One could easily be forgiven for thinking that life bears little connection to rocks. From high-school science curricula to Wikipedia, the institutional separation of geology and biology seems as ingrained today as when the 18th-century Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus first distinguished animals, vegetables, and minerals. After all, what could be more different than a fragrant rose and a cold chunk of granite?
Minerals are usually defined as naturally occurring inorganic substances that combine to form rocks. Until recently, many geologists assumed that most rocks had been around since the origins of Earth, well before life formed on this planet. Even ‘biominerals’ such as calcite and apatite, which organisms secrete to form shells, teeth and bones, are merely recent examples of very ancient and rather common non-biological materials. No wonder, then, that when I asked my PhD adviser if I should take a biology course as a capstone to my graduate studies, his response was: ‘Why? You’re a mineralogist. You’ll never use biology!’
For more than 20 years, my career flourished in blissful ignorance of microbes and mollusks, teeth and bone. But my perceptions changed a bit in 1996, when I began to research the origins of life. Four decades earlier, the US chemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey had performed their famous simulation of Earth’s earliest years by mixing water (ie, oceans), gases (the atmosphere) and little sparks (lightning) in order to generate the basic biological building blocks. Minerals weren’t part of the Miller-Urey experiment – their amino acids and sugars formed perfectly well without crystals cluttering up the reactions. But as the decades passed, the assembly of those building blocks into more lifelike macromolecules – such as proteins and DNA – proved difficult. And so theorists gradually brought minerals such as quartz-rich beach sand, shiny iron pyrite and fine-grained clay into the story. They said these minerals helped to select, concentrate and assemble small molecules into bigger molecules, while protecting the more delicate bio-bits from the ravages of Earth’s hostile early environment. Now, almost everyone in the field agrees that mineral variety is essential to biogenesis, which means life and rocks have been together since the very beginning.
Life is thought to have arisen in the Archaean aeon, some 4 billion years ago, when Earth was blanketed by a thick noxious atmosphere tinged orange with hydrocarbon smog. The seas and the land were both barren then, and the raw materials of life – water, air, rocks – were bathed in lethal ultraviolet radiation. The planet’s surface was marred by a steady stream of violent volcanic eruptions, asteroid bombardments and icy comet impacts. How could that alien, volcanic, comet-battered globe produce living molecules? The story is that minerals – quartz, pyrite, clays, and the like – must have provided the safe, shielded environments that spawned life. But for this theory to be true, those critical life-triggering minerals had to have been present when life first formed. Recent discoveries indicate that planetary mineralogy evolves, and that some minerals took a billion years or more to appear. How can we know that the crucial ones were around way back then?
Earth’s near-surface mineralogy has changed radically in both diversity and distribution during its 4.5 billion year history. And we now know what caused these radical changes: basic chemistry, physics and, most surprisingly, biology. We also know that these general principles apply to the trillions upon trillions of rocky planets and moons that exist throughout the cosmos. This new evolutionary perspective is detailed enough to let us travel back in time, to the formation of the first minerals in the universe. We know that no minerals could have formed right after the Big Bang, for the universe was much too hot, and there weren’t enough mineral-forming elements around. Almost nothing except the gaseous elements hydrogen and helium could have existed then. Nor did any minerals form inside the first stars, which were too hot to support solid crystals.
But when those first stars exploded a few million years after the universe’s birth, their expanding remains cooled, allowing carbon atoms within them to condense into diamonds, and a few other kinds of minute crystals, which are called the ‘ur-minerals’. Perhaps a dozen mineral species emerged, including graphite (a form of pure carbon that’s used as pencil ‘lead’), corundum (most familiar as ruby and sapphire in its coloured forms), and moissanite (a tough compound of silicon and carbon that’s often used as a cheap substitute for diamond gemstones). These ancient species of crystals still fall to Earth today in the form of microscopic interstellar dust, left over from the great nebula that formed the Sun and planets more than 4.5 billion years ago.
The driving question behind mineral evolution is how vast quantities of dust, composed of the original dozen ur-minerals, were processed and reworked to yield the thousands of different minerals on Earth today. All of Earth’s chemical richness – what we enjoy today as iPhones, skateboards, automobiles, flat-screen TVs, and countless other toys – was sequestered into those primordial dust grains, but in trace quantities. All but a dozen of the 80 or so chemical elements that make up planets were impossibly dilute, constituting only a few atoms in a million, or a billion, or even less. Barring some remarkably efficient concentration processes, the chances of those rare chemical elements clumping together to form separate, distinct mineral species were vanishingly small. To have the mineral diversity we enjoy today, the rocks that make up Earth needed to experience a number of interventions.
The inevitable conclusion – one that has shaken the mineralogical community to its core – is that most minerals arise as a result of biological processes
For Earth’s first half-billion years or so, life played no role in mineral evolution, for there were no living cells on its harsh and desolate surface. The earliest pulse of mineral novelty occurred before planets, when the primitive Sun began to flare, sending plumes of refining fire outward into the nebular disk of dust and gas spinning around it. The original 12 ur-minerals melted and remixed to generate 60 species, followed by another 100, which emerged when gravity clumped dust and gas into larger and larger planetesimals. Heat, pressure, and water transformed crystals into new forms, and collisions between rocks produced impact shocks that led to even more mineralogical novelty.
As Earth grew larger, dense iron-nickel metal sank through a mantle of rocks to form the planet’s core. Around this great bulk was an outer crust made primarily of black volcanic basalt. Having sorted itself into onion-like layers, Earth boasted a near-surface environment relatively concentrated in dozens of rare elements. Disproportionate amounts of the lightest mineral-forming elements hydrogen, lithium, beryllium and boron were peppered throughout this outer shell. Metal ores of copper, silver, zinc and gold; radioactive elements such as uranium, thorium and radium; key elements of life, including phosphorus, sulphur, nitrogen and carbon – all enjoyed unusual concentrations in Earth’s evolving crust.
Early Earth became an engine of mineral production, thanks to the water on its surface, the heat in its deeper layers, and the rock-recycling system of plate tectonics. These, and other physical and chemical processes, combined to form 1,500 different minerals. That’s a sizeable sum to be sure, but today we know of 5,000 different minerals species. What created the remaining 3,500 minerals, which comprise the vast majority of mineral species? The inevitable conclusion – one that has shaken the mineralogical community to its core – is that most minerals (two out of three, in fact) arise as a result of biological processes.
The co-evolutionary story between rocks and life began 4 billion years or so ago, when the planet had only rocks, air and oceans to work with. The origins researchers that followed Miller and Urey’s heady success soon realised that air and oceans aren’t enough to create life, no matter how lightning-filled the sky. Only with the addition of carefully selected minerals will simple, nonliving biomolecules concentrate and combine in complex biologically useful ways. The earliest microbes were ‘chemolithoautotrophs’ – a fancy name for cells that get their chemical energy from minerals, in order to make their own biomolecules from scratch. Microbes accelerated the breakdown of unstable minerals such as iron, sulphur or carbon, earning a tiny energetic boost in the process.
The rock-eating microbes transformed the Earth’s surface, but not nearly as much as the Great Oxidation Event (GOE), the single most dramatic event in Earth’s mineral evolution. Evidence from chemical and physical changes in Earth’s rocks places the beginning of the GOE at about 2.4 billion years ago. That’s when photosynthetic microorganisms that used the Sun for energy and manufactured oxygen as a by-product began to flourish along coastlines that were rich in eroded mineral nutrients. Oxygen is a dangerous, corrosive gas, which mounts a chemical attack that alters most rocks and minerals, transforming them into new ‘oxidised’ forms such as rust. More oxygen in the ancient atmosphere meant more erosion, leading to more nutrients, and even more oxygen-producing algae. This feedback loop has continued to play out in near-surface environments for more than 2 billion years, creating more and more mineral diversity.
Take copper, for instance. Before the GOE, it’s hard to identify more than about a score of likely copper-bearing minerals. But, today, more than 600 different copper minerals have been catalogued, including all the gorgeous blue and green ones such as azurite, malachite and turquoise. Hundreds of minerals combine copper, oxygen and other elements in ways that could not have happened before the evolution of photosynthesis. Life is likewise responsible for more than 90 per cent of the 200-plus known minerals of uranium, as well as the great majority of minerals of nickel, cobalt, molybdenum, lead, arsenic, carbon, sulphur and numerous other elements that readily react with oxygen. Only a living planet could display such mineralogical fecundity.
Life arose from minerals; then minerals arose from life. The geosphere and biosphere have become complexly intertwined, with numerous feedback loops driving myriad critical natural processes in ways that are only now coming into focus. Photosynthetic microbes created new pathways for making novel minerals of uranium and copper; now, those new uranium and copper minerals provide environments for specialised kinds of microbes, which in turn are instrumental in forming new ore deposits. The rise of atmospheric oxygen was accompanied by a decline in CO2, leading to a decrease in the ocean’s acidity, which fostered the formation of limestone reefs, which provided stable new environments for more photosynthesis. The oxygen produced by photosynthetic microbes also led to the formation of the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere, which blocked the Sun’s harmful ultraviolet radiation, allowing life to populate shallow coastal areas.
For more than 2 billion years, virtually every facet of Earth’s near-surface environment has displayed the intimate interplay of life and rocks. Indeed, geologists now vie with each other to produce the most novel twists in this epic love story between rocks and life. It has even been suggested that plate tectonics – the grandest of global-scale phenomena, by which continents shift while earthquakes and volcanoes alter the landscape – could be influenced by life. Microbial weathering greatly enhances clay mineral production, and enhanced production of slippery clays has ‘lubricated’ down-going plates of rock and accelerated tectonic events – at least, that’s how the story goes. A lot of geologists think that idea is wacky. After all, plate tectonics and non-microbial clay production have been around for billions of years. But such hypotheses reveal the extent to which the new co-evolutionary mindset is shaping the thinking of today’s geoscientists.
Subscribe to Aeon’s Newsletter
Earth has transformed many times, from a black and blasted land of volcanoes, to a blue water world, to an oxygen-rich globe with rusty red continents. Yet no transition was more dramatic than the greening of the planet, and the rise of the terrestrial biosphere, which began about 650 million years ago, when a global glaciation came to an end and explosive growths of photosynthetic algae boosted atmospheric oxygen from perhaps 1 per cent to near-modern levels of 20 per cent. More oxygen meant a reinforced ozone layer, which shielded the barren continents from those burning ultraviolet rays, making it safe for life to migrate onto dry land.
The first land plants had tiny roots, commensurate with the shallow soil of their homes. But those diminutive roots accelerated the breakdown of rock, creating deeper soils that taller plants could then colonise, with longer and more intrusive roots. In a span of only about 40 million years, vegetation on land evolved into 50-foot tall plants and giant, treelike fungi, all rooted in soils that ran 20 foot deep. Those plants would go on to seed clouds, increasing rainfall and altering erosion patterns, providing still more niches for plants. They also created a robust and vital base for a food web that quickly expanded to include insects, amphibians, dinosaurs, and eventually, us.
Saving ourselves will require a deeper understanding of the strange, twisty relationship between rocks and life
Earth’s ongoing mineral evolution reveals anew the uniqueness of our planetary home among the planets of the solar system. Tiny Sun-baked Mercury and our bone-dry Moon have relatively restricted mineralogy, comprised of fewer than 300 mineral species. Warm and wet Mars progressed only a little farther along the pathway of mineral diversification – certainly no more than a few hundred different mineral species. Earth’s unique inventory of 5,000 mineral species is a testament to the rich possibilities that arise when the geosphere and biosphere co-evolve.
As we look back on Earth’s storied 4.5 billion-year history, it’s natural to wonder if we are living in a new era in this co-evolutionary saga. Our modern age is characterised by wildly accelerated feedbacks between life and rocks, with a special emphasis on a single organism: Homo sapiens. During the past 10,000 years, humans have begun to alter many of Earth’s near-surface geochemical cycles – with open-pit and strip mining, agriculture and the use of fertilisers, the levelling of forests and the construction of cities and roads, the armouring of shorelines, the damming of rivers, the production of myriad new chemicals, and the ever-accelerating burning of fossil fuels.
These shifts within the Earth system are radical, even when set against geological time scales spanning millions of years. And while we won’t be able to anticipate their consequences for some time, we had better try. After all, the Earth will continue to evolve as a dynamic living world whether or not our species survives. But saving ourselves will require a deeper understanding of the strange, twisty relationship between rocks and life, a relationship that sustains the only home we have ever known.
Syndicate this Essay
BiologyDeep TimeEarth ScienceAll topics →
is a research scientist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington’s Geophysical Laboratory and professor of earth science at George Mason University. His latest book is The Story of Earth (2012).
Biology literally means “the study of life”. Life Sciences attempts to untie the living things mysteries from the working of protein ‘machines’, to the growth of organism from a single cell to the majesty and intricacy of whole ecosystem. Questions about life sciences are as diverse and fascinating as life itself like; how a single cell knows to build up complex organism? How interpretation of genetic information takes place?
How the properties of organism are affected due to gene mutation? How ecosystem changes due to climate?
What can human genetic variation tell us about the history of human evolution and migration? Evolution is the change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every biological organization level. All life on earth shares a common ancestor known as the last universal ancestor. In the mid-19th century, Charles Darwin formulated the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection, while in the early 20th century the modern evolutionary synthesis integrated classical genetics with Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection through the discipline of population genetics. Evolution is a cornerstone of modern science, accepted as one of the most reliably established of all facts and theories of science, based on evidence not just from the biological sciences but also from anthropology, psychology, astrophysics, chemistry, geology, physics, mathematics, and other scientific disciplines, as well as behavioral and social sciences.
2. Theory of evolution on Earth
Today life diversity on earth is the result of evolution. On Earth life began at least 4 billion years ago and it has been evolving every year. In the beginning all living things on earth were single celled organism, after several years multicellular organism evolved after that diversity in life on earth increased day by day. Here in the figure shows the history of life on earth (Fig. 1).
Timeline for history of life on Earth.
DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is the double helix structure shown in Fig. 2. Its duplicate copies have coded information coiled up in almost all of the 100,000,000,000,000 (one hundred trillion) cells in your body. In human DNA has 46 segments; 23 segments received from father and 23 from mother. Each DNA contains exclusive information that determines what you look like, your personality and how your body cell is to function throughout your life.
Depictions of Saturn, DNA, and the Ark.
If one cell whole DNA was uncoiled and stretched out then it would be six feet long. Its detailed structure could not be seen due to its thin structure even under electron microscope. If all the coded information from one cell of one person were printed on books then it would fill a library of four thousand books and if the whole body DNA were positioned continuously, it would extend from here to Moon more than 500,000 times. If one set of DNA from each individual who still lived were placed in a pile, the final pile would weigh less than an aspirin.
3. Generic information
Different Scientists gave different information about genetic evolution like; Carl Sagan who showed by using simple calculation that how one cell’s value of genetic information approximates four thousand books of written information while volume of each book would have 50 cubic inches (Sagan, 1977). 1014 cells are present in each adult individual. About 800 cubic miles have been worn from the Grand Canyon. According to that if each cell in one individual’s body was reduced to four thousand books then they would fill the Grand Canyon 98 times.
From earth the moon is 240,000 miles. If the human cell DNA were prolonged out and linked, it would be more than 7 feet long. If the entire DNA in one individual’s body were located back-to-back, it would enlarge to the moon 552,000 times.
The weight of DNA in human cell is 6.4 × 10−12 g and almost less than fifty billion individuals lived on earth, if one copy of DNA from living individual were taken it is enough to define the physical characteristics of all those inhabitants in microscopic aspect and would weigh only, which is less than the weight of 1 aspirin.
6.4 × 10-12 × 50 × 109 = 0.32 g
According to Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, biochemical systems are exceptionally composite, so much so that the possibility of their being shaped from side to side haphazard shuffling of simple organic molecules is remarkably small, to a position certainly where it is inertly different from zero (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1999). Life cannot have a random beginning, like monkey’s troops thundering on typewriter could not be able to produce Shakespeare work. For the realistic cause entire visible universe is not vast adequate to hold the essential monkey hordes, essential typewriters, and surely the baskets for waste paper required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for the living matter.
The simple truth is not mentioned by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe that even a few correct words typed by monkey’s hordes would decompose long before a whole sentence of Shakespeare was completed. In the same way, a small number of correct amino acids sequences would decay long before a protein was completed, not to point out that thousands of proteins must be at their proper place in a living cell. At last the most composite condition of all is the occurrence of working DNA (Vogel, 2001). They also state that our intelligence must reflect a vastly superior intelligence, even the tremendous idealized limit of God. They also believe that life was created by some intelligence somewhere in outer space and latter was transported to the Earth. All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it (Storz, 2002).
As Murray Eden reported that it is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic opinion, then the randomness assumption is greatly improbable and a sufficient scientific theory of evolution has to wait for the finding and clarification of new natural laws like physical, physico-chemical, and biological (Eden, 1967). I. After clearing up the above to a scientific symposium, Hoyle said that evolution was similar with the possibility that “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.
According to Ohno’s likable term is junk DNA that traps and no doubt dispirited a generation of researchers from studying the huge amount of important “junk” DNA that did not code for proteins (Ohno, 1972). This study made an insightful point that if all the DNAs of human, mice and other organisms were useful then after so many mutations that build up in hundreds of millions of years then those species become extinct.
In different species non coding DNA differs more as compared to protein coding DNA. If we find a particular protein coding gene in human then we find nearly the same gene in mice and that rule just does not work for narrow elements. The biggest mistake in the history of molecular biology is the failure to recognize the importance of introns (Mattick, 2003).
In transcription regulation, replication, RNA processing, translation and protein degradation non coding RNAs play an important role. Recent studies show that non coding RNAs are more important and abundant as compared to those initially imagined. The term junk DNA which is used is the reflection of our ignorance, non gene sequence also has their regulatory role (Birney, 2012).
Fig. 3 shows that macroevolution would need a rising change in the complication of definite traits and organs while the microevolution is involved only in horizontal changes with no rising complications. Most of the creationists agree that natural selection occurs but it does not result in macroevolution.
Macroevolution vs. microevolution.
Today, the most accepted theory of life on Earth is evolution, and there is a vast amount of evidence supporting this theory. However, this was not always the case. Evolution can be described as a change in species over time. Dinosaur fossils are significant evidence of evolution and of past life on Earth. Before taking into consideration that how life began, first of all we understand the term organic evolution. It is naturally occurring and beneficial change that produces rising and inheritable complication. If the offspring of one form of life had a different and improved set of vital organs then this is called macroevolution, but the microevolution does not increase the complexity. By one or more mutation only size, shape and color are altered (Taubes, 2009). Microevolution can be thought of as horizontal change, while macroevolution would involve vertical beneficial change in complexity. So the combination of microevolution and time will not produce macroevolution. Evolutionists have the same opinion that microevolution takes place. Since the start of history a minor change has been observed. But become aware of how frequently evolutionists give confirmation for microevolution to hold up macroevolution. It is macroevolution which requires new abilities and rising complication, resulting from new genetic information and is the center of the creation-evolution argument (Maher, 2012).
4. The key parts of the theory of evolution
- • Charles Darwin’s observations and how they support the theory of evolution and the idea of natural selection.
- • The role of natural selection in adaptation.
- • Characteristics of micro evolutionary and macro evolutionary processes.
4.1. Top 5 misconceptions about evolution
4.1.1. It is just a theory
In everyday language theory’ might mean a hunch or a guess. For scientists theory refers to a well supported explanation.
Scientific theories and scientific laws are often confused.
*Evolution – The observation that organisms, including plants, bacteria and even molds change over time- depends on theory for explanation.
*The most well know theory of evolution is the theory of natural selection.
4.1.2. Fittest survival
Is this accurate for Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection?
Fact 1 – Population tends to remain stable.
Fact 2 – Organisms reproduce more offspring than could be supported.
Interference 1 – Not all the offspring live long enough to reproduce.
Fact 3 – Resources are limited
Fact 4 – Individuals within population differ in individuality.
Fact 5 – Inherited characteristics are more.
Interference 2 – There will be differential survival and reproduction.
This is Natural Selection.
Interference 3 – Over time these differences will shift the makeup of the population.
This is decent with modification. Evolution will occur.
*‘Fit’ organisms will live & thrive to pass their genetic material to the next generation.
*Fitness depends on reproducing & ensuring the survival of population rather than strength, speed or length.
4.1.3. Humans descend from Apes
*Evolution holds that all life on Earth share common Ancestry.
*Decent with modification means that human are unique as species, and we share many characteristics with other species.
*Primates share 90% DNA sequence identity with humans.
4.1.4. No one was there and It cannot be Proven
*Scientists operate like detectives.
*With a few pieces of evidence about an event the investigator searches for clues that would legitimize or refute a claim.
*Where is the support evidence coming from?
Evidence of evolution
Bones and fossils.
Comparative anatomy and physiology.
Journals publish evidence
*Before publishing, a journal will send a manuscript to other scientists who review and critique it.
*Peer review process often rejects manuscripts because there is not enough evidence to support the claims of the author. Science publishes less than 7% of submissions.
*This level of organized skepticism is unique to Science.
*Scientists become famous for overturning ideas and expanding paradigms.
4.1.5. Darwin was wrong
*Darwin lived in a different time. He constructed the theory of Natural Selection from observing the finches in the Galapagos Islands and many other species across the world.
*Genes was an unfamiliar term to that world.
*Cells were seen but not manipulated.
*Darwin’s mechanism continues to unify all biology – a contribution comparable to those of Newton or Einstein.
*Today we define evaluation as changes in allelic frequency over time.
*If we map different forms of genes (alleles) of a population and after a few generations the frequency changes, evolution has occurred.
*This description is the best to date that captures the over-changing living world.
*There are still many questions to ask and answer.
*How do genes play a role in producing the features of organisms?
*Why do mutations accumulate with different rates?
*How do we protect our crops if pests evolve?
*Evolution does not explain what started life, only how it persists, adapts, and changes.
*Life need only begin once for evolution to occur.
4.2. The origins of life
In the process of evolution a series of natural changes cause species to arise, familiarize yourself to the environment, and turn out to be extinct.
Evolution = Change
By the process of biological evolution all species originated. The term species refers to a group who can reproduce their fertile offspring. Scientist classify the species with two scientific name first is genus name and second is species name like humans referred as Homo sapiens. In populations, there are variations or differences between individual members because of the variety of genes (alleles). Examples are skin color in humans, coat color in foxes. When there is a change in genes inherited from parents to offspring in different proportions then evolution occurs. These variations in genes arose for either (1) recombination of alleles when they sexually reproduce or (2) mutations.
Mechanism of evolution occurs by different ways
Recombining genetic material can happen in three ways.
Crossing over during meiosis.
Combining egg and sperm when fertilization occurs.
Mutations are usually neutral or harmful. Sometimes they can be beneficial if the environment is under a state of change.
Point mutation – In this there is change in a single base pair in DNA.
Frame shift – a single base pair is added or deleted from DNA.
Chromosome mutations – mistakes that affect the whole chromosome.
Deletion mutation – chromosome segments break off and do not reattach itself à new cell lacks genes carried by the segment that broke off.
Duplication or insertion mutation – Chromosome segments attach to a homologous chromosome that has lost the complementary segment. Result one chromosome carries two copies of one gene.
Inversion mutations – A segment of chromosome breaks off and then reattaches itself to the original chromosome backwards.
Translocation mutations – A chromosome segment attaches itself to a nonhomologous chromosome.
These variations lead to adaptations. Adaptations are traits that aid a population’s chance of survival and reproduction (Hoyle, 1981).
A single individual does not change by the result of evolution, while it causes the change by inherited means of growth and development that are specified for a population. When the parent inherits these changes to the offspring then they become common in that population and as a result offspring inherit those genetic characteristics for probability of survival, capability to give birth which will work until the environment changes. Eventually, the genetic changes can modify a species overall way of life, like what it eats, how to grow, how it can live. As new genetic variations in early ancestor population’s preferential new abilities to become accustomed to environmental changes and so altered the human behavior causes the human evolution (John, 2007).
Science should forever support conclusions on what is seen and reproducible. So what is observed? We see variations in lizard and birds. If macroevolution occurred in between forms they never as fossils.
An alert viewer can typically see astonishing discontinuities in these claimed upward changes, as well as in the drawing above. From the time of Darwin, different excuses made by evolutionists that why the world and our fossil museums are not spilling over with intermediates. Evolution is a scientific theory in biological sciences, which explains the emergence of new varieties of living things in the past and present. Evolution accounts for the conspicuous patterns of similarities and differences among living things over time and across habitats through the action of biological processes such as mutation, natural selection, symbiosis and genetic drift. Evolution has been subjected to scientific testing for over a century and has been again and again confirmed from different fields.
Peer review under responsibility of King Saud University.
- Birney E. vol. 307. Scientific American; 2012. pp. 82–90. (Journey to the Genetic Interior). [PubMed]
- Eden, M., 1967. Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian evolution as a scientific theory, mathematical challenges to the Neo-Darwinian interpretation of evolution, p. 109. [PubMed]
- Hoyle F. Hoyle on evolution. Nature. 1981;294:105–110.
- Hoyle F., Wickramasinghe C. Biochemist. 1999;21(6):11–18.
- John M. Encyclopaedia of humble DNA. Nature. 2007;447:782–790.[PubMed]
- Maher B. The human encyclopedia. Nature. 2012;489:46–48.[PubMed]
- Mattick J.S. vol. 289. Scientific American; 2003. pp. 49–50. (The Unseen Genome: Gems among the Junk). [PubMed]
- Ohno S. So much ‘Junk’ DNA in our genome. The Brookhaven Symposium on Biology. 1972;23:366–370.[PubMed]
- Sagan C. Ballatine Books; New York: 1977. The Dragons of Eden; pp. 190–200.
- Storz G. An expanding universe of noncoding RNAs. Science. 2002;296:1260–1280.[PubMed]
- Taubes G. RNA revolution. Discover. 2009:47–52.
- Vogel G. Why sequence the junk? Science. 2001;291:1184.[PubMed]