Michael Cremo - Human Devolution - A Vedic Alternative To Darwin's Theory

The actual replication of a DNA strand is carried out principally by the polymerase enzyme, which binds itself to the DNA strand. The polymerase is attached to the original DNA strands by a ring of “clamp proteins.” There is a complex system of proteins that loads the ring onto the DNA strand. A special kind of RNA starts the replication process by linking a few nucleotide bases together forming a short chain of DNA. The polymerase then continues adding complementary nucleotide bases to the

3 prime end of the new chain. For example, if on the original DNA strand there is a G base the polymerase adds a complementary C base to the new strand. The adding of nucleotide bases takes place at the “replication forks,” the places where the two original DNA strands are pushed apart (Behe 1998, p. 188).

As a replication fork moves along one strand from the 5 prime end to the 3 prime end, the polymerase enzyme replicates this strand, called the leading strand, continuously. DNA can be replicated only in this direction, toward the 3 prime end. But the two DNA strands that make up a DNA double helix face in opposite directions. So how is the second strand replicated? While the polymerase enzyme is replicating the leading strand in the continuous manner just described, moving always toward the leading strand’s 3 prime end, it simultaneously replicates the second, or lagging strand, in a discontinuous manner, adding groups of nucleotides to its new complement in the opposite direction. The process starts with a short segment of RNA, which serves as a primer. A few nucleotides are then added to this piece of RNA, going backwards towards the 3 prime end of the lagging strand. After adding these few nucleotides going backwards, the polymerase replication machinery is unclamped and moves forward and is reclamped at the new position of the replication fork, which is continually moving toward the 3 prime end of the leading strand and away from the 3 prime end of the lagging strand. The polymerase continues replicating the leading strand by adding more bases to its new complementary strand going forward and at the same time continues replicating the lagging strand by adding to its new complementary strand another set of bases going backwards. To the lagging strand’s new complement, the polymerase adds another piece of RNA primer and a few more nucleotides going backward until they touch the previous set of RNA primer and nucleotides. Each set of nucleotides replicated on the lagging strand’s complement is called an Okazaki fragment. To join the new Okazaki fragment to the previous one, a special enzyme has to come in and remove the RNA primer between the two fragments. Then the two Okazaki fragments have to be joined by an enzyme called DNA ligase. Then the polymerase replication machinery has to be unclamped, moved forward to the replication fork, and clamped again. The process proceeds until both the leading and lagging strands have replicated completely (Behe 1998, p. 191). There is also an elaborate proofreading system that corrects any mistakes in the replication process.

Behe (1998, p. 192) notes: “No one has ever published a paper in the professional science literature that explains in a detailed fashion how DNA replication in toto or any of its parts might have been produced in a Darwinian, step-by-step fashion.” The same is true of thousands of other complex biomolecular structures and processes found in humans and other living things.

Neural Connections in the Brain

J. Travis (2000c) says, “The developing human brain . . . must make sure that its billions of nerve cells correctly establish trillions of connec-

78 Human Devolution: a vedic alternative to Darwin’s theory

tions among themselves.” Since scientists say that all conscious functions are products of brain activity, these connections assume a lot of importance. Aside from some vague speculations about “guidance molecules,” and an all abiding faith that it must have happened by evolution, scientists have offered no detailed explanation of how the connections are made. On the basis of experiments with fruit flies, scientists say they have discovered a gene that looks like it codes for 38,000 different “guidance molecules.” Even if true, this creates a huge problem for evolutionists. How could one gene be responsible for so many guidance molecules? How are those 38,000 different “guidance molecules” distributed in the proper way to make the required connections among the nerve cells in the fly brain? And even assuming one could figure this out, then how would one go from there to another more complicated brain, simply by random mutations in DNA and natural selection?

The Placenta

Another problem for evolutionists is the origin of the placenta in mammals. The DNA of a fetus is a combination of DNA from both the mother and father. It is therefore different from that of the mother. The immune system of the mother should normally reject the fetus as foreign tissue. The placenta isolates the fetus from direct contact with the mother’s immune system. The placenta also supplies the fetus with nutrients and expels wastes from the fetus. Harvey J. Kliman, a reproductive biologist at Yale University, says, “In many ways, the placenta is the SCUBA system for the fetus, while at the same time being the Houston Control Center guiding the mother through pregnancy.” According to evolutionists, before the placental mammals came into existence, all land animals reproduced by laying eggs. In a report in Science news, John Travis (2000d, p. 318) says, “As with many evolutionary adaptations, the origins of the placenta remain shrouded in mystery. That hasn’t kept biologists from speculating, however.” But speculations are not real scientific explanations. And the real scientific explanations just are not there.

“In the past ten years,” says Behe (1998, p. 183), “ Journal of molecular evolution has published more than a thousand papers. . . . There were zero papers discussing detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures. This is not a peculiarity of Jme. No papers are to be found that discuss detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures, whether in the Proceedings of the national academy of Science, nature, Science, the Journal of molecular Biology or, to my knowledge, any science journal.”

Similarity of apes and Humans

Physical anthropologists and other scientists have tried to use genetics to clarify the supposed evolutionary relationships between humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas. Are humans closer to chimps or gorillas? Are chimps and gorillas closer to each other than either of them is to humans? Different kinds of studies yield different results. According to Marks (1994), some researchers say chromosome structure links humans and gorillas, while others say it links humans and chimps, while yet others say it links chimps and gorillas. Mitochondrial DNA evidence show that humans, chimps, and gorillas are equally close to each other. Evidence for nuclear DNA is “discordant,” with the X chromosome evidence making chimps closest to gorillas and the Y chromosome evidence making chimps closest to humans. As far as skeletal evidence is concerned, the cranium links humans and chimps, but the rest of the skeleton links chimps and gorillas (Marks 1994, pp. 65–66).

In sorting out this confusing and contradictory set of conclusions, many scientists act on the belief that genetic evidence is superior to other kinds of evidence. But Marks (1994, p. 65) questions this belief: “Molecular studies bearing on problems of anthropological systematics, it seems, have often suffered from [poor] quality control, rash generalizations, belligerent conclusions, and the gratuitous assumption that if two bodies of work yield different conclusions, the genetic work is more trustworthy.”