Thread: Independent Birth of Organisms

I would like to know your opinions on this remarkable theory of Dr. Senapathy. It is an alternative to the modern synthesis and creationism. Senapathy who has studied molecular biology claims a new theory that most of the organisms on the earth developed in chemical pools, thus rejecting the common idea of common descent.

You can read about the theory here:
The Independent Birth of Organisms -- Senapathy


"Dr. Senapathy's theory of independent births has two components: (1) Darwin was only half right, and (2) the primordial pond produced many millions of original organisms, not just one or two.

The part about Darwin causes the most controversy because it takes on the conventional and accepted theory. Darwin incorrectly extended his observations of short-term adaptation and artificial selection to account for long-term "natural selection" of organisms over geological time. He made this leap without any firm evidence of long-term evolution.
The primordial pond (or ponds) produced not just one or two, but millions, perhaps billions of "seed cells" which are analogous to a zygote (a fertilized egg). These seed cells were formed in the pond by the random assembly of: (1) new genes, (2) parts of previously-made viable genomes, and (3) other biochemicals, all of which existed in the pond. Very few of these seed cells grew into viable creatures, and only a few that did were capable of reproducing -- and of surviving long enough to do so. The reused pieces of previously-made viable genomes accounts for the similarities we see today in supposedly "evolutionarily related" organisms."

I have read the linked page. I can see insufficient reason to pursue the matter further. I tend to watch reruns of Last of the Summer Wine for my humour intake.

Do you recognise in yourself a compulsion to be attracted to the unusual? I concede that attacking scientific theories is preferable to blowing up parliament, but is it really the best alternative for your distaste for authority? I'm just curious. If you think the answer is too personal don't bother replying.

I can see insufficient reason to pursue the matter further. I tend to watch reruns of Last of the Summer Wine for my humour intake.

Lets keep the discussion on the theory of Senapthy, fair play you have stated your opinion but you have not explained why you believe that though. What is your problem with his theory? Can you spot out any faults?

Lack of evidence.
Lack of argument.
Lackof understanding.

Originally Posted by forests

I can see insufficient reason to pursue the matter further. I tend to watch reruns of Last of the Summer Wine for my humour intake.

Lets keep the discussion on the theory of Senapthy, fair play you have stated your opinion but you have not explained why you believe that though. What is your problem with his theory? Can you spot out any faults?

We must be wary of the "death of a thousand cuts" strategy, in which one bit of pseudoscience after another is trotted out in succession until the mainstream opponents grow weary of the tedium of debunking an infinity of rubbish. The crackpot then declares victory ("Aha! They've retreated! See? That proves my theory is right!").

By default, the burden of proof must be laid on the claimant, rather than a burden of disproof imposed upon the mainstream. There simply isn't enough time in the world to read, digest and refute point by point each and every crank's writing. Unencumbered by the demands of the scientific method, these cranks can be amazingly prolific. Civilization would grind to a crawl if scientists had to waste their time on this nonsense.

The primordial pond (or ponds) produced not just one or two, but millions, perhaps billions of "seed cells" which are analogous to a zygote (a fertilized egg). These seed cells were formed in the pond by the random assembly of: (1) new genes, (2) parts of previously-made viable genomes, and (3) other biochemicals, all of which existed in the pond. Very few of these seed cells grew into viable creatures, and only a few that did were capable of reproducing -- and of surviving long enough to do so. The reused pieces of previously-made viable genomes accounts for the similarities we see today in supposedly "evolutionarily related" organisms."

If a large variety of very distinct lifeforms existed from earliest times, then that would mean that we should find a large variety of very distinct fossiles from earliest times. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case.
Come to think of it, what is the evidence for this theory ? I saw no mention of any scientific evidence in support of this model anywhere. Instead it says on the linked page :

Since evolution has been widely accepted for 130 years, there has been no incentive for any contrary principles to be researched or discussed, unless it
supports the prevailing theory.

Apart from this being plain wrong ( there was a very heated discussion when Darwin's book was first published, and to a degree there still is so far as Intelligent Design is concerned ), this sounds much like a pseudoscience claim. If you present proper scientific evidence in support of your model, then people will be willing to discuss it.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Apart from this being plain wrong ( there was a very heated discussion when Darwin's book was first published, and to a degree there still is so far as Intelligent Design is concerned ), this sounds much like a pseudoscience claim. If you present proper scientific evidence in support of your model, then people will be willing to discuss it.

In support of what you are saying Markus, it was more complex than this. There was, indeed, heated debate after publication, but within a decade the theory had gained widespread support and acceptance. However, with the remergence of Gregor Mendel's work at the turn of the century and the discovery of mutations, Natural Selection fell out of favour. Supporters faught a battle with the mutationists for three decades until Haldane and Sewell, Dobhzansky and Mayr, and Simpson developed the Modern Synthesis. In short it took almost eighty years of research and debate for Darwin's theory to be fully accepted within biology. Those who claim otherwise are simply wrong, but what a wrong it is.

Originally Posted by John Galt

In support of what you are saying Markus, it was more complex than this. There was, indeed, heated debate after publication, but within a decade the theory had gained widespread support and acceptance. However, with the remergence of Gregor Mendel's work at the turn of the century and the discovery of mutations, Natural Selection fell out of favour. Supporters faught a battle with the mutationists for three decades until Haldane and Sewell, Dobhzansky and Mayr, and Simpson developed the Modern Synthesis. In short it took almost eighty years of research and debate for Darwin's theory to be fully accepted within biology. Those who claim otherwise are simply wrong, but what a wrong it is.

Thank you John, some very interesting background information here. This only corroberates my view that the OP's assertion is wrong.

Since evolution has been widely accepted for 130 years, there has been no incentive for any contrary principles to be researched or discussed, unless it
supports the prevailing theory.

This comment on the website is not wrong, it is correct. The above user John Galt starts talking about natural selection, yes theres always been a debate about the role of natural selection in evolution, eclipse of Darwinism was a period for more than 40 years when proponents were advocating everything from othogenesis, vitalism, directed mutation, neo-Lamarckism to replace or downgrade natural selection. This is well known and Dr. Senapathy is well aware of this.

However alternatives to evolution are automatically shunned becuase the majority of people only know of one alternative intelligent design, and ID and creationism have no scientific basis. Lets not confuse Senapathy's theory with any form of creationism. The theory of Senapathy is perfectly natural.

It might help if you read this website. Genome Data Proves False the Theory of Evolution, New Theory Shows Complex Animals and Plants Originated from Prebiotic Chemistry

Dr. Periannan Senapathy, president and scientific director, said "genomics has shown that evolutionary mechanisms believed to have created the diversity of life on earth are fundamentally flawed. Many scientists have now come out openly and said that the current theory of evolution cannot work. The theory offered is an entirely new worldview that fits perfectly with the genome data."

Using modern genomics, Dr. Senapathy and his team’s work, showed how the abundance and diversity of life on earth originated directly in the prebiotic environment.

Research shows that modern genome data completely uproots the evolution model. It fully supports Senapathy’s theory of parallel origins of genomes that led to numerous complex life forms en masse directly from prebiotic chemistry. His theory shows how all of life’s complexity originated right from the primordial pond, without any need for the origin of the primitive bacterium-like microbe that had to evolve into all life forms on earth through laborious, untenable genetic mutations.
Dr. Senapathy’s theories are called the Random Sequence Origin of Split Genes (ROSG) and Parallel Genome Assembly (PGA). According to Dr. Philipp Simon, a geneticist and professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, “The ROSG/PGA model will result in nothing less than a paradigm shift in biology.”

Furthermore, “a critical mistake of the theory of evolution was the assumption that completely distinct organisms could evolve from one common ancestor,” Dr. Senapathy said. “This idea failed to address that no absolutely distinct gene and therefore, organism, can ever be evolved. Several analyses demonstrate that the vast number of split genes simultaneously assembled into numerous genomes, and then gave rise to distinct organisms in the prebiotic pool. Unlike the theory of evolution, ROSG/PGA is in accord with molecular, morphological and fossil data.”

Senapathy has also published three publications in nature:

In his own words in one of his comments

"When the genome project was initiated, one of its objectives was to study the details of evolution. Contrary to expectation, the genome details went against the model of natural selection, and in fact against the premise of evolution itself. The genome organization revealed by comparative genomics is astonishing, unexpected and unprecedented to biologists. It was a tumultuous road for scientists, initially one of shock, then denial, and now reconciliation.
Two key mechanisms have been suggested since the Modern Synthesis as the fundamental drivers of evolution: 1) adaptive Darwinian natural selection and 2) neutral, non-adaptive genetic drift. These are thought to be responsible for the evolution of the root stock genes present in the presumed first organism into slightly changed genes in evolving organisms, which eventually resulted in morphologically distinct organisms across the biota. This model was expected to have resulted in the structured organization of genes, proteins, genomes and proteomes among life forms that formed the basis of phylogenetic analysis for the past 60 years. Sequence redundancy across life forms was hailed to be the essence of this evolution.

LBE predicts that slightly changed versions of the root stock genes from the common ancestor should exist in all life forms. In contrast, entirely new genes coding for completely unique proteins are found in organisms without any trace in expected ancestors. In addition, genes are found in organisms on entirely distinct and distant branches of the tree in a random manner with no evolutionary connections. A mosaic distribution of genes – a fraction of common genes, a fraction of unique genes and a fraction of randomly shared genes – is found throughout the biota. This random mosaic distribution of genes revealed by the past few years of comparative genomic analyses is completely antithetic to LBE.

Modern genome data have now exposed the critical mistakes in the LBE expectations. I have listed many key findings from comparative genomics that have now become conundrums to LBE in the accompanying papers in Nature Precedings. Many scientists have stated how the two key foundations of evolutionary biology cannot account for the genome structures, and I have detailed a few of their observations below."

Origin of biological information: Inherent occurrence of intron-rich split genes, coding for complex extant proteins, within pre-biotic random genetic sequences : Nature Precedings

One user on this thread said there is no fossil evidence for independent origins, he obviously has not looked at some of the evidence.

The ROSG/PGA concept is supported by the fossil record. I had shown in Independent Birth of Organisms that strong evidence exists right here on earth for at least four different pre-biotic sources (Burgess, Ediacaran, Tommotion, and Cambrian) from which complex life forms originated. Each of these geological periods would have had prebiotic pools of genetic sequences (a minimum of one microgram to one milligram) that led to entirely distinct sets of life forms, since different sets of random sequences would have led to different sets of organisms. Just as in the Cambrian explosion, the other three ponds resulted in unique, fully-formed life forms that appeared abruptly without any precursors before their times (5, 6). Only Cambrian life survived while others became extinct. Finally, ROSG/PGA specifies that life forms with fundamentally distinct morphologies arose from distinct genomes in the prebiotic gene pool, organisms with similar morphologies and genomes, but whose genomic and morphological differences cannot be explained by organismal evolution originated from prebiotic modifications of prototypic genomes, and organisms that have basically the same morphology and genome may have arisen through organismal micro-evolution. New research will reveal which organisms arose through each of these three mechanisms.

The ROSG/PGA concept is supported by the fossil record. I had shown in Independent Birth of Organisms that strong evidence exists right here on earth for at least four different pre-biotic sources (Burgess, Ediacaran, Tommotion, and Cambrian) from which complex life forms originated. Each of these geological periods would have had prebiotic pools of genetic sequences (a minimum of one microgram to one milligram) that led to entirely distinct sets of life forms, since different sets of random sequences would have led to different sets of organisms. Just as in the Cambrian explosion, the other three ponds resulted in unique, fully-formed life forms that appeared abruptly without any precursors before their times (5, 6). Only Cambrian life survived while others became extinct. Finally, ROSG/PGA specifies that life forms with fundamentally distinct morphologies arose from distinct genomes in the prebiotic gene pool, organisms with similar morphologies and genomes, but whose genomic and morphological differences cannot be explained by organismal evolution originated from prebiotic modifications of prototypic genomes, and organisms that have basically the same morphology and genome may have arisen through organismal micro-evolution. New research will reveal which organisms arose through each of these three mechanisms.

Interesting - perhaps someone with more advanced knowledge of the topic at hand can comment on this ? I am only familiar with the big picture, but the specifics of molecular biology are outside my area of expertise.

We musr certainly concede a misinterpretation of the OP. The fault lies on both sides:

Since evolution has been widely accepted for 130 years

The strong implication is that the author is refering to Darwinism, or a derivative of it. A more clearly phrased statement would have avoided this implication. On the other hand the statement clearly says evolution has been accepted for 130 years, a point I should have picked up on. My observations about controversy over the role of Natural Selction are confirmed and expanded upon by Forests, so at this point we are on the same ground.

Before turning to specifics of forests riposte there are a couple of thoughts I had previously that may be relevant:

1. Many biologists have considered the possibility that life may have arisen more than once, but that only a single form survived to be the ultimate common ancestor. So there is nothing new in Senapathy's suggestion of more than one initial life form.
2. Early, so-called simple prokaryotes were around for a billion years or more before eukaryotes with their nuclei and organelles came on the scene. It is well recognised that horizontal gene transfer (HGT) among prokaryotes is commonplace, then and now. Some of the evidence Senapathy might use to argue his case I suspect could also arise from such HGT.

I challenge the statement "However alternatives to evolution are automatically shunned becuase the majority of people only know of one alternative intelligent design, and ID and creationism have no scientific basis."

Alternatives to evolution are not developed because a) there is powerful, self consistent, multiply validated, cross discipline theory that does the job, and b) there is no telling evidence for, or meaningful mechanism, as an alternative.

Forests claims Senapathy's hypothesis may be such a beast. I am willing to entertain the possibility, but retain a high degree of scepticism.

Forests you state very clearly that "Senapathy has also published three publications in nature". He has not done so. He has three papers in Nature Precedings. This is not the same as having them published in the prestigious, peer reviewed journal Nature, arguably the premier science publication in the world. These papers were not subject to peer review. Perhaps this was just a careless slip on your part. I hope so. The alternative calls into question the ethics of your approach.

To properly address the details raised in these three papers, which are available by drilling down through the first link, will take some time and possibly more expertise than I have. I hope to return to them later. Meanwhile I can address the misleading references to four different pre-biotic sources. These are neither so distinct, nor so lacking prior forms as Senapathy argues. He seems to have fallen victim to the attraction of terms like Cambrian explosion and stuck with the early (now refuted) interpretations of Burgess and Ediacaran fauna that were, indeed, bizarre. Details to follow.

I'm just wondering what happened to the guy, Periannan Senapathy. He hasn't published any science in 25 years and from what I can tell, never put through these new ideas to peer review.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

I'm just wondering what happened to the guy, Periannan Senapathy. He hasn't published any science in 25 years and from what I can tell, never put through these new ideas to peer review.

It looks like he went into business - he is the scientific director of Genome Life Sciences, a company that develops DNA sequencing technology.

all organisms come from chemical pools... would that not win by Occam's razor? how complicated is common descent ?

Originally Posted by forests

how complicated is common descent ?

In my family, at least as far back as the 14th century, according to records, its been quite simple - and certainly in my generation quite good fun.


P.S. I see you have completely ignored my points raised in post #11 where I refuted several of your points and questioned your 'style'.

For John Galt. This OP saved my goose. Saved me from a mauling. I was ready to post a thread on this very topic. I had not one scientific fact to support my ramblings on why I thought that evolutionary mainliners were barking up the wrong tree. Nor was I going to jump in the Intelligent Creationists band wagon. I was merely going to postulate that all different Specie and Flora were designed for Planet Earth by 7th year High School beginners who had been set this very Project while attending Biology Classes on the COSMOS MOTHER SHIP. The resulting Genetics and assembled DNA Duplexes were than tipped into these primal soups to develope and colonise our lovely Planet. So your Ancestory, John Galt, thanks to my research and hypothisis and vivid imagination, extends further back than you realise. westwind.