THERE ARE SEVERAL OBJECTIONS TO NEO DARIN SYNTHESIS.

EVolutionary biologist do try to answer any onjection made on the theories of evolutions. But theores are not theorems that they are the only alternatives with out any second. When ever an objection is made on a given evolutionary theory the believers of the theory either make new theories which are assistent to the theory of evolution or modify the theory. If such a thing is done by NON EVOLUTIONARIST BIOLOGISTS, IT IS DECLAIRED TO BE UNSCIENTIFIC. Theories of evolution are not the only theories to explain different life forms on the planet known as earth. Non evolutionary theories also exist side by side evolutionary theories. It is required to compair eeach and every evolutionary theory by each and every Non evolutionary theory so that one can see the merits and demerits of all the theories belonging to two different sets. How the prooves of one theory are explained by the others. Any how a number of objections to Evolutionary theories are given below. This is not to prove that theory of evolution is certainly false but to shew that it is a theory. If evolutionary Biologists and evolutionary bio chemists have right to defend these objections Non Evolutionary Biologists and Non Evolutionary Biochemists have an equal right to to the same. 1]The theory fails to explain the addition or subtraction of informations in genes. 2]The theory fails to explain the Mechanism and process of Genetic change. 3]The theory fails to explain the first life forms appeared on earth after this earth become suitable for life. 4]The theory weakly explains the existence and appearance of viruses on earth . Also This theory weakly explains R.N.A LIFE FORMS AS WELL 5]the theory makes a weak distinction between the MEGA EVOLUTION and MICRO EVOLUTION. 6]This theory almost deny the REALITY OF SPECIES AND at least denote DISCREETNESS OF SPECIES. 7]This theory assumes Evolutionary species but neither can define nor can explain them properly. 8]This theory weakly explains why did VESTIGIAL ORGANS not disappeared completely from latter species. EXPLANATION With Some more comments.

NOT USING AN ORGAN BY AN ORGANISM CANNOT EFFECT THE GENETIC INFORMATIONS CODED IN THE GENES OF AN ORGANISM IN ANY NUMBER OF ITS GENERATIONS AT LEAST IN GENERAL AND AT MOST IN EVERY CASE.. Vestigial organs are often used to prove the theories of evolutions. But these organs are not strong proof of evolution and evolutionary theories. It is merely to take these organs from evolutionary approach.. On the contrary 1] Vestigial organs means lost in the information about the activity of some organs. This is not Evolution but De/evolution. 2]Evolution demand their complete extinction which some how does not occur up till now. Further one may see how they are explained by Non Evolutionary Theories, before claiming that vestigial organs are the proofs of Evolutionary Theories. Last but not the least if a function of an alleged vestigial Organ is discovered[ how so ever small] the organs must be deleted from the list of Vestigial Organ once for all times. 9]A complete theory require requires two theories as a part. A]Speciation of species, b]genetic mechanism theory. But none of the two theories are complete. Thus the very theory of evolution is incomplete. 10] The theory rejects the possibility of some special and exceptional cases of EXCLUSION. The theory suggests that out of two million cases there is no a single species with a special or an exceptional case, thus somehow claiming the impossibility of any exclusion from the process of evolution. This is too much for a theory of this type. Since it may be the case that there are some cases either special or exceptional or both which excludes the theory. 11]Rate of genetic change is not properly related with speciation rate , and this is a great weakness of the theory. Further this improperness is either weakly explained or is unexplained.. 12]If the theory of Evolution is correct then the theory suggests that the time required for the evolution of all present species should be more then actually is. This mean that the theory is incorrect. The theory either does not explain the problem or explain s it weakly.

13]The factors causing the rapid change in the process of evolution is either weakly explained or is unexplained. 14]The mutations in the Genetic informations cannot be NATURAL since no law of nature known so far causes it. If it is unnatural then super natural laws are involved.t hus the theory become more unnatural and less natural. Since a super natural or a hyper natural or a Para natural law is nothing but an unnatural law. 15] Evolution neglects the two type of features of species. 1]Specific Differentia. 2] Futures which cannot be cited as differentia. The formal does not exhibit any significant change. The latter does shew sequential changes. This implies that the informations encoded in Genes about Genes about Differentia are conserved and external enjoinment cannot change them at least in general if not in all cases. . In other words even if some sort of evolution is true in some cases, it cannot be OVER GENERALIZED. THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS NOT ONLY OVER SIMPLIFICATION BUT ALSO OVER GENERALIZATION, AND UNNATURAL INDUCTION.THERE ARE SOME MORE OBJECTIONS WHICH ARE OF SOME DIFFERENT KINDS AND SOME OF THEM ARE GIVEN BELOW> 16]If there is a species between any two distinct species then the theory implies an infinite number of distinct species between any two distinct species [in the line of evolution]..This is impossible since it requires that there is infinite time which has passed since the earth became suitable for living things. This is unacceptable. If there are finite number of species between any two distinct species [in the line of evolution]such that there is no species between any two consecutive species then this means there is a JUMP OR A LEAP. This means that evolution does unccured in jumps and in leaps. Such jump or a leap is a sudden discrete change. It requires a theory of its own which is a weakness of the theory. 17]The series of Genetic Variations are attempts to be explained by Evolutionary theories. But if any other theory can explain the genetic variation it is impossible to claim the truth of Evolutionary theories. To claim that no other theory is possible and there can never be another set of theories [ at least one] is to claim something without proof. No one can claim the impossibility of a Non evolutionary theory to be proposed for all times past ,present and future.

18]If more than one change were possible in the genetic informations in the genes of a species then there must be some cause for selection of one of them or for not section of other possible changes. But theory cannot explain the cause or causes. T o explain this thing based on POSSIBILITY/PROBABILITY THEORY IS A WEAKNESS.Since it is no solution for any selection. This makes the change of informations as RANDOM,CHEOTIC AND ARBETRARY.This is no thing but a law of chance for an unfair dice or a coin.Since it only means that some possibilities were preferrred just like head or tain is likely to occur for an unfair coin. Ones again the theory fails to explain this unfairness . EXPLANATION A] If there are several POSSIBILITIES for CODED GENETIC INFORMATION to change and out of theses Several POSSIBILITIES Only One Of the Several POSSIBILITIES actualized or occurred then> 1] If each POSSIBILITY had equal PROBABILITY to Occur then this is Just Only a matter Of Chance for the occurred Possibility to occur. 2] If the POSSIBILITY which had occurred Had a greater Probability to occur then than the rest of the Possibilities then it is the unfair genetic code just like an unfair coin or dice. But in this case one has to admit that there is something to prefer one of the several possibilities. The original theory posits that evolution is based on natural selection and genetic changes of informations. If nature has anything to do it has to do with the selection of organism of new kind produced by the supposed evolution. But this nature has nothing to do with the interior changes in the genetic change of informations. But theory of evolution can not explain this sort of inclination of genes towards a particular possibility. It reduces to the case that a possibility occurred just because it was likely to occur. B] If there was just only one Possibility to change then there are two possibilities for any given particular Possibility. That is the Possibility to occur and not to occur. C]If the Possibility to occur and the possibility not to occur both have equal PROBABILITY then again it is just a matter of chance for the only possibility to occur. If it is NOT POSSIBLE BUT NECESSARY then every thing reduces to the claim that a Particular change in the Genetic Informations in Genes occurred because it was necessary to occur. TO CLAIM that the organ modifies as according tithe Envoi mental conditions is a weak claim. Since the appearance of an organ in an organism does depend on the genetic information coded in the genes of the organism. Any mutation in the organ can not be with out changes in the said informations. If there is no change in the genetic informations of the organism there would be no change in the organ of the organism irrespective of the envoirment conditions and independent of use and not/use of the organ by the organism.

Thus this implies that external environment and using not/using of the organ of the organism some how influence the informations or mutation is preceded with reference of certain external conditions and use not/use of the organ. There is no third alternative But none of them can be explained by the theory of evolution. How ever the theorist only propose some sub theories for the and this shews weakness of the original theory. Evolutionary theories consist of two parts. Each part is a sub theory. A] GENETIC TRANSFORMATION. B]Natural selection. To say that some thing is NATURAL means that the thing obeys the LAWS OF NATURE. So NATURAL SELECTION DOES MEAN A SELECTION WHICH OBEYS LAWS OF NATURE.

But Genetic transformation or more strictly MUTATIONS IN THE INFORMATIONS CODED IN GENES OF ORGANISMS is not a Natural Process. If an artificial mutation in the information is possible, this in no way provides an evidence for the claim that it is naturally possible. If it is naturally possible in some species of organisms it can not be claimed that it is Naturally possible in all species and in all organisms. Such Generalizations and inductions are incorrect. The mutation in the informations coded in genes of an organism becomes a matter of chance , a matter govern by the law of chance, and principle of uncertainty and incertitude. In order to refute the accusation the Evolutionary Biologists and Evolutionary Bio chemists propose some additional theories which serve as assistant theories or sub theories. They claim that such changes in informations stated above are chemical or natural or both with predictable results. But there is no such law in chemistry. It is merely proposed by Biochemists of evolutionary minds to defend the theories of Evolutions. In order to examine whether the accusation of law of chance on evolutionary theories is true or it is a false allegation one must discuss it microscopy and minutely. ONE MUST SEE THE FOLLOWING POINTS. 1]if there were more than one possibility for a coded information to change, but out of SEVERAL [POSSIBILITIES only one of them occurred then> I]Either each possibility had equal Probability. Ii] Or the Occurred Possibility had a greater Probability then the rest of Possibilities.

In the former case the ACCUSATION on the Theories Of Evolution Of Obeying Te Law Of Chance is Proved, and the Theories are found guilty of Obeying the Law Of Chance and Principle Of Uncertainty. In the latter case it is something like an unfair coin or an unfair dice. Yet even in this case the law of chance cannot be ruled out with Certainty. 2] If there was only a single Possibility instead of more than one Possibility to change then a Possibility does not mean Necessity. If there was a single Possibility then there are always two possibilities for each Possibility with reference to occur and not to occur. A] If the both sides i.e. To occur and not to occur has equal Probability, then the occur race of the only Possibility is only just a matter of chance and it does obey the law of chance. B] If the probability of To Occur is greater than the probability of Not to occur then in the latter case it is once again something like an unfair coin or an unfair dice. Once again in this case the law of chance cannot be ruled out with Certainty. 3] If there is impossibility for any change then these theories are certainly false and untrue. 4]If there is Natural Impossibility for any change to occur but artificial changes are possible which or caused by rational or intelligent agents then this means nothing but an intelligent or rational artificial change. At this point the Theory becomes very close to I.E. 5] If there is neither possibility nor impossibility but Necessity of change, then it is reduced to a trivial Case that a change did occur because it was necessary to occur. Further I] if it his necessary occurrence is according to any law of nature then this means that the claim is that IT OCCURRED BECAUSE THERE IS A LAW IN NATURE WHICH DOES NECESSITE ITS OCCURRANCE. Such a claim is once again in trivial form is it occurred because it has to occur naturally.. Since to occur naturally means none other than TO OCCUR AS ACCORDING TO LAWS OF NATURE. If the Law of Nature is replaced by any LAW OF CHEMISTRY then it means that it occurred since there is a Law in chemistry that it should occur , and it did occur in obedience of this supposed law. But if Evolutionist have right to propose such a law just to make an apology for the theories of evolution one have equal right to reject and to dispose this law. If such proposed laws or theories can defend such theories then supporters of NON EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES HAVE EQUAL RIGHT TO PROPOSE NEW LAWS AND THEORIES TO DEFEND NON EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES AND THEORIES OF NON EVOLUTION.

Ii] If it occurred without any Law then in trivial form it means that the change was necessary without any law of nature, chemistry what so ever This does means it was necessary even if there was no law for it . It is incorrect beyond any claim and is evolutionary extremism. Further PROBEMS +

if there was no other possibility and only one possibility then this is a greater problem that the theory is based on only one possible change and rest of changes AND CHANCES are impossible In this case ATLEAST one doeth have to ACCEPT willingly or unwillingly that there is a possibility of selection and not selection of a new discrete change.Once again the theory fails to explain why the selection occurred . If it is accepted that the selection of change was not possible but necessary then this means that a particular change DID OCCURRED ONLY BECAUSE IT HAD TO OCCUR.

Thus the apology that the alternations of informations coded in the genes of organism is based on the chemical interaction is weak.

19]New Darwin Evolutionary Theories are inductions. If informations coded in Genes of some species and life forms do mutate such that new species are produced by the process of reproduction [what so ever], then to claim that all species and organisms are produced by the same process is an Induction and a Generalization. Such an Induction or Generalization is not a CERTAIN PROOF BUT AT BEST OR AT MOST IS JUST A PROBABLE PROOF.

OBJECTIONS ON ALLEGED PROOFS OF EVOLUTIONS

CIRCULAR REASONING. Some alleged evidences given in support of Evolutionary theories are nothing but CIRCULAR REASONING.

Events and observations are first interpreted as according to some of the evolutionary theories and then these events and observations are presented as proofs of the theories of evolutions. For example the argument of similrarity is one of them DNA IS FOUND IN ALL LIVING BEINGS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SOME life forms which have RNA INSTEAD OF D.N.A. The similarity of molecules and anatomy and commonness of D.N.A is some time used as an evidence of EVOLUTION. BUT SUCH ARGUMENTS CAN NOT PROVE THE THEORIES OF EVOLUTION AND THEORIES OF EVOLUTIONS. A] THE VERY SAME EVENTS AND OBSERVATIONS CAN BE INTERPRETED AS ACCORDING TO SOME OFNON EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES. THUS THEY PROVE NONE OF THE TWO GROUPS OF THE THEORIES. B] THE BASIC POINT IS MISSED. A THEORY TRIES TOEXPLAIN AN OBSERVATION, MERE AN EXPLANATION IS NOT A PROOF OF A THEORY. IF THERE ARE MORE THEN ONE THEORY AND EACH ONE CAN EXPLAIN THE OBSERVATION THEN THERE ARE PLURALITY OF EXPLANATIONS. THESE OBSERVATIONS AND EVENTS DO NOT PROVE ONY ONE OF THEM. THE ARGUMENT OF SIMILARITY IS VERY WEAK. IF D.N.A IS FOUND IN ALL LIFE FORMS, AND PROTEINS CAN BE VERY SIMILAR FROM BACTERIA TO HUMAN BEINGS THESE TYPES OF SIMILARITY DOES NOT PROVE EVOLUTION. ONE CAN FIND ELECTRONS AND PROTONS IN ELEMENTS SAY H,He,Li,Ba,B,C,N,;,O,,F,Ne...... T,V,Cr,Mn,Fe,..............

Is there any evolution of elements from H to Fe , and so on in the ascending order of atomic numbers of element. The answer is simply that there is no evolution from H to Fe, and from Fe
onwords.No one can say that Mn, and Fe had common ancestors . Even different isotopes of an elemend do not have common ancestors. Similarly we find orbits and orbitals in elements.For example s orbital is common. Does this suggest a common ansestor. Once again the answer is in negative. Web know that elements in the increasing order of atomic number are not evoluted from elements of lower atomic numbers. Aare we to conclude that ,F,Cl,Br,I,At shere some common chemical properties, they are evaluated from one and same ancestor, or they are evaluated from F Are we to assume that He,Ne Ar,Kr,Xe,Rw are evaluated from a common inert gas which is the ancestor of all of noble gases. If evolution is not possible in Chemistry it is not probable at best and not possible at worst in Biol;ogy as well. Any how if one branch of science for non living thing do not accept Evolution then the other branch of science can not take itnas a truth. It may

be noted that Evolution must have some conection and contact with Chemistry since R.N.A and D.N.A are chemicals even if they are living. Are we to assume that H2O2 is an evoluted form of H2O.

IN HARMONY OF OF TWO PARTS OF EVOLUTION There are two parts of evolutions a] Genetic Changes. B]Natural selection. But the Genetic Changes [whether Natural or Supernatural] do not imply Natural selection.. If there is an evolution then it is possible that some of the intermediate species did not survived due to their intrinsic unstablity. Dogma of Evolution actually does not require Natural selection. At best it implies two types of organisms A] stable B] Unstable.

The first one goes on changing or ceases to exist while the second one continues to exist and do not go in evolution. Thus it is a weak theory since the first part is possibly independent of the second. VESTIGIAL ORGANS DO NOT PROVE COMMON ANCESTORS AND EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES. They are first explained from the point of view of evolutionary theories and then they are presented as an evidence of evolutionary theories. These similarity is due to the similarity in designs of unit informations not similiality is due to the dissimilarity of in the stated above designs. No evolution is Necessary and hence no common ancestor is implied. PROBLEM OF MISSING LINGS ARE NOT PROPERLY DEFENDED. Problem of missing links are another weakness of the theory. These links are just suppositions which are not found out of the mind of the supposers. A response by Evolutionary biologists is given as follow. The [Supposed] process of evolution is too slow and a given species does not manifest directly infusible records and in nature. Hence a missing link cannot be found. A SOLID ANSWER TO THIS APOLOGETIC ANSWER IS AS FOLLOW> IF MISSING LINK CAN NOT BE FOUND THEN THEORIES OF EVOLUTION CAN NOT BE PROVED , AT BEST WITH CERTAINTY AND AT WORST NOT AT ALL. ARTIFICIAL MUTATION IT IS ARGUED THAT MUTATIONS ON SOME LIFE FORMS AND GENETIC INFORMATIONS OF THESE LIFE FORMS ARE THE EVIDENCES OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES.

1] SOME LIFE FORMS DO EVALUATE SUCH THAT THEY CAN SURVIVE IN ENVIROMENTS NOT SUITABLE TO NORMAL LIVES BY GAINING PESTICIDE RESISTANCE. 2] NYLON EATING BACTERIA DEVELOPED NEW ENZYMES TO DIGEST A MATERIAL WHICH WAS NOT FOUND IN PAST. THESE ARE EXAMPLES OF AN ARTIFICIAL EVOLUTION AND MUTATIONS. THEY CAN NOT PROVE THE NON ARTIFICIAL EVOLUTION ON EARTH AS ALLEGED BY EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES. NOT ALL ORGANISMS CAN SURVIVE POISONOUS ENVIRONMENTS. THIS ALLEGED PROOF NEGLECTS AND OVER LOOKS NON EXAMPLES. FURTHER IT CAN BE SUGGESTED THAT HIGHER LIFE FORMS CAN NOT DEVELOP RESISTANCE IN KCN AND OTHER SIMILAR POISONS. ALSO SUCH CHANGES ARE WITH IN THE LIMITS OF ORGANISM. THE ISSUE OF EVOLUTION IS FAR BEYOND THAT. THUS AN UNPROVED INDUCTION AND UN EVIDENCED GENERALIZATION. AS FOR THE NYLON EATING BACTERIA ONCE AGAIN THEY DEVELOPED ENZYMES IN AN ARTIFICIAL ENVIRONMENTS. THEY EXPLANATION PROVIDED CAN NOT BE GENERALIZED TO ALL ORGANISMS. NOT ALL ORGANISMS CAN DEVELOP THIS TYPES OF ORGANISM. THIS IS A VERY SPECIFIC CASE AND NEITHER CAN BE INDUCTED NOR CAN BE GENERALIZED. THIS IS TO NEGLECT NON EXAMPLES. IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT NEW INFORMATIONS ARE PRODUCED ARTIFICIALLY IN SOME LIFE FORMS IT CAN NOT PROVED THAT NEW INFORMATIONS WERE PRODUCED IN THE GENES OF ALL LIVING ORGANISM FORMING NEW SPECIES TO EXPLAIN THE VARIETY OF SPECIES. SOME EXPLAIN THAT GEROMES FORM RECORDS OF HOW IT IS POSSIBLE FOR THE ORGANISM TO SURVIVE IN A PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENT. IT GATHER KNOWLEDGE THROUGH THE METHOD OF TRY AND ERROR. BUT THIS MEANS THAT THERE IS SOME INTELLIGENCE AND RATIONALITY IN GEROMES AND IF SO THEN HOW CAN ONE DENY INTELLIGENT OR RATIONAL DESIGN. TO EXCUSE BY SAYING THAT IT IS DONE JUST BY TRY AND ERROR IS EITHER TO USE THE LAW OF CHANCE OR TO ASCRIBE INTELLIGENCE OR RATIONALITY TO GEROMES. EVEN GAINING KNOWLEDGE FROM TRY AND ERROR EXPERIMENT IS A SORT OF INTELLIGENCE IF NOT A SORT OF RATIONALITY. BUT IF SO THEN CAN ENTIRE UNIVERSE MAY BE EXPLAINED BY TRY AND ERROR METHOD. THINGS AR NOT SO SIMPLE. HIS IS OVER SIMPLIFICATION. BUT MAY NOT CLAIM THAT THE ADDITION OF NEW INFORMATION IS IMPOSSIBLE BUT. A] AT BEST NOT ALL BIOLOGICAL SPECIES AND ORGANISM CAN BE EXPLAINED BY IT AND AT WORST IT CAN NOT EXPLAIN ORGANISMS AT ALL. B] IT OCCURS IN ORGANISMS ARTIFICIALLY NEITHER NATURALLY OR SUPER NATURALLY. C] IT IS NOT NECESSARY. IT MAY BE THE CASE THAT NEW ORGANISM WITH SOME ADDITIVE INFORMATIONS APPEARED IN THE PAST WITH OUT THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. SO ONE

CAN NOT ANALOGUE THE EVOLUTION OF SOME ORGANISM TO THEM WHEN SUCH A POSSIBILITY EXISTS. D] IT MAY BE CODED IN THE GENES ON PRIORITY BASIS TO PRODUCE A PARTICULAR ENZYME IN A GIVEN CONDITION. IF SO THEN THIS ADVOCATES NON EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES OF ID AND NID. CONCLUSION IF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST CAN NOT CONCEIVE IN MIND THE NON EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATIONS OF LIVING FORMS ON EARTH THIS IS THEIR PROBLEM . IT IS NOT THE PROBLEM OF NON EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES.