forms as “evidence” for theory of evolution. I do not know how much is too much?

I had reluctantly written few opening lines in my last letter. I guess I was right there to point out the basic tenants of scientific approach. May I remind the basic idea of theory of evolution? All that this theory is trying to do is find a logical connection to the existing diversity. So I would think you don’t need to look at it forward like: since diversity exists, hence there is evolution. I would suggest look at it backward: since we see factual data that is diverse; does it point to an evolutionary process or does it support the idea of all species coming into existence de novo.

I also think there is a common misconception about Cambrian age. There are numerous reasons for such confusion. I can, to some degree, hold scientists responsible for that because they use term “Cambrian Explosion” without indicating that the same Cambrian age was the junk-yard of species too. Why explosion? First of all is the definition of Cambrian age. It has been revised many times over and last revision reduced the time span of this age. Therefore, all that was existing at that time seems to have squeezed into a narrow time period giving a misleading impression as if there was sudden explosion.

I can reasonably agree that there was a ‘suddenness’ also (What suddenness – There were millions of years involved) is due to climatic changes in the ecosystem what scientists have attributed to rise in oxygen content of atmosphere. This numerical diversity would also predict that there would be more competition as well and hence “Density dependent extinctions too”. That is precisely why you have a museum full of fossilized species during those times. There is another point there too – Fossilizable. Organisms that were present in pre-Cambrian times did not come to notice up until 1960 (If my old knowledge is correct. Please correct me if I am mistaken there). I think all of the above contributed what we erroneously conclude as some different-kind-of-intervention that lead to an explosion of species. (I do not want to question how & why that intervention did not take place prior to Cambrian age).

There is a suggestion of some mathematical model that would preclude the possibility of evolution from unicellular to human in available time span. I am not aware of that model nor am I a mathematician. If I can get my hands on that model, you bet I will have to get help of my friends to evaluate it. Should it hold true in the face of facts, I will be more than happy to reconsider my ideas about evolution. Where it would lead me to? I do not know. All I can say is that I would take a position on the basis of available facts not myths.

Nevertheless, I want to consider a quick point, which is not a direct answer to the time question of mathematical model but would help point to potential of evolutionary process. Let me take you on a ride to the microcosm of evolution. It will help us understand power of evolution right in front of our eyes:

So, let us study a human β-cell in lymphatic system. A little introduction to it may be necessary. Human β-cell produces antibodies with the help of which we fight against antigens (Pollen, dust, mite and billions of others from bacteria, viruses and fungi etc). There are only 30,000 genes available to meet billions of insulting agents. How does our immune system develop so many receptors to undo such a huge number of antigens? The answer is it ‘evolves’. It mutates in a very short span of time to meet the needs. Does it fail at times? Sure it does and we feel sick with cold. It mutates again and tries to fight again. May be this time it succeeds and we get over cold. (They say there is another way to get over cold. You kiss someone and pass it on). As I said this is not a direct answer to time question of differentiation, but it shows the potential of DNA.

Is there a creator that inculcated such a potential to DNA? May be! but I am not the proponent of that kind of creator. I want you to tell me that. I am all ears. But make sure you answer all my questions that are there on numerous levels of design: Physiologic, anatomical, social and psychological design. The list of my questions and alterations in design that I might propose is just too long. If ever I happened to meet God you bet I will ask all those questions sitting under an apple tree in paradise keeping company of a new Eve and who knows that I enrage God and get kicked out of paradise to who know which galaxy swimming across what kind of abyss of time and all of us meet again and take on this discussion once more. I would say at that time, “Let’s put our heads together and try to find a way to make our existence mutually beneficial”. But until then it concludes what I have to say. I thank you all. Adieu!

Tahir