DA’WA BOOKSP.B No: 1981, Vyttila, Cochin - 19

A_q-lw\ Imc-Øq¿

]cn-Wm-a-hmZwayqkn-b-Øn-te°v

Publisher DistributionDa’wa Books Vyttila Kochi - 19 Kerala India

Email: dawabook@gmail.comCover: Primrose

Type Setting : Nasar, Creative MediaPrinting : Screen Offset, Kochi - 18

DA’WA BOOKSMalaya lam Study Parinamavadam Musiyathilekku

]cn-Wm-a-hmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°vAuthor : Aboohamna Karathoor

First Edition : May 2008Price: Rs. 30

All right reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilised in any form orby any means without the prior written permission of the publishers.

]km-[-I-°p-dn∏v˛ -

A¥m-cmjvS \ne-hm-c-Øn¬ ae-bmf ]pkvX-I-߃ ]pd-Øn-d-°p-Ibpw ]k-‡-amb hnhn[ mjm-K-Ÿ-߃ ae-bm-f-Øn-te°vsamgn-am‰w \SØn ]kn-≤o-I-cn-°p-Ibpw A¥m-cmjvS kaq-l-Øn\v ]cn-Nbs∏Sp-tØ≠ ae-bmf auenI IrXn-Iƒ a‰p `mj-I-fn-te°v ]cn- m-j-s∏-SpØn ]kn-≤o-I-cn-°p-Ibpw sNøp-I-sb∂e£y-tØmsS XpS°w Ipdn® "ZAvhm _pIvkv' it≤-bhpw hyXn-cn-‡-hp-amb ]pkvX-I-߃ ]pd-Øn-d-°n-s°m≠v CXn-\Iw Xs∂]pkvXI ]km-[\ cwKØv ÿnc-]-XnjvT t\Sn-°-gn-™n- p-≠v,¬∏dG ~ª◊G.imkvX-Øns‚ s]mbvap-J-a-Wn™v ]Xy-£-s∏-Sp∂ \nco-iz-c-hm-Z-amWv bYm¿Y-Øn¬ ]cn-Wm-a-hmZw. Poh-]-cn-Wm-a-Øn\v sXfnhv Is≠-Øp-∂-Xn\v th≠n-bp≈ ]cn-i-a-ß-sf√mw ]cm-P-s∏-Sp-I-bmWv Ct∂mfw sNbvXn-´p-≈-Xv.F∂m¬ hkvXp-X-Isf hf-s®m-Sn®pw X߃°v ]‰nb sXfn-hp-Iƒ \n¿an®pw ]cn-Wm-a-hm-Z-Øn\v sXfn-hp-≠m-°p-∂-Xn\pwth≠n-bp≈ ]cn-i-a-߃ C∂pw \S-∂p-sIm-≠n-cn-°p-∂p-≠v.a\p-jy-s‚bpw a‰p Pohn-I-fp-sSbpw `qW-߃ XΩn¬ kmZr-iy-ap-s≠∂v hcp-Øn-Øo¿Øv F√m-hcpw Hcp s]mXp]q¿hn-I-\n¬ \n∂v ]cn-W-an-®p-≠m-b-XmsW∂v ÿm]n-°p-hm≥ ]cn-Wm-a-hm-Zn-Iƒ Fs¥√mw ssIIn-b-I-fmWv ImWn-®n-´p-≈-sXt∂m? ]cn-Wm-a-hm-Z-Øn-\p≈ ]e-sX-fn-hp-I-fn¬ H∂mbn"`qW-imkvX sXfn-hp-Iƒ' ]d-™n-cp∂p C∂se hsc.F∂m¬ C∂v ]cn-Wm-a-hm-Zn-Iƒ°v `qW-imkvX sXfn-hp-Iƒ Xß-fpsS ]pkvX-I-ß-fn¬ t]mepw FSpØp tN¿°m≥\mW-ap-≠v. F¥mWv CXn\v ]n∂n¬? imkvX-Øns‚ ad-hn¬ ssZh-\n-tj[w ]N-cn-∏n-°m≥ ian-°p∂hcpsS hrØn-sI´ ssIIn-b-Iƒ hy‡-am-°p∂ Hcp eLp IrXn.

\mYm. . . . \o CsXmcp ]Xn- -em¿l-amb ]h¿Ø-\-ambn kzoI-cn-t°-Wta (Bao≥)

amt\-P¿˛

Page 8Blank

1) ]cnWmahmZw: Nne XXz߃ ................................................. 13

2) `qWimkvXhpw ]cnWmahmZhpw ....................................... 18

3) Ahbh kmZriyw (Homology) ..................................29

4) ep]vXmhbh߃ (Vestigial organs) ..........................36

5) Kn√pIfpw (Gills) ]cnWmahmZhpw ....................................... 42

6) B¿°ntbm]vs‰dnIvkpw (Archaeopteryx)]cnWmahmZhpw .............................................................................. 46

7) D¬∏cnh¿Ø\hpw (Mutation) ]cnWmahmZhpw ....... 52

Xmfp-I-fn¬

Page 10Blank

BapJw

]Xnäm≠pIfmbn \½psS \m«n ]Tn¸n¨p-sIm≠n-cnç¶Xpw GhêsSbpw a\Ên sIm¯n-sh¡s¸«Xpamb H¶mWtÃm ]cnWmahmZw.imkvX]ptcmKXn¡ëkcn¨v ]e imkvX imJ-Ifpw aäapÄs¡m≠t¸mÄ, Cìw AXn\v ]pdwXncnªv \nÂç¶ AYhm \nÀ¯s¸Sp¶_tbmfPnbnse ]T\ hn`mKamWv ]cnWmahmZwF¶v ImWmw. UmÀhnëw ssl¡epsaÃmw \h\h§fmb I≠p]nSp¯§tfmsS XnckvIrXcm-sb¦nepw ssZh\ntj[ kzcw DbÀì tIÄ¡m³XmXv]cys¸Sp¶hÀ X§fpsS \ne]mSv amäm³X¿mdmImsX Cê«n X¸pIbmWv. ]t£, kXywAhsc ]n´Ån apt¶dpIbmWv.

]cnWmahmZw Hê Ko_Õnb³ kn²m´am-sW¶v Imew sXfnbn¨p Ignªp. bqtdm¸pwAtacn¡bpsaÃmw AhêsS hnZymeb§fnsekne_kn ]cnWmahmZ¯nsâ ]pXnb AhØ-bmWv ]Tn¸n¨psIm≠ ncnç¶Xv. F¶m \nco-izcþ\nÀ½X Iq«psI«nsâ ssIIfneIs¸«ncnç¶\½psS ]mTyIa¯n Hê ]Xnäm≠mbn s]mfn-

s¨gpXs¸«pIgnª ]cnWmahmZs¯ hnZymÀ°n-IÄ¡v ]cnNbs¸Sp¯msX ]gb ]Ãhn Xs¶]mSns¡m≠ncnçIbmWv.

kXys¯ aqSnshím³ Ht«sd æÕnXhpwh©\mßIhpamb ]cniaw \S¶ Hê thZnbmbn]cnWmahmZs¯ ]T\hnt[bamç¶ BÀçwXncn¨dnbmhp¶XmWv. tIm«nam«epIfpw, Dulmt]m-l§fpw IånX IY\§fpw \ndª H¶ns\imkvXw F¶v hntijn¸nç¶Xp Xs¶ FXI≠vDNnXsa¶v BtemNnçI.

ssZhnIXsb IqSpX ]kàamç¶ CucwKs¯ imkvX]ptcmKXnIsf P\§fntes¡-¯nt¡≠Xv Hê kXyhnizmknbpsS _m[yXbm-sW¶v a\Ênemç¶Xn\m ]cnWmahmZhpambn_Ôs¸« Nne imkvXob shfns¸Sp¯epIÄkw£n]vXambn ]Xn]mZnçIbmWv Cu ]pkvXI-¯nÂ.

Xpd¶ a\tÊmsS kXyw kXyambn a\Ênem-¡p¶hÀ¡mbn CXv kaÀ¸nçì.

A_q-lw\ Imc-¯qÀ

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v 13

]cnWmahmZw: Nne XXz߃

krãn þ kãmhv F¶ thÀXncnhns\ aXIobamb]Ým¯e¯n AwKoIcn¡m³ hnk½Xnç¶hcmWvimkvXtemIs¯ ]eêw. kn²m´§fneqsS hfÀ¶v]co£Wimebn sXfnbn¡s¸«v bpànsb ]oXns¸Sp¯napt¶m«p t]mæ¶ `uXnI]T\¯nsâ kmcmwis¯]Xn\n[oIcnç¶ ]ZamWv imkvXw F¶mWtÃm s]mXp-[mcW. KthjW§fpw, ]T\§fpw, kn²m´§fpsa-Ãmap-s≠¦nepw Hê ]co£WimebpsS A`mhw \nan¯w bpànsbXr]vXns¸Sp¯m³ Ignbm¯ H¶mWv hnizmkw Asæn aXwF¶Xpw BfpIfnepÅ [mcW Xs¶. hyXykvX [ph§fnÂ\nÂç¶ Ch kam´ctcJIsft¸mse-bmsWìw Iq«n-ap«m¯Chsb CW¡m³ ianç¶Xv sImSnb ]mXItam aTb¯tamBbn Imé¶hêw D≠ v. Imcy§sf XmXv]cymëkm-cam¡m³DXæ¶ D]aIfneqsS kaÀ°n¨v Ah¡v bmYmÀ°yt_m[w\ÂæI F¶ coXnbmWv s]mXpsh aX hnaÀiIÀ ssIsIm-≠n«pÅXv F¶XpsIm≠mWv ChêsS hÀ¯am\§fnÂC¯cw Bib§Ä ImWm\mæ¶Xv.

kãmhns\ \ncmIcn¡m³ hfÀìh¶ Ht«sd Nn´m[mcIfp≠ v . ]t£, imkvX]ptcmKXn C¯cw Nn´IsfHs¶mgnbmsX Ime¯nsâ AKm[ KÀ¯§fnte¡v

1

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v14hen¨dnbp¶Xv \mw Cì Imé¶ \nXy kw`h§fn-sem¶mWv.kXyw CXmsW¦nepw a\Ên thêd¨pt]mb [mcWIsf \himkvXob sXfnhpIÄ¡ëkcn¨v ]cnjvIcn¡m³, HêhnÚm\ \hoIcWw \S¯m³ X¿mdmIm¯hcmWv alm`qcn`mKhpw F¶Xv Hê ZpJ:kXyamWv. ssZh hnizmknIfnÂBtcm]n¡s¸SmdpÅ Cu hnjbw C¶v kÀÆ km[mcWambnImé¶Xv imkvXImc·mcnepw imkvXs¯ AXymë`mh-t¯msS ho£nç¶hcnepamWv. kqcysâ \nÝemhØbpw,]]©hnImkhpsaÃmw HêIme¯v aXm[ym]\§fpambnsshê²yw ]peÀ¯n-bt¸mÄ ssZhs¯ a\Ên \n¶væSnbnd¡nbhêw imkvXmëkmcw aXhnizmk§sf]dsªm¸n¡m³ an\s¡«hêw ]ndhnsImÅpI-bp≠mbn.

kqcy\v Ne\aps≠ìw Kl§Ä¡v Ne\]mXbps≠ìw]]©w hnIkn¨psIm≠ncnç¶ H¶msWìw ]Xn\mep\qäm≠pIÄ¡v ap³]v Atd_ybnse \nc£c\mb ]hmNIsâ\mhneqsS temIw ihn¨ shfn]mSpIÄ C¶v hnhn[ZiIfneqsSbpÅ apt¶ä¯në tijw imkvXw k½Xnçì.

aëjy a\Ên 1800 IÄ apX Ønc]XnjvT t\Snb,AimkvXobsa¶v sXfnbn¡s¸« F¶m ]eÀçan¶v"imkvX kXyamb' Hê hnjbw þ ]cnWmahmZamWv ChnsS]cntim[n¡s¸Sp¶Xv. XeapdIfmbn ]TnçIbpw ]Tn¸n-¡s¸SpIbpw sNbvXp hê¶ ]cnWmakn²m-´w ]p\cmtem-N\¡v hnt[bam¡s¸SmsX FgpXs¸«Xv A¸msS ]IÀ¯n\ne\nìt]mì. AXpsIm≠p Xs¶bmImw Cìw ]cnWmahmZ¯ns\Xnsc AXym[p\nI imkvX kmt¦XnIhnZyIÄ]tbmP\s¸Sp¯ns¡m≠ v \nc¯s¸« sXfnhpIÄ kaÀ¸n-¡s¸Spt¼mgpw BfpIfpsS s\än NpfnbpIbpw apJw hnhÀ®-amæIbpw sN¿p¶Xv. Gähpw IqSpX "imkvXob h©\IÄ'\S¶n«pÅXv ]cnWmahmZs¯ "kaÀ°nçhm³' th≠n -bmbnêì F¶v AtX ædn¨v ap³hn[nIfnÃmsX ]Tnç¶BÀçw a\Ênem¡mhp¶XmWv. "X¯t½ ]q¨ ]q¨' F¶hÀ¯am\w imkvXÚm\nIÄ F¶v ]dbp¶hcn \n¶vImé¶Xv tJZIcamb Aë`hw Xs¶. ssZhs¯ \ntj-

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v 15[n¡m³, kmX´yw F¶m FÃm t¾OXIÄçapÅAëhZ\obX F¶ XXzw \S¸nem¡m³ C\nbpw Cukn²m´¯n ISn¨p Xq§m³ IgnbmsXbmbncnçì F¶Xncn¨dnh v \ncoizc \nÀ½XhmZnIsf sXsÃmìaÃ`bs¸Sp¯p¶Xv!!

AXn\nÊmcamb Hê ]pcmX\ ssPhcq] n \nìw AYhmHê GItImi Pohnbn \nìw, hnhn[ ]m]©nI CSs]-SÂaqew IamëKXambp≠mæ¶ amä§Ä ]pXnb Pohn hÀK§-fp≠mIm³ ImcWambn. XeapdIfneqsS ssIamäw sN¿s¸Sp¶Cu amä§fmWv hnhn[ PohnhÀK§fpsS DÛh ImcWambXvF¶ XXzamWv ]cnWmahmZw (Evolution) F¶dnbs¸Sp¶Xv. Cu]Z]tbmKw kmt¦XnIambn BZyw AhXcn¸n¨Xv kvs]³-kÀ(Spencer) F¶ imkvXÚ\mWv. Hê kãmhnsâ km[yXsbXs¶ \ntj[nç¶ Cu hmZ n\v PohimkvX nsâ ]cnthjw\ÂIm³ apt¶m«ph¶ hyIvXnbmbnêì NmÄkv UmÀhn³(Charles Robert Darwin, 1809-1882)

UmÀhn\nkw: ]IrXn \nÀ²mcW kn²m´w(Theory of Natural Selection)

]IrXn \nÀ²mcW kn²m´amWv UmÀhn\nkw F¶dnb-s¸Sp¶Xv. PohnIfpsS s]mSp¶s\bpÅ hÀ[\hv `£W-¯nëw Xmak¯nëw Øe¯nësaÃmambn AhínS-bnÂaÕc¯n\v tlXphmæw. \ne\n¸nëÅ Cu hSw henbnÂ(Struggle for Existance) Gähpw IgnhpähÀ AXnPohn¡-s¸Spì(Survival of the fittest). ]IrXn kmlNcy§tfmSnW§pw hn[wamä§Ä¡v hnt[bcmæ¶ PohnIÄ ]IrXnbm sXscsªSp-¡s¸Spì (Natural selection) amä§fneqsS iàcmb ChCWtNÀ¶v X§fpsS amä§fpw IgnhpIfpw XeapdIfnte¡vssIamäw sN¿pì. ]e XeapdIÄ Ignbp-t¼mÄ D≠mæ¶k´m\§Ä AhbpsS bYmÀ° ]nXmal-ëabn hyXykvXX]peÀ¯pIbpw sN¿pw. A§s\ Hê ]pXnb Pohn hÀKw(Species) D≠mæì. CXbpamWv UmÀhnsâ ASn-Øm\kn²m´§Ä.

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v16]KÛcmb ]e imkvXImc·mêw XÅn¡fª kn²m-

´amWv ]IrXn \nÀ²mcWw.]ikvX KÙImcëw ^ntemk^dpamb *Arthur Koestler

FgpXn "Once upon a time, it all looked so simple. Nature rewarded

the fit with the carrot of survival and punished the unfit with the stickof extinction. The trouble only started when it came to definingfitness.... Thus natural selection looks after the survival andreproduction of the fittest, and the fittest are those which have thehighest rate of reproduction.... We are caught in a circular argumentwhich completely begs the question of what makes evolution evolve"(1978, p. 170).

""]s≠mê Ime¯v Imcy§sfÃmw kpXmcyambmWvImWs¸«Xv. ]IrXn _ehms\ AXnPoh\¯nsâ tIcäv \ÂInA\ptamZn¨t¸mÄ ZpÀ_es\ D·qe\¯nsâ ZfipsIm≠ vin£n¨p. Ignhnsâ \nÀÆN\¯nse¯nbt¸mÄ amXamWv]iv\w DSseSp¯Xv.. . .A]Imcw ]IrXn\nÀ²mcWw_ehmsâ AXnPoh\hpw ]X|Xv]mZ\hpw ]cn]mençì. _ehm·msc¶m D¶X ]X|Xv]mZ\ \ncçÅhcmWv.....]cnWma¯nsâ ]cnWmaw km[yamç¶Xv F´msW¶ C\n-bpw sXfnbn¡s¸tS≠ Imcys¯ AwKoIcnIcn¡s¸« H¶mbnIW¡m¡n \mw hn]peamb XÀ¡§fn AIs¸«ncn -çIbmWv'' (1978, p. 170).

The famous Dutch botanist * Hugo deVries : "Natural selectionmay explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrivalof the fittest" (1905, pp. 825-826)

]ikvX U¨v kky imkvXÚ\mb ltKm UnhnkvFgpXnbXv C]ImcamWv: "" ]IrXn \nÀ²mcW¯n\v Hê ]t£_ehmsâ AXnPoh\s¯ hniZoIcn¡m³ IgnsªìhcmwF¶m AXn\v _ehmsâ BKa\s¯ hniZoIcn¡m³IgnbpIbnà Xs¶.'' (1905, pp. 825-826)

Swedish biologist * Soren Lovtrup wrote "After this step-wiseelimination, only one possibility remains: the Darwinian theory of

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v 17natural selection, whether or not coupled with Mendelism, is false. I have already shown that the arguments advanced by the earlychampions were not very compelling, and that there are nowconsiderable numbers of empirical facts which do not fit with thetheory. (p. 352, emp. added).

kzoUnjv _tbmfPnÌmb Søren Løvtrup FgpXn. ""CuAëIaamb D·qe\¯në tijw _m¡n \nÂç¶ Htcsbmêkm[yX UmÀhnsâ ]IrXn \nÀ²mcW kn²m´w, saâen-khpambn Iq«nbnW¡nbmepw Csænepw, sXämæì F¶-XmWv. ]qÀÆIme ]KÛêsS XÀ¡hnXÀ¡§Ä AXXs¶it±bambnê¶nà F¶Xv Rm³ ap³]pXs¶ shfns¸Sp-¯nbXmWv. amXaà Ct¸mÄ H«t\Iw Aë`h bmYmÀ°y-§Ä Cu kn²m´hpambn tbmPnç¶hbpaÃ. (p. 352).

CXmWv ]IrXn \nÀ²mcWw F¶ UmÀho\nb³ kn²m -¯nsâ imkvXam\w. IaWnÌpIfpw aäv ssZh\ntj[nIfpwtNÀ¶v UmÀhn\nk¯n\v ]Nmcw \ÂInsb¦nepw PohnIfnep-≠mæ¶ Cu amä§fpsS ASnØm\sa v Fìw Ah F§s\-bmWv XeapdIfnte¡v ssIamäw sN¿s¸Sp¶Xv Fìw hniZo-Icn¡m\mImsX AXv ]XnkÔnbneIs¸SpIbm-bnêì.

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v18

`qWimkvXhpw ]cnWmahmZhpw

]cnWmahmZ¯n\v IqSpX ]Nmchpw AwKoImchpwe`yamç¶Xnë th≠n hfsc ]cnian¨ imkvXImc\mWvGWÌv ssl¡Â (Earnest Hackel, 1834 - 1919). P\nXIimkvX-¯nsâ hfÀ¨bmWv ssl¡ens\ _tbmP\nänIv kn²m´w(Biogenetic Law) BhnjvIcn¡m³ \nÀ_ÔnX\m-¡nbXv.PohnhÀK§fpsS kz`mh, cq] ]IrXnIsfÃmw \nb´nç-¶Xpw Xoêam\nç¶Xpw XeapdIfneqsS ssIamdp¶XpsaÃmwPoëIfmWv Fì hêt¼mÄ Hê GItImi Pohnbn \nìw]cnWan¨p≠mb Hmtcm Pohn hÀK¯nepw Xsâ ]nXmalsâ(ancester) kz`mh KpW§Ä GsX¦nepw PohnXL«¯nÂGsX¦nepsaÃmw cq]¯n ]Xn^en¡s¸t« Xocq. Cu]iv\s¯ X´]cambn t\cnSpI amXaà imkvXtemI¯n\v]cnWma kw_Ônbmbn ]pXnbXpw kÀÆmwKoImcwt\SmëXæ¶Xpamb kn²m´ambnêì At±lw AhXcn¸n-¨Xv. 'Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny', AXmbXv Hê Pohn-bpsS hfÀ¨mL«§fn AXnsâ ]cnWma NcnXw BhÀ¯n-¡s¸Spì F¶mWv ssl¡Â ]dªXv. Cu hmZs¯imkvXobam¡m³ Xsâ _p²namXw sXfnhm¡n At±lw

2

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v 19hnhn[ PohnIfpsS `qW hfÀ¨m L«§Ä æ¯nbnê¶vhc¨p≠mçIbmbnêì.

]cnWmahmZ¯n\v ssZhs¯ amän\nÀ¯m\mæsa¶ anYym-[mcWbn Ignbp¶hÀ¡v XXvkw_Ônbmb hmZapJ§ÄAh FX Xs¶ AimkvXobhpw AkXyþA_² PUnehpam-bnê¶mepw Is¿mgn¡m³ IgnbmdnÃ. AXpsIm≠p Xs¶hÃ`\v ]pÃpw Bbp[w F¶ a«n I®n Is≠sXÃmwsXfnhmç¶ coXnbmWv Ahcnìw ]peÀ¯nt¸mê¶Xv.

`qWimkvX ]camb "sXfnhpIÄ' BWv Hê ]t£]cnWmahmZs¯ Hê imkvX "kXyambn' AwKoIcn¡m³BfpIÄ¡v ]tNmZIambXv. 1874 apX GWÌv ssl¡Âsa\ªp≠m¡n "kaÀ¸n¨' hnhn[ \s«ÃpÅ PohnIfpsS(Vertibrate) `qWhfÀ¨bpsS NnXw bmsXmê ]p\]cntim-[\bpw IqSmsX A¸msS ]IÀ¯nt¸m-êIbmbnêì.

ssl¡Â hc¨p≠m¡nb NnX§Ä `qWimkvX XmcXay]T\temI¯v (Comparative Embryology) C¶v ]pdwXÅ-s¸«psh¦nepw \ncoizchmZnIfpw imkvX kmlnXy ]cnj-¯psaÃmw \½psS kne_kv \nÀ®bnç¶ hnjb¯n henb]èhlnç¶hcmsW¶Xn\mÂ, Cu Ifhp \ndª, h©\m\nÀ`camb NnXhpw hniZoIcW§fpw AtX]Sn \½psSæ«nIsf Cìw ]Tn¸n¨psIm≠ncnçì.

1997  ssa¡Â dn¨mÀUvk¬ (Michael Richardson,Embryologist at London's St. George's Hospital Medical School) F¶imkvXÚ³ ssl¡ensâ NnX§Ä XoÀ¯pw AhmkvX-hhpw I]ShpamsW¶v sXfnhpIÄ klnXw AhXcn¸nç-Ibp≠mbn.

ssl¡Â hc¨ NnXhpw dn¨mÀUvk¬ kaÀ¸n¨ t\Àçt\scbpÅ t^mt«mbpw XmcXays¸Sp¯pI (NnX§Ä 1þ5)

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v20

(NnXw 1)Picture Drawn By Haeckel

(NnXw -2 )

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v 21

(NnXw 3 )Photo By Michael Richardson

(NnXw 4 )dn¨mÀUvk¬ \ÂInb aäv `qW§fpsS t^mt«mIÄ

(From left: Petromyzon marinus, Acipenser ruthenus, Bufo bufo,Erinaceus europaeus, Felis catus, Manis javanica, Canis familiaris.)

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v22(NnXw 5 )

apIfnse hcnbn ssl¡ensâ IrXna NnXoIcWw, XmsgbYmÀ° t^mt«mIÄ. (Down From left: Salmo salar,

Cryptobranchus allegheniensis, Emys orbicularis, Gallus gallus,Oryctolagus cuniculus, Homo sapiens. )

NnX¯n Imé¶Xpt]mse aÕyw apX aëjy³hscbpÅ FÃm shÀ«nt_änsâbpw hfÀ¨mL«§ÄXoÀ¯pw hn`n¶sa¦nepw \½psS hnZymeb§fn ssl¡ensâkXyhnê²amb NnXamWv Cìw ]Tn¸nç¶Xv. F¶mÂssl¡ensâ Cu ]cn]mSnsbçdn¨v tUm. dn¨mÀUvk¬]dªp: "one of the worst case of scientific fraud", ""imkvXobh©\bpsS Gähpw tamiamb Hê kw`hamWnXv''

* sl¡ensâ NnXcN\sbçdn v temI¯pS\ofap≠mbimkvXImc·mêsS A`n]mb ]IS\§fn NneXvAë_Ô¯n hmbnçI.

\½psS \m«n Ct¸mgpw CsXmìw I≠ nsö a«nÂæ«nIsf B ]gb ]Ãhn Xs¶ ]mSn ]Tn¸n¨psIm≠ncn-çì-sh¦nepw kXyw AwKoIcn¡m³ X¿mdpÅhÀ AhêsScN\Ifn amäw hê¯n¡gnªXmbpw \apç ImWmw._tbmfPnÌpw A[ym]Iëw Bdp _tbmfPn ]pkvXI§fpw

Top Row : Haeckel’s Fraud DrawingsBottom Row : Actual Photos

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v 23Ht«sd teJ\§fpw FgpXnb kvIqÄ tImtfPv _tbmfPn]pkvXI cNbnXmhpIqSnbmb tPm enssh³ Xsâ ]pkvXI-§fnseÃmw 2000 hsc \ÂInbnê¶Xv ssl¡ensâ `qWXmcXay ]T\ NnX§fmbnêì. F¶m Xsâ Lion Book(BIOLOGY - The Living Science) bpsS page 223, Elephant Book(BIOLOGY by Kenneth Miller and Joe Levine ) bpsS page 283 F¶o_tbmfPn ]pkvXI§fpsS A©mas¯ FUnj-\n Xmsg-Imé¶ NnXw ædn v klnXw \ÂæIbp≠mbn.

(NnXw 6 )

"So, what have we done? Well, we fixed it. Joe Levine and I(Kenneth Miller) have now revised the drawings that appear on thesepages of our textbooks, and the 5th Edition of the Elephant book hasbeen published with an accurate drawing of the embryos madefrom detailed photomicrographs. We have also rewritten page 283of the 5th edition to better reflect the scientific evidence regardingthe similarities of early development:" by Kenneth Miller, Author.

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v24`qWimkvX kw_‘nbmb

Nne hkvXpXIƒ

AÞhpw _oPhpw kwtbmPn¨p≠mæ¶ knàm≠- nsâ(zygote) tImihn`P\t¯msSbpÅ hfÀ¨bpsS Gähpw BZyZisb tamdpe F¶mWv hnfnçI. tamdpebnse tImi§ÄNpäpw Hê ]mfnt]msebpw AXn\I¯v Iq«ambn InSç¶hF¶ coXnbnepw thÀXncn¡s¸Spì. CXbpambmÂ]pXnbXmbn cq]wsIm≠ Cu tImi IhN¯n\v ]pd¯pÅ]gb AÞmhcW§Ä (egg envelops) A]Xy£-amæ-ì. ItaW Iq«ambn InSç¶ tImi§Ä ]´pt]mepÅ`qW¯nsâ Hê [ph¯nte¡v (animal pole) \o§n tImiIhNhpambn H«nt¨À¶v Hê t\m_p t]msebmæì (embryonic

knob). A§s\ `qW¯n\I¯v Hê Ad cq]s¸Spì. `qW-¯nsâ Cu AhØsb »mÌpe (blastula) Fìw AXnsâAdsb »mtÌmko (blastocoel) Fìw hnfnçì.Fw_ntbm-WnIv t\m_nse tImi§fn NneXv (FähpwDÅnse \ncbnepÅ) Hê \nÀ®nX cq]w hsc »mtÌmkoen-te¡v \o§pì. AhnsSsh¨v Ah hn`Pn¨v ]mÀiz§fnte¡v\o§n ]pdw`n¯ntbmSv tNêì. A§s\ `qW¯n\I¯vH¶mas¯ ]mfn (germ layer) cq]wsImÅpì. CXmWvFtâmtUw (endoderm). Fw_ntbmWnIv t\m_nsetijnç¶ tImi§Ä henªp\o≠ v Hê I«nbpÅ`n¯nbmbn amdpì. CXv Fw_ntbmWnIv UnkvIv (embryonic

disc) F¶dnbs¸Spì. CtXmsS Cu mKs¯ ]pdw`n¯nbnsetImi§Ä (cells of Rauber) A]Xy£amæì. ]n¶oSvFw_ntbmWnIv UnkvIn \nìw hn`P\¯neqsS Hê ]mfnASÀìt]mbn (delamination) ASp¯ tPw sebÀ (mesoderm)

D≠mæì. _m¡nbpÅ tImi§sfÃmw tNÀ¶v aq¶ma-s¯ germlayer Bb ectoderm D≠mæì.

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v 25

(NnXw 7)First stages of segmentation of a mammalian ovum . Semi-

diagrammatic.. a. Two-cell stage. b. Four-cell stage. c. Eight-cell stage.d, e. Morula stage.

Blastula Stage

(NnXw 8 )

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v26C§s\ germ layer D≠mæ¶Xpw AXn\mbpÅ tImi-

§fpsS blastocoel enteçÅ bmXbpw, Zqchpw ]pdw`n¯n-bpambpÅ IqSnt¨cepw FÃmw t\ct¯ Xoêam\n¡-s¸«h (predetermined) BWv. germ layers  \nìamWv hnhn[Ahbh§Ä DSseSpç¶Xv. Cu Ahbh P\\s¯organogenesis F¶v ]dbpì. F¶m germ layers (enoderm,mesoderm, ectoderm) IfpsS DÛhhpw thÀXncnbepw, Htcm]mfnIfntebpw tImi§fpsS \nbXnbnepw (fate) ]ISambhyXymkap≠ v F¶mWv tUm: sUâ³ sXfnhpIÄ klnXwkaÀ°n¨n«pÅXv.

tUm: sUâ³ \ÂInb NnXhpw ]dª hmçIfpw]cntim[nçI:

(NnXw 9)

"The earliest events leading from the first division of the egg cellto the blastula stage in amphibians, reptiles and mammals areillustrated in the Figure . Even to an untrained zoologist it is obviousthat neither the blastula itself, nor the sequence of events whichlead to its formation, is identical in any of the three vertebrate classes

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v 27shown. The differences become even more striking in the next majorphase in embryo formation - gastrulation. This process involves acomplex sequence of relative cell movements whereby the cells ofthe blastula rearrange themselves, eventually resulting in thetransformation of the blastula into the intricate folded form of theearly embryo, or gastrula, which consists of the three basic germ celllayers: the ectoderm, which gives rise to the skin and the nervoussystem; the mesoderm, which gives rise to muscle and skeletal tissues;and the endoderm, which gives rise to the lining of the alimentarytract as well as to the liver and pancreas. No one doubts thatgastrulation and the gastrula are homologous in all vertebrates, yetthe way the gastrula is formed and particularly the positions in theblastula of the cells which give rise to the germ layers and theirmigration patterns during gastrulation differ markedly in the differentvertebrate classes. There is no question that, because of the greatdissimilarity of the early stages of embryogenesis in the differentvertebrate classes, organs and structures considered homologousin adult vertebrates cannot be traced back to homologous cells orregions in the earliest stages of embryogenesis. In other words,homologous structures are arrived at by different routes." (Evolution:A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton, 1985, p 145-6)

D`b PohnIfnepw, DcK§fnepw, kkvX\nIfnepw AÞtImiw »mÌpe Bbn hfê¶ BZy hn`P\ L«§fmWv NnX-¯n sImSp¯n«pÅXv. NnX¯n ImWn¨ncnç¶ PohnIfpsS`qWhfÀ¨bpsS »mÌpe (knàmÞ hfÀ¨bpsS c≠mwL«w) bnemIs« XpSÀL«§fnteXnse¦nepamIs« kmayXXoscbnà F¶Xv Hê km[mcW ]cnNb k¼¶\-Ãm¯P´pimkvXImcët]mepw hyàamWv. hyXymk§Ä IqSpXÂit²bamæ¶Xv `qWcq]m´cW¯nsâ ASp¯ ][m\L«¯n þ KmkvSptej³ þ BWv. Cu ]Inb Aë_Ô-tImi§fpsS AXn k¦oÀ®amb hnKXnIÄ DÄs¡mÅpì.AhnsS »mÌpebnse tImi§Ä kzbw IaoIcn¡s¸SpIbpwAhkm\w »mkpebpsS k¦oÀ® ]mYanI `qWcq]amb

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v28KmkvSpebmbn ]cnWançIbpw sN¿pì. Cu ]mYanI`qW¯nÂ, NÀ½hpw \mUo hyhØbpw DSseSpç¶GIvtämtUw; t]inIfpw AØn IeIfpw DSseSp -ç¶ aotkmtUw; A¶æeybpsS BhcWw, AXpt]mseIcfpw, IqSmsX ]m³Inbmkpw DSseSp-ç¶ FtâmtUwF¶o aq¶v ASnØm\ ]`h tImi ]mfnIÄ (germ cell layers)BWv DÅXv. FÃm \s«ÃpÅ Pohn hÀK§fnepw, KmkvSpebpwKmkvSptej\pw Aëcq]am-sW¶Xn BÀçw kwibanÃF¦nepw KmkvSpe cq]oIrXamæ¶ coXnbpw hninjym germlayers D≠mæ¶ »mkpebnse tImi§fpsS Øm\w,KmkvSpebmbn amdpt¼mgpÅ AhbpsS kwIaW coXnIÄF¶nhbn-seÃmw hnhn[ \s«ÃpÅ Pohn hÀK§fn ]ISambhyXymkw ZriyamWv. hnhn[ shÀ«nt_äv ¢mÊpIfnse `qWhfÀ¨bpsS ]mcw` L«§fn t]mepw henb hyXymkwD≠ v. AXn\m ]qÀ® hfÀ¨sb¯nb shÀ«nt_äbpsSAhbh§fnepw LS\bnepsaÃmw Imé¶ kmayX]cnKWnçt¼mÄ Xs¶ Ah cq]saSp¯Xv Htc tImi§fnÂ\nt¶m taJeIfn \nt¶m BsW¶v ]dbphmt\m A§ns\]n³XpSÀ¶v I≠¯pht\m km[yaà F¶Xn kwibta-XpanÃ. asämê hn[¯n ]dªm kmayX ]peÀ¯p¶LS\IÄ cq]saSp¯Xv hyXykvX§fmb hgnIfneq -sSbmWv'' (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton, 1985,p 145-6)

sXfnhpIÄ ]cnWmahmZnbmb sUâs\ C§s\ ]dbm³\nÀ_ÔnX\m¡n. LS\m]cambn kmayX]peÀ¯p¶Ahbh§Ä HtcamÀK¯n cq]wsIm≠hbà F¶Xn\mÂXs¶ PohnItfmtcmìw hyXykvX PnhnIfmbn Xs¶bmWvDSseSp¯Xv F¶ kXyamWv ChnsS a\Ênem¡s¸Sp¶henbImcyw. ]cnWmahmZ¯nsâ XmbvthcmWnhnsSAäpt]mæ¶Xv.

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v 29

Ahbh kmZriyw(Homology)

LS\m]cambpw DÛh]cambpw kam\X ]peÀ¯p¶Ahbh§sf kZriymhb§Ä (homologous organs) FìwCu ]Xn`mks¯ tlmsamtemKn (homology) Fìw ]dbpì.AØnbpÅ PohnIfpsS ssIImepIfnse FÃpIfpsS kmayXAXv aÕy§fpsS NndæIfnse AØnItfmSpw ]£nIfpsSNndæIfnse AØnIfpw aäv PohnIfnse ssIIfnseAØnIÄ¡htbmSpÅ kam\XbpsaÃmw ASnØm\am¡n]cnWmahmZs¯ Øm]n¡m³ hym]Iambn tlmatemKnD]tbmKnçIbp≠mbn. F¶m Ahbh§Ä kZriy-sa¦nepw Ah DSseSp¯Xv Hmtcm kv]ojoknepw AhbpsS`qW¯nsâ hnhn[ CS§fn \n¶msWìÅXv IrXyambnsXfnbn¡s¸«p.

1. IÆnse se≥kns‚ cq]h¬°cWw(Formation of lens of the (vertebrate )eye)

.in the common frog, Rana fusca, in the embryo of which, ifthe optic cup is cut out, no lens develops at all. But in the closelyrelated edible frog, Rana esculents, the optic cup can be cut outfrom the embryo, and the lens develops all the same. It cannot bedoubted that the lenses of these two species of frog are homologous,

3

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v30yet they differ completely in the mechanism by which determinationand differentiation are brought about. (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,Michael Denton, 1985, p 147, citing: Homology: An Unsolved Problem,G. De Beer, 1971)

""...Rana fusca F¶ XhfbpsS `qW¯nsâ H]vänIv I vapdn¨pamänbm AXnsâ se³kv (I®nse) hfêIbnà F¶mÂCXnt\mSv ASp¯ _ÔapÅ `£ytbmKyamb Xhf Ranaesculents sâ H]vänIv I¸v apdn¨p amänbm Xs¶bpw AXnsâse³kv bYmhn[w hfêì. Cu c≠ v Xhf hÀK§fpsSbpwse³kpIÄ kam\§fmsW¶Xn kwibtabnÃ. F¦nepwAhbpsS \nÝbhpw thÀXncnhpw kw`hnç¶ coXnimkvXwXnI¨pw hyXykvXamWv."" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, MichaelDenton, 1985, p 147, citing: Homology: An Unsolved Problem, G. DeBeer, 1971)

CtX hnjb¯n AXmbXv \s«ÃpÅ PohnIfn kam\X]peÀ¯p¶ Ahbh§fpsS hyXykvX hgnIfneqsSbpÅ cq]o-IcWw IqSpX DZmlcW§tfmsS hnebnê¯-s¸«n«p-ÅXv ImWqI:

2. A∂]Y cq]h¬°cWw(Formation of Alimentary canal)

The alimentary canal is formed from the roof of the embryonicgut cavity in the sharks, from the floor in the lamprey, from roof andfloor in frogs, and from the lower layer of the embryonic disc, theblastoderm, in birds and reptiles. (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, MichaelDenton, 1985, p 146, citing: Homology: An Unsolved Problem, G. DeBeer, 1971, p 13)

""kmhpIfn `qW¯nsâ K«v ImhnänbpsS taÂX«nÂ\nìw, emw_nIfn ASn`mK¯p \nìw, XhfIfn taÂX«nÂ\nìw Xmgv`mK¯p\nìw, ]£nIfnepw DcK§fnepwFw_ntbmWnIv UnkvInsâ Xmsg ]mfn, »mtÌmtUw, bnÂ\nìamWv A¶]Yw D≠mæ¶Xv" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,Michael Denton, 1985, p 146, citing: Homology: An Unsolved Problem,G. De Beer, 1971, p 13)

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v 313. hr°IfpsS cq]h¬°cWw

(Formation of Kidney)

The development of the vertebrate kidney appears to provideanother challenge to the assumption that homologous organs aregenerated from homologous embryonic tissues. In fish and amphibia

the kidney is derived directly from an embryonic organ known asthe mesonephros, while in reptiles and mammals the mesonephrosdegenerates towards the end of embryonic life and plays no role inthe formation of the adult kidney, which is formed instead from a

discrete spherical mass of mesodermal tissue, the metanephros,which develops quite independently from the mesonephros. Eventhe ureter, the duct which carries the urine from the kidney to the

bladder, is formed in a completely different manner in reptiles andmammals from the equivalent duct in amphibia. (Evolution: A Theoryin Crisis, Michael Denton, 1985, p 146)

""kZriymhbh§Ä DSseSp¯Xv kam\ `qWIeIfnÂ\n¶msWìÅ Dul¯n\v \Âæ¶ asämê shÃphnfnbmWv\s«ÃpÅ PohnIfpsS hr¡IfpsS cq]h¡cWw.aÕy§fnenepw D`bPohnIfnepw hr¡IÄ D≠mæ¶Xvaotkms\t^mkpIÄ F¶ `qWmhbh¯n \nìwt\cn«mWv. F¶m DcK§fnepw kkvX\nIfnepw aotkms\t^mkpIÄ `qWhfÀ¨bpsS A´yt¯msS \in¨pt]mææì. amXaà hfÀ¨sb¯nb PohnbpsS hr¡bpsScq]oIcW¯n bmsXmê ]èw hlnçìanÃ. adn v AXv cq]wsImÅp¶Xv aotkms\t^mkn \nìw kzX´ambnD≠mæ¶ antkmtUÀanse hn`n¶amb tKmfmIrXnbnepÅIeIÄ AYhm saäm s\t^mkpIfn \nìamWv. D`bPohnIfnteXn\v kam\X ]peÀ¯p¶, hr¡Ifn \nìw aqXwaqXk©nbnte¡v sIm≠ phê¶ ægepIÄ t]mepwDcK§fnepw kkvX\nIfnepw XoÀ¯pw hyXyXambcoXnIfnemWv cq]wsImÅp¶Xv''. (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,Michael Denton, 1985, p 146)

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v324. \s´√p≈ PohnIfpsS ssIIfpsS hf¿®

\s«ÃpÅ PohnIfpsS ssIImepIfnse FÃpIfpsSkam\X ]cnWmahmZnIÄ sXfnhm¡nbnêìsh¦nepw AhhfÀì hê¶Xv hyXykvX PohnIfn hnhn[ icocJÞ-§fn \nìamWv.

The forelimbs develop from the trunk segments 2, 3, 4 and 5 inthe newt, segments 6, 7, 8 and 9 in the lizard and from segments 13,14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 in man. (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, MichaelDenton, 1985, p 146, citing: Homology: An Unsolved Problem, G. DeBeer, 1971, p 8)

\«nsâ (Hê D`bPohn) ssIIÄ hfê¶Xv 2,3,4,5F¶o trunk segments  \nìamsW¦n Kufn hÀK§fnÂ6,7,8,9 F¶o segment Ifn \nìamWv. aëjycnemIs« 13, 14,15, 16, 17 , 18 segment F¶o Ifn \nìamWv. (Evolution: A Theoryin Crisis, Michael Denton, 1985, p 146, citing: Homology: An UnsolvedProblem, G. De Beer, 1971, p 8)

5. Polygordius F∂ hncbpsS trunk s‚ hf¿®Polygordius ( Phulum: Annelida. Class : Archiannelida) hncbpsS

Hê kv]ojokn emÀhbpsS icoc¯n\I¯p \nìamWv trunkhfê¶sX¦n asämê kv]ojokn emÀhbpsS icoc¯n\vshfnbn Hê hnct]mse ]pdt¯¡v Xq§n¡nSç¶AhØbnemWpÅXv. Cu c≠p kv]ojnkpIfpsSbpw ]qÀ®hfÀ¨ ]m]n¨ hncIÄ X½n ImgvNbn hyXymk§tfXpanÃ.

IqSmsX ]dhIfnepw, DcK§fnepw kkvX\nIfnepwhfê¶ `qWs¯ BhcWw sN¿p¶ amneotic membraneDw allentioc memrane Dw hfÀì hê¶Xv hyXykvX coXnbnÂhyXyX tImi§fn \nìamsWìw At±lw Is≠¯n-bn«p≠ v. (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton, 1985, p 147,citing: Homology: An Unsolved Problem, G. De Beer, 1971, p 13)

]qÀ® hfÀ¨sb¯pt¼mÄ GXm≠ v kam\X ]peÀ¯p¶Nne Mollusca (I¡IÄ, \ocmfn, IWh XpS§nbh DÄs¡m-

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v 33Åp¶ æSpw_w) kv]ojokpIfnepw CtX coXnbn-epÅ hfÀ¨mcoXnIÄ ZÀin¡m³ IgnªXmbpw At±lw ]dbpì.

Un _odnsâ ]T\§Ä kam\ Ahbh§Ä cq]saSp-ç¶Xvhnhn[ Pohn hÀK§fn `qW¯nsâ hnhn[ CS§fnÂ\n¶msW¶ hnjbs¯ amXw ASnØ\am¡nbm-bnê¶nÃ.`qWIeIsf hnthNnç¶ t]cI§sfbpw (organizer)At±lw ]T\ hnt[bam¡n.

H]vänIv I¸ns\ BhcWw sN¿p¶ F¸nUÀankn (]pdwsXmen) \nìamWv \s«ÃpÅ PohnIfpsS I®nsâ se³kvD≠mæ¶Xv. ChnsS H]vänIv I v AXns\ BhcWw sN¿p¶F¸nUÀankns\ Dt¯Pn¸n¨v se³kmbn hfêhmëÅt]cIabn AYhm ]tbmàmhmbn (organizer) kzbwhÀ¯nçIbmWv sN¿p¶Xv. Cu organizer Bb H]vänIv I v Rana fusca C \nìw apdn¨p amänbt¸mgmWv se³kvhfcmXncnçIbpw F¶m Rana esculents  hfêIbpwsNbvXXv. !!.

CXv Hscmäs¸« DZmlcWaà F¶v ]dªpsIm≠ vAt±lw ho≠pw sXfnhv \nc¯pì:

This is no isolated example. In true vertebrates the spinal cordand brain develop as a result of induction by the underlyingorganizer; but in the "tadpole larva" of the tunicates, which has a"spinal cord" like the vertebrates, it differentiates without anyunderlying organizer at all. All this shows that homologous structurescan owe their origin and stimulus to differentiate to differentorganizer- induction processes without forfeiting their homology . "(Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton, 1985, p 147, citing:Homology: An Unsolved Problem, G. De Beer, 1971)

CXv Hscmäs¸« DZmlcWaÃ. bYmÀ° \s«ÃpÅPohnIfn kpjpav\bpw akvXnjvIhpw D≠mæ¶Xv _Ôs¸«Hê organizer sâ kzm[o\w aqeamWv. F¶m shÀ«nt_äIsft]mse "kpjpav\'bpÅ äqWnt¡äIfpsS "hm amInemÀh'Ifn AXv Hê organizer CÃmsXbmWv Dê¯ncnªphê¶Xv. CsXÃmw hyàamç¶Xv kam\ Ahbh§Ä,AhbpsS kZriys¯ Is¿mgn¡msX Xs¶, ISs¸«ncnç¶XvAhbpsS DÛhw, hyXykvXamb D±o]IþD±o]\ ]Inbsb

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v34thÀXncnç¶ BthK§Ä F¶nhtbmSmWv."" Evolution: ATheory in Crisis, Michael Denton, 1985, p 147, citing: Homology: AnUnsolved Problem, G. De Beer, 1971)

C§s\ A\h[n sXfnhpIÄ \nc¯n Bt±lwkZriymhbh§fpsS Cu cq]h¡cW coXnIÄ hyXykvX-§fmbXn\m Ah kam\ PoëIfpsS \nb´W¯neÃDÅsXìw BbXn\m Xs¶ P\nXIamb ]c¼cytam s]mXp]nXmal\n \nìê¯ncnbp¶ ]c¼cy kz`mh ssIamä-sat¶m ]dbm\mInà Fìw A`n]mbs¸Spì. aëjy\væc§pIsf¶t]mse Hmtcm Pohnçw Htcm s]mXp ]nXmal-·mês≠ìw FÃmw Hê GItImi Pohnbn \nìw ]cnWan vapt¶dnbXmsWìapÅ ]cnWma hmZs¯ Øm]ns¨Sp¡m³ssl¡Â D≠m¡nb Biogenetic Law ChnsS XIÀìt]mæì.

\áamb sXfnhpIfpsS shfn¨¯n Un._oÀ F¯n-t¨À¶kw£n]vXw C§s\ hmbn¡mw :

Un _oÀ ]dbpì: If the origin of the homologous structuresis not from the same part of the egg or position of the cells in theembryo, then they are not genetically related because they are notunder the control of homologous genes. If they are not geneticallyrelated, they are not the result of descent with modification from acommon ancestor.”

""AÞ¯nsâ Htc `mK¯p \nt¶m, `qW¯nsetImi§fpsS Htc Øm\¯p\nt¶m Aà (PohnIfpsS)kZriyXbmÀ¶ Ahbh§Ä DSseSpç¶Xv F¦n Ahkam\ PoëIfpsS \nb´W¯neà DÅXv. AXpsIm≠pXs¶Ah¡v P\nXIambn bmsXmê _ÔhpanÃ. P\nXI _Ô-anÃm¯h Htc ]qÀÆ ]nXmal\n \n¶v cq]m´cW-§fneqsSXeapdIfmbn ]cnWan¨hbpaÃ.''

"But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code forenzymes that synthesize proteins which are responsible (in a mannerstill unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the variousparts of their normal manner, what mechanism can it be that results

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v 35in the production of homologous organs, the same 'patterns' in spiteof their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this questionin 1938, and it has not been answered." (de Beer, Gavin (1971).Homology: An Unsolved Problem. London: Oxford University Press. )

""P\nXI tImUpIfneqsS PoëIÄ PohnIfpsS icocm-hbh§fpsS km[mcW LS\Isfbpw sshhn[y§sfbpwcq]oIcn¡m³ th≠ t]m«oëIsf DXv]mZn¸nç¶cmkmánIsf (Enzymes) tImUv sN¿pì F¶Xv kXyamsW-¦nÂ, Htc PoëIfm \nb´n¡s¸SmXnê¶n«pw kam\XIfpwLS\mkZriyhpapÅ Ahbh§Ä DSseSp¡s¸Sp¶Xv GXvsa¡\nk¯neqsSbmWv?. Rm³ 1938 apX tNmZn¨phê¶Cu tNmZy¯n\nt¶mfw D¯cw e`n¨n«nÃ.'' (de Beer, Gavin(1971). Homology: An Unsolved Problem. London: Oxford UniversityPress. )

Uâsâbpw Un _odnsâbpsaÃmw D]cnkqNnXsXfnhpIfn \nìw tlmatemKn ]cnWma hmZ¯n\v sXfnhv\Âæ¶nà F¶ kXyw BÀçw t_m[yamæ¶XmWv. F¶mÂGI\mb Hê kãmhnsâ IchnêXpIfnte¡mWXv shfn¨w\Âæ¶sX¶n\nsb¦nepw AÔcmb ssZh\ntj[nIÄXncn¨dnsª¦nÂ...!.

* tlmatemKnsb kw_Ôn¨pÅ imkvXImc-·mê-sS A`n]mb]IS\§Ä Aë_Ô¯n hmbnçI.

tlmsamtemKnsb ]cnWma¯n\v sXfnhm¡nbmÂhnhn[§f§fmb Hê]mSv ]iv\§Ä¡v adp]Sn ]dbm³]cnWmahmZnIÄ¡v Igntb≠Xp≠ v.

* Wysong \ÂInb tNmZy§fpsS enÌv Aë_Ô¯nÂhmbnçI.

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v36

ep]vXmhbh߃(Vestigial organs)

HêIme v PohnIfpsS ]qÀÆ ]nXmalcn icnbmwh®whfÀ¨ ]m]n¨v IrXyamb [À½§tfmsS \ne\n¶nê¶XpwF¶m C¶s¯ PohnIfn [À½ `wiw kw`hn¨v \maamX-ambtXm \ãs¸«pt]mbtXm Bb Ahbh§sf-bmWvep]vXmhbh§Â AYhm vestigial organs F¶v hnfnç¶Xv.aëjycn A]ImcapÅ 180 ep]vXmhbh§fps≠¶mWv]gb IW¡v. 1931  PÀ½³ imkvXÚ\mb AlfredWiedersheim BWv Cu enÌv kaÀ¸n¨Xv. F¶m \½psSB[p\nI icocimkvXw (Physiology) ]Imcw Cu enÌvsh«namäs¸«p.

1) Jacobson’s organ : \½psS \mkmcÔ§sf thÀXncnç¶kvXcamb Nasal septum (\mkm]mNocw) Imé¶Jacobson’s organ (vomeronasal organ ) ASp¯Imew hscvestigial organ BbmWv IêXnt¸m¶Xv . F¶mÂASp¯nsSbmbn aëjycn CXn\v khntijambCµnbmë`qXn kw_Ôamb [À½ap-s≠¶v Is≠¯pI-bp≠mbn (Gaafar, et al., 1998; Berliner, et al., 1996)

2) Vermiform Appendix : Encyclopaedia Britannica(1997) ÂVestigial Organs F¶ mK v (p. 491). \ap¡v hmbn¡m\m-

4

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v 37æ¶Xv C]ImcamWvv : ""The appendix does not serve anyuseful purpose as a digestive organ in humans, and it is believedto be gradually disappearing in the human species overevolutionary time (see Vestigial Organs, p. 491).

""Hê Zlt\µnbw F¶ \ne¡v A¸³UnIvkn\v aëjycnÂKpWIcamb bmsXmê BhiyIXbpw CÃ. amXaà aëjyhÀK§fn \nìw AXv ItaW ]cnWma L«§fneqsS\ãambns¡m≠ ncnçIbmsW¶mWv IêXs¸Sp¶Xv''(Encyclopaedia Britannica1997, Vestigial Organs p.491)

F¶m 1976 Ifn Xs¶ saUn¡Â ]pkvXI§fnÂAs¸³UnIvknsâ ]m[m\ys¯ ædn¨pÅ kPoh NÀ¨ImWmhp¶XmWv. :

The appendix is not generally credited with significant function;however, current evidence tends to involve it in the immunologicmechanism (Bockus, 1976, p. 1135).

"A¸³UnIkn\v khntijamb Fs´¦nepw [À½ap-s≠¶v KWn¨nê¶nsænepw ]pXnb sXfnhpIÄ AXns\tcmK]Xntcm[ kwhn[m\¯nepÄs¸Sp¯m³ t]cn¸n-çì."" (Bockus, 1976, p. 1135).

IqSpX B[p\nIamb KÙ§Ä As¸³UnIvkns\\¶mbn hnImkw ]m]n¨ Hê eknImhbhambn«mWv (well-developed lymphoid organ ) hniZoIcnç¶Xv. (Moore, 1992, p. 205).

(NnXw 10)Gray's Anatomy bpsS Gähpw ]pXnb ]Xn¸nse embryology

`mK¯v As¸³UnIkv aëjysâ ]qÀÆ ]nXmalêsS

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v38

kky`pçIÄ F¶ \neçÅ kz`mh§sf kqNn¸nç¶hn[w Hê ep]vXmhbh tijn v amXamsW¶v ]dbpt¼mÄAtX ]pkvXI¯nsâ Anatomy mKw ]dbp¶Xv C]ImcamWv:

In view of its rich blood supply and histological differentiation,the vermiform appendix is probably more correctly regarded as aspecialised than as a degenerate, vestigial structure. Theconfiguration of the caecum and appendix in man and theanthropoid apes is probably less primitive than in the monkeys.(Williams, P.L. and Warwick, R., 1980. Grays Anatomy, ChurchillLivingstone, 36th edition.)

""AXnsâ AXy[nIamb càhnXcWhpw IeIfpsShnthN\hpw aqew As¸³UnIvkns\ Hê [À½`wiwkw`hnç¶ ep]vXmhbhw F¶Xnep]cn khntijamÀ¶H¶mbn ]cnKWnçIbmWv Hê]t£ IqSpX A`nImayw.aëjycntebpw aëjyçc§pIfntebpw ko¡¯nsâbpwAs¸³UnIvknsâbpw AhØmhntijw æc§pIfnte-Xnt\¡mÄ Hê ]t£ ]cnWma¯nsâ BZy AhØbnepÅAX Xs¶ ]ucmWnIaÃ.''(Williams, P.L. and Warwick, R., 1980.Grays Anatomy, Churchill Livingstone, 36th edition.)

C¶v As¸³UnIvknsâ [À½§Ä Xmsg ]dbp¶taJeIfn DÅXmbn Is≠¯pIbpw ]T\§Ä ]ptcmKanç-Ibpw sN¿pì.

1. Embryological

2. Physiological

3. Microbiological (Bacteriological)

4. Biochemical

5. Immunological

*hniZamb ]T\w BKlnç¶hÀ Aë_Ô¯nÂsImSp¯ncnç¶ KÙ§Ä hmbnçI

F¶m Kl\amb ]T\§fn \nìw a\Ênem¡m\mbXvshÀ«nt_äIfn Nne amgvkq¸nb³ ( Opposum, Wombat etc.)IÄçw, GXmëw tdmUâpIÄçw (Fen, apbÂ) aëjy-çc§v, aëjyÀ F¶nhçamWv As¸³UnIvkv ko¡t¯mSv

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v 39tNÀ¶v Hê hnc t]mse ( vermiform ) Imé¶Xv (NnXw 10t\mçI). ""]gbXpw'' ""]pXnbXpamb'' F¶v ]dbs¸Sp¶At\Ibn\w æc§pIfn As¸³UnIvkv Imé¶nà . aëjy-çc§nepw aëjycnepw AXv IméIbpw sN¿pì. At¸mÄ]cnWmahmZ]Imcw aëjy\n \n¶v æc§pIÄ cq]m -cs¸«pF¶v ]dtb≠n hêì!!. A§ns\sb¦n BcmWv B[p\n-I³? æc§t\m, aëjyçct§m AtXm aëjyt\m? AhÀXs¶ ]dbs«.

ChnsS ckIcamb Imcyw hmepÅ F¶m As¸³UnIvkvCÃms¯ Hê æc§\n \nìw hmepw As¸³UnIvkpw DÅHê æc§¨³ cq]w sIm≠pshìw ]n¶nSXn \nìwhmenÃm¯ F¶m As¸³UnIvkpÅ aëjyç-c§p-IÄ(apes) cq]wsImÅpIbpw tijw As¸³UnIvkpÅhmenÃm¯ aëjyëw ]cnWan¨p≠mbn Fì ]dtb≠n hêwF¶XmWv.!! NneXv t]mæì aäp NneXv hêì. æc§\vBhiyanÃmXnê¶ As¸³UnIvkv Ahbn \ãamæIbpw]n¶oSv Bhiyanà F¶dnªpsIm≠pXs¶ cq]s¸SpIbpwsNbvXp F¶v sXfnhpIsfmìansænepw hmZ¯n\v th≠nk½Xnt¡≠ KXntISmWv ChnsSbpÅXv. F¶m Cu hmZwhmensâ Imcy¯n tbmPnçìanÃ. !!3. tbm°v k©n (Yolk Sac)

D]tbmKw \in¨ asämê ]mc¼cy _m¡n]XamWv,ap«bnSp¶hcÃm¯ kkvX\nIfnse tbmIvkmIv F¶mbnêì]gb imkvX \nKa\w. Cìw \½psS \m«n B Nn´mKXn¡vamäw h¶Xmbn tXmì¶nÃ. DcK§fn \nìw kkvX\nIfpw]£nIfpw hgn]ncnªXmbmWv ]cnWmahmZw ]dbp¶Xv.AXn NneÀ kmlNcymëkmcw PohnX kuIcy¯n\mbnshůnte¡v XncnsI t]mbt¸mgmWv XnanwKehpw aäp PekkvX\nIfpw D≠mbXv Fìw AhÀ hmZnçì. CXnëÅsXfnsht¶mWw kkvX\nIfnse `qWhfÀ¨m thfIfnÂImé¶ Bw\ntbm«nIv Zhs¯ (Amniotic Fluid) FSp¯pImWnçIbpw sN¿pì. kkvX\nIfpsS `qWs¯ Bhc-Ww sN¿p¶ ]pdw ]mfnIfnse (Extra Embryonic Membranes)tbmIv k©n (Yolk sac)bpsS BhiyIXsb iàambn tNmZywsNbvXptIm≠mWnhÀ ]cnWmaL«§sf kaÀ°n¨nê¶Xv.tbm¡nsâ bmsXmê BhiyhpanÃmsX hfcm³ Ignbp¶

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v40`qWamWtÃm kkvX\nIfptSXv. amXaà kkvX\nIfpsSAÞ¯n tbm¡nsâ Awiw Xosc ædhpamWv (MicroLacethal). A½bpsS KÀ`]mX¯n ]än¸nSn¨v hfÀ¨¡m-hiyamb t]mjI§fpw HmIvknPësaÃmw amXricoc¯nÂ\nìw kzoIcn¨v hfcq¶ Cu `qW¯n\v tbm¡v km¡nsâBhiyanÃ. At¸mÄ BhiyanÃm¯ H¶v AhnsS sh¨ssZh¯në sXäp]äntbm?. ssZhamév krãn \S¯nbsX¦nÂCu I¿_²w hcmhXÃtÃm? XpS§nb tNmZy ic§fneqsS]cnWmahmZnIfpsS kaÀ°\w apt¶m«pt]mbn.

F¶m Gähpw ]pXnb I≠p]nSp¯§Ä ]dbp¶Xv ChÀtbmIv kms¡¶v t]cn«p hnfn¨ Cu k©nbn cq]wsImÅp¶tImi§fmWv `qW¯nsâ ]mYanI hfÀ¨m L«§fn Icfpw¹olbpw (Liver & Spleen) D≠mæ¶Xphsc A½bpsSicoc¯n \nìw HmIvknPëw t]mjI§fpw kzoIcnç¶cIXtImi§fmbn ]hÀ¯nç¶Xv F¶m-Wv. tbmIv km¡vapdn¨p amänbm `qW¯në \nanj§Ä amXaméPohnXapÅXv . ! ! Ahbh§fpsS cq]oIcWm\´cw(Organogenesis) Icfpw ¹olbpw ]n¶oSv AØnIfnseaÖbpamWv cIXmé¡fpsS ]`h tIµ§Ä. ssZhnIXoêam\§fpsSbpw krãn¸nsebpw IrXyX ChnsS IqSpXÂhyàamæì.

(NnXw 11)

R.L. Wysong : As man’s knowledge has increased the list ofvestigial organs decreased. So what really was vestigial? Was itnot man’s rudimentary knowledge of the intricacies of the body?(p. 397).

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v 41R.L. Wysong F¶ imkvXImc³ FgpXn: ""aëjysâ

hnÚm\w Gdp¶tXmsSm¸w ep]vXmhbh§fpsS enÌvædªp hì. At¸mÄ Ah icnçw ep]vXmhb§Ä Xs¶Bbnêìthm? aëjysâ k¦oÀ®amb icocs¯çdn¨pÅ]qÀ® hnImkw ]m]n¨n«nÃm¯ Adnhmbnêìthm AXv?"" (* Wysong, R.L. (1976), The Creation-Evolution Controversy (East

Lansing, MI: Inquiry Press).

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v42

Kn√pIfpw (Gills) ]cnWmahmZhpw

ssl¡Â Xsâ `qW XmcXay cN\bn ]tXyIw i²n¨Hê ImcyamWv KnÃpIÄ. aÕy§fpsS izk\mhbhamb CXvFÃm shÀ«nt_änsâbpw `qW hfÀ¨¡nSbn ]Xy£aæ-ì≠ v F¶mWv Biogenetic Law ]Imcw ]dbs¸«Xv. ]n¶oSvaXvky§fÃm¯ \s«ÃpÅ PohnIfn KnÃpIÄ Ahiyan-Ãm¯ H¶mbXn\m A]Xy£amæì Fìambnêì\nKa\w. \½psS ]mT]pkvXI§fn Cìw CXp Xs¶bmWv]Tn¸n¨pt]mê¶Xv. `qW¯n Nne hnÅepIÄ t]mseImé¶ `mKs¯ s]mXpsh, AXpshdpw aSçIÄ aqeap-≠mb NpfnhpIfmbm Xs¶bpw, gill slits F¶v hnfn¨pt]mì.

F¶m tUm. ssa¡Â dn¨mÀUvk¬ CXv sXämsW¶vIrXyamb sXfnhpIÄ \nc¯n kaÀ°nçIbp≠mbn. emÀhmL«w (larval stage)IqSmsX t\cn«v hfÀ¨ ]m]nç¶ (direct-

developing) D`b PohnIfn t]mepw* KnÃpIÄ Imé¶nà F¶vAt±lw sXfnhp\ÂIn. NnXw 12 se (d) ]tXyIw t\mçI.

5

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v 43

(NnXw 12)

Drawings of Michael Richardson of selected embryos shown atthe 'phylotypic' stage.

(a) Sea lamprey (jawless cyclostome fish, Petromyzon) with nearlyidentical pharyngeal pouches and heart that is caudal to thepharynx;

(a) ISen Imé¶ emw_n (XmSnsbÃnÃm¯ sskt¢mtÌmwaÕyw þ s]tSmssatkm¬) GXm≠ v kam\amb KfAdIfpw Kf¯n\v Ahkm\ `mK¯mbn Imé¶lrZbhpw .

(b) Electric ray (cartilagenous chondrichthes fish, Torpedo) withnearly identical pharyngeal pouches and a pronouncedhindbrain/midbrain flexure;

(b) sshZ|X Xnc≠ n (XêWmkvXn aÕywþtSmÀ]ntUm)akvXnjI¯nsâ Ahkm\ `mKhpw a[y`mKhpwhfªncnç¶ AhØtbmsS.

(c) sterlet (bony Osteichthyes fish, Acipenser) where thepharyngeal pouches have not yet formed;

(c) sÌÀeäv (AØnbpÅ aÕyw þAkns]³kÀ) C\nbpwKf AdIÄ cq]s¸«nÃ

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v44(d) frog (direct -developing anuran amphibian Eleutherodactylus)

which has hind-limb buds at the tail-bud stage and only twopairs of aortic arches;

(d) Xhf ( t\À hfÀ¨ ]m]nç¶ (emÀhbnÃmsX) A\d³(hmenÃm¯) D`b Pohn þ FeXotdmUmIvssäekv) CXn\v]n³ImepIfpsS apæf§fpw Hê tPmUn aortic arches DwaXw. (*KnÃpIÄ CÃ).

(e) Pond turtle (chelonian reptile, Emys) where there is nocraniocaudal rotation (torsion) to the embryo, whereas the samestage of the chick (avian) embryo (f) shows pronounced torsion;

(e) æfbma (IotemWnb³ DcKw þ --Fankv) ChbpsS `qW¯n\vakvXnjvI IhN¯nsâ mK¯pw hmÂ`mK- pw DÅ hfhv(torsion) Imé¶nÃ. F¶m AtX L«¯nse tImgnbpsS(]dh) `qW¯n (f) IrXy-amb hfhv Iméì.

(g) brush-tailed possum (marsupial mammal, Trichosurus) wherethere is (in contrast to the cartilagenous fishes) large maxillaryand mandibular processes

(g) _jv t]mse hmepÅ t]mÊw ( amgvkq¸nb³ kkvX\n þSnt¡mkdkv) Ch¡v (XêWmØn aÕy§fpsSXn\vhnê²abn) henb apIÄ þ Iogv XmSnsbÃpIfpsSLS\IfméÅXv.

(h) In the cat (eutherian mammal, Felis) there is a similar sizedifference between the anterior and posterior pouches,although their appearance differs from that of the marsupials.(Richardson, 1997.)

(h) ]q¨bn (bqXocnb³ kkvX\n þ s^enkv) amgvkq¸nb³kkvX\nIfn \nìw ImgvN¡v hyXykvXX ]peÀ¯p¶Xpt]mse ap³þ]n³ mK§fnse AdIÄ X½n hen¸¯nÂhyXmkw D≠ v. (Richardson, 1997.)

gill slit Ifn \n¶v aÕy§fneÃmsX izk\mhb§Äcq]saSpç¶nà Fìw aäp PohnIfnse `qW§fnepÅXv Nne

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v 45aSçIfpw AdIfpw amXamsWìw a\Ênembt¸mÄ gill slitsF¶Xv Pharyngeal arches, Pharyngeal clefts, Pharyngeal pouches,Brachial arches Fs¶Ãmw hnfn¡m³ XpS§n.

aÕy `qW¯nsâ gill slits  \nìw kkvX\nIfpsSKfAdIfn \nìw (Pharyngeal pouches) cq]w sImÅp¶Ahb§fpsS hniZoIcWw Xmsg ]«nIbn sImSp¯n-cnç¶Xv t\mçI.

kwKXnIÄ CXbpw hyàambn sXfnbn¡s¸«ncn -çìsh¦nepw kkvX\nIfneS¡w FÃm \s«ÃpÅPohnIÄçw `qW hfÀ¨mL«§fn aÕy§sft¸mseKnÃpIÄ ImWmw F¶v Ct¸mgpw \½psS æ«nIsf ]Tn¸n¨p-sIm≠ncnçì.!! `qWlXysb Hê aÕyçªns\ sImÃp¶emLht¯msS ImWm³ t]cn¸nç¶ A[mÀ½nIXhfÀ¯p¶ Cu kn²m´w Ct¸mgpw BhÀ¯nç¶XvssZhs¯ AwKoIcnt¡≠n hêsa¶ Hscmä `bwsIm≠pamXamsW¶mWv a\Ênem¡m\mæ¶Xv.

Mandibular 1 Spiracle Eustachian tube (and middle ear)Arch IHyoid 2 Gill slit Palatine tonsil and carotid body (inArch II carotid sinus of right common

carotidnear the junction of internalcarotid andright external carotid)

Arch III 3 Gill slit Parathyroid and ThymusArch IV 4 Gill slit Parathyroid and Thymus

(sometimes) andpossiblyultimobranchial body

Arch V 5 Gill slit Tonsil and aortic body (in aorticsinus of aorta)and possiblyultimobranchialbody (Kardong,p. 486,lists it only for pouch 5)

Arch VI 6 Gill slit nil

PharyngealArch

Slit of fish orinternalpouch

(endoderm linedinembryo) of mammal,

behind thenamedpharyngeal

arch

Shark Mammalian Derivative

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v46

B¿°ntbm]vs‰dnIvkpw (Archaeopteryx)]cnWmahmZhpw

(NnXw 14 )

Archaeopteryx lithographica BerlinSpecimen

(NnXw 13 )

Archaeopteryx lithographicaLondon Specimen

6

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v 47

(NnXw 15) Archaeopteryx lithographica Feather (von Meyer, 1861 )

\½psS _tbmfPn ]mT]pkvXI§fn \ndªp \nÂç-¶ H¶mWtÃm BÀ¡ntbm]vädnIvkv F¶ cq]w. sIm¡nÂ]Ãpw NndIn \J§tfmSpIqSnb hncepIfpw Xqh \ndª\o≠ hmepambn ImWs¸Sp¶ B NnXw ]cnWmahmZs¯Fìw a\Ên Xd¸n¨p \nÀ¯m³ ]cym]vXamWv. BÀ¡n-tbm]ädnIvknsâ t^mkn kw_Ôamb NcnX¯n-te¡v Hs¶¯n t\m¡mw.

H¶c ASn hnSÀ¯mhp¶ Nndæw sImç apX hmeäwhsc Af¶m HcSn \ofhpw 330 apX 450 Kmw hscXq¡hpapÅ GXms≠mê Im¡tbmfw hen¸apÅ Hê]t£]d¡m³ Ignhp≠ mbnê¶ Pohnbmbn«mWv e`yambt^mknepIfn \nìw Paleontologists (t^mkn imkvXIm-c·mÀ) F¯nt¨À¶ \nKa\w.

Ct¶mfw Ggv BÀ¡ntbm]ädnIvkv kvs]knaëIfmWve`n¨n«pÅXv. (Häs¸«p In«nb Hê Xqh HgnsI). Ch Is≠Sp-¡s¸«Xnsâ Iaw Xmsg ]dbpw ]ImcaWv.

XqhÂ: Solnhofen \n\Sp v 1860Â I≠pIn«nb XqhÂBÀ¡n-tbmä-dnIvknsâ XqhÂXs¶sb¶v 1861 Â thm¬tabÀ (von Meyer) hniZoIcnçIbp≠mbn.

The London Specimen: 1861 Langenaltheim \Sp¯vIs≠¯nb t^mkn BÀ¡ntbm]vädnIvkntâXp Xs¶sb¶vAtX hÀjw thm¬ ta¿À hniZoIcn¨p. e`yamb t^mknep-Ifn CXpw s_Àen³ kvs]knaëamWv Gähpw Adnbs¸«

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v48t^mknepIÄ. ]n¶nSv t^mkn hnZKvZëw `njKzcë-ambnê¶ Dr. Carl Haberlein CXv _n«ojv aknb¯n\v 600]u≠n\v hnçIbmbnêì.

The Birlin Specimen : Blumenburg \Sp¯v 1877  ægns¨Sp¯Cu BÀ¡ntbm]vädnI vkns\ W. Dames 1884 emWvhniZoIcn¨Xv. s]m«nt¸mbsX¦nepw apgph³ XebpwD≠mbnê¶Xn\m e≠³ kvs]knat\¡mÄ t`Zs¸«H¶mbn«mWv CXv ]cnKWn¡s¸Sp¶Xv. Dr. Carl Haberlein sâaI³ Ernst CXv 36,000 gold marks \v s_Àen³ aknb¯n\vhnÂçIbp≠mbn.

The Maxburg Specimen: e≠³ kvs]kna³ e`n¨Langenaltheim \Sp¯p\nì Xs¶ 1958 emWv CXv Is≠¯nbXv.1959  Heller BWv CXn\v NnXoIcWw \ÂIn hniZoIcn¨Xv.DS amXap≠mbnê¶ Cu t^mknent\-çdn¨pÅ bmsXmêhnhchpw Ct¸mÄ e`yaÃ. (CXv Is≠Sp¯ Eduard Opitsch sâacW tijw AXv clkyambn hn¡s¸«Xmbncn-çsa¶vIêXs¸Spì.)

The Haarlem or Teyler Specimen: 1855  Reidenburg\Sp¯mWv CXv Is≠¯nbXv. AXmbXv Xqhenëw A©vhÀj§Ä¡v ap³]v. Pterodactylus crassipes F¶v von MeyerAXn\v hÀKoIcWw \ÂIn. 1970  Ostrom CXv ]p\¸cntim-[n v ØncoIcnçIbp≠mbn.

The Eichstatt Specimen: Workerszell 1951 emWv CX vIs≠¯nbXv. PÀ½\nbnse aWn¡nepÅ ]menbt´mf-Pn¡Â aknb¯nse Peter Wellnhofer BWv CXn\vhniZoIcWw \ÂInbXv. aäpÅ kvs]knat\¡mÄ aq¶nÂc≠pamXw hen¸apÅ CXv Gähpw sNdnb t^mknemWv.BÀ¡ntbm]vädnIvkv kvs]knaëIfn \nìw Ht«sdhyXymk§fps≠¦nepw CXv Archaeopterics lithographica bnÂXs¶bmWv KWn¡s¸Sp¶Xv.

The Solonhofen Specimen : Eichstatt \Sp¯ ]tZi¯p \nìw1960 Â Is≠Sp¯p. Wellnhofer 1988 Â hniZoIcWw \ÂIn.

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v 49BZyw CXns\ Compsognathus BbmWv a\Ênem¡nbXv.F¶m ]n¶oSv A. lithographica Bbn ]p\À hÀKoIcn-çIbmbnêì. (Ostrom , 1975, 3:61; Gee, 1999, p.180 t\mçI)

The Solnhofen-Aktein-Verein Specimen: 1993  Wellnhofer Hê]pXnb kvs]knas\ hniZoIcnçIbp≠mbn. PÀ½³ mjbnÂ\ÂInb ]kvXpX hnhcW¯nse DÅS¡w hfscNpê§nbXmbnêì. Cu kvs]knas\ Archaeopterix bavaricabnemWv DÄs¸Sp¯nbXv.

e≠³ kvs]knsasâ XqhepIfpsS `mK¯nsâbpwXqhepIfnÃm¯ asämê `mK¯nsâbpw X-ray resonancespectrograph ImWnç¶Xv XqhepIÄ ]Xnªnê¶ASbmf§fpÅnSs¯ ]ZmÀ°hpw t^mkn Ém_nsâ aäp`mK§fpw X½n ]ISamb hyXymkapÅXmbn«mWv. Cu`mKs¯ ]ZmÀ°¯nsâ cmk kz`mhhpw hyXykvXambnêì.AXmbXv Izmdnbnse InÌ kz`mhapÅ ]mdbn \nìw Cu `mKs¯ ]ZmÀ°w InÌ kz`mhanÃm¯Xmbn«mWvImWs¸«Xv. (Wickramansinghe and Hoyle, 1986).

]cnWmahmZnbmb Alan Feduccia ]dªp: ""Paleontologistshave tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathereddinosaur. But its not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount ofpaleobabble is going to change that (as quoted in Morell, 1993,259:764).

" "]menbt´mfPnÌpIÄ BÀ¡ntbm]vädnI vkns\XqhepÅ, qanbpambn tNÀ¶v Ignbp¶ Hê "ssU\tkm-dm¡namämëÅ iaw \S¯pì≠ v. F¶m AXv A§s\-bÃ.AsXmê ]£nbmWv, tNt¡dp¶ ]£n. Hê "]mentbm På\-§fpw' AXv amäm³ t]mæ¶nÃ.''

British Museum of Natural Historybn ko\nbÀ ]menbt´m-fPnÌmbn tk\aëãn¡sh Colin Patterson ]dªp:Archaeopteryx has simply become a patsy for wishful thinking. IsArchaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no:there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to makeup stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v50why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But suchstories are not a part of science, for there is no way of putting themto the test (as quoted in Sunderland, 1988, p. 102).

""BÀ¡ntbm]vädnIvkv bmYmÀ°yt_m[anï Nn´I-fpsS Hê D]IcWambn amdn. BÀ¡ntbm]vädnIkv FÃm]£nIfpsSbpw ]qÀÆnI\mtWm? Hê]t£ Bbncn¡mw,AÃsXbpancn¡mw: Cu tNmZy¯n\v D¯cw \ÂIm³ Hê\neçw km[yaÃ. H¶v asäm¶n \n¶v F]ImcamWvcq]wsIm≠sXìw Hmtcm L«§fpw ]IrXn \nÀ²mcW¯n\vF´psIm≠ v AëKpWamIWsa¶XnëÅ ImcW§ÄIs≠¯mëw IYIÄ sa\bpI Ffp¸amWv. IrXyamb]cntim[\¡v hnt[bam¡m³ Ignbm¯XpsIm≠p Xs¶A¯cw IYIÄ imkvX¯nsâ `mKhpaÃ.''

sSIvkmknse t]mÌv F¶ Øe¯n\Sp¯p \nìwIs≠Sp¯ t^mkn BÀ¡ntbm]vädnIvkns\ Npän¸änbpÅIYIÄ IqSpX k¦oÀ®am¡m³ CS\Âæ¶Xmbn -êì. Im¡tbmfw hen¸apÅ ,BÀ¡ntbm]vädnIvknt\¡mÄ75 aney³ hÀjw ]g¡apÅ c≠ v ]£nIfpsS t^mknep-Ifmbnêì AXv. ]cnWmahmZ Ime\nÀ®b coXnIÄ ]ImcwCh¡v GXm≠ v 225 aney³ hÀjw ]g¡ap≠ v . Lubbockse Texas Tech University bnse i¦À NmäÀPnbpw kl]hÀ¯I-êamWv CXv Is≠Sp¯Xv. Protoavis texensis (The first bird fromTexas) F¶v \maIcWw sN¿s¸« Cu t^mknepIfpsS]Jym]\w apX AsXmê hnhmZ hnjbambn. F¶mÂFXncmfnIsf t\cnSm³ NmäÀPnbpsS I¿n sXfnhpIfp-≠mbnêì. Protoavis sâ Xetbm«nbnse 23 e£W§ÄASnØm\]cambpw ]£nIfptSXmbnêì. AXpt]mse- s¶ap³ssIIfpw , NpaepIfpw, CSps¸ÃpIfp (Forelimbs, shouldersand the hip girdle) saÃmw icnçw ]£nIfptSXp Xs¶. 1997 At±lw ]£nIfpsS ]cnWmas¯ kw_Ôn¨v The Rise ofBirds F¶ t]cn ]pkvXsagpXpIbpw AXn Protoavis s\B[p\nI ]£nIfpsS ap³Kmanbmbn AhXcn¸nçIbpwsNbvXp.

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v 51CXv AwKoIcn¨psImSp¯m B[p\nI ]£nIfpsS

]nXmal\mbn BÀ¡ntbm]vädnIvkns\ Ahtcm[nçIAkm[yaæì F¶Xn\m ]cnWmahmZnIÄ¡v Protoavishenb XethZ\bmbn. Protoavis sâ sXfnhpIÄ I≠tijwsI³kmkv bqWnthgvknänbnse ]menbt´mfPnÌmb LaryMartin C]Imcw A`n]mbs¸«p :

There's going to be a lot of people with Archaeopteryx eggson their face (as quoted in Anderson, 1991, 253:35).

"apJ v BÀ¡ntbm]vädnIvknsâ ap«Ifpambn C\n ætdBfpIÄ D≠mæ¶XmWv''.

(NnXw 16 )Protoavis texensis

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v52

D¬∏cnh¿Ø\hpw (Mutation)]cnWmahmZhpw

P\nXI kz`mh hyXnbm\hpw AXphgn ]pXnb kv]ojo-kpIÄ (Pohn hÀK§Ä) DÛhnç¶Xnëw DÅ ][m\ImcWambn ]dbs¸Sp¶Xv D¸cnhÀ¯\w AYhm MutationBWv. XeapdIfnte¡v ssIamdm³ Ignbpw hn[w PohnIfpsSPot\mssS¸n (Genotype) D≠mæ¶ s]mSp¶s\bpÅamäs¯ BWv at«j³ F¶v ]dbp¶Xv. CXv tImatkmansâLS\bntem, Po\nsâ LS\bntem kw`hnçt¼mÄ bYmIawtImatkmw D¸cnhÀ¯\saìw (Chromosomal Mutations)Po³ D¸cnhÀ¯\saìw (Gene Mutation) hnfnçw.

F¶m at«j³ aqew PohnIfn ]cnWmaw kw`hn v]pXnb kv]ojokv D≠mæ¶Xn\v km[yXtb¡mtfsdAkm[yXbméÅsX¶v B[p\nIimkvXw ]dbpì.at«jëIfn A[nIhpw PohnIÄ¡v amcItam lm\nIctamBb ]InbbmWv F¶XpsIm≠p Xs¶ AXv ]cnWma]caÃadn v kmwIanIw amXamWv. P\nXI imkvX¯n t\m_Âk½m\Àl\mb Hermann J. Muller ]dbp¶Xv IméI:

Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly wellover 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effectsof accidental occurrences (1950, 38:35).

7

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v 53""ayqt«jëIfn alm `qcn`mKhpw, \nÝbambpw 99%

¯nepa[nIw, A]Xo£nXamb kw`h§fpsS ]`mhw F¶\ne¡v GsX¦nepw coXnbn lm\nIcamWv."" (1950, 38:35)

Paleontologist Kurt Wise sâ \nco£Ww C§ns\bmWv : Ofcarefully studied mutations, most have been found to be harmful toorganisms, and most of the remainder seem to have neither positivenor negative effect. Mutations that are actually beneficial areextraordinarily rare and involve insignificant changes. Mutationsseem to be much more degenerative than constructive (2002, p.163, emp. added).

"ayqt«jëIsf ki²w ]T\ hnt[bamçt¼mÄan¡hbpw PohnIÄ¡v lm\nIcambmWv IWm\mæ¶Xv._m¡nbpÅhbn A[nIhpw KpWIctam tZmjIctam Bb]`mhw CÃm¯hbmbn«mWv ImWs¸«Xv. KpWIcambat«j³ F¶Xv XnI¨pw AXy]qÀÆhpw A][m\ambamä§Ä¡v A´À`hn¡mhp¶hbpw amXamWv. aqt«jëIsfIqSpXembpw \nÀ½mW]cw F¶Xnt\¡mÄ £tbm·pJ§fm-bmWv a\Ênem¡m\mæ¶Xv. "" (2002, p. 163, emp. added).

At¸mÄ aqt«j³ kw`hn¨ PohnIÄ AXnsâ ]`mhw]ISamæìsh¦n \miaSbpItbm Kp]vXamæìsh¦nÂkm[mcW \nebn IgnbpItbm sN¿pì. F¶m ]pXnbHê kv]ojokv D≠mæI F¶Xv Akw`hyw F¶À°w.

*XXvkw_Ôamb B[p\nI ]cnWmahmZnIfpsSA`n]mb§Ä Aë_Ô¯n hmbnçI.

]cnWmahmZw \mÄç \mÄ CêfSbp¶ AhØbmWvImWm\mæ¶Xv. `qWimkvXhpw, t^mkn ]T\ Kthj-W§fpw, P\nXI imkvXhpw, icoc imkvXhpsaÃmw ]ptcmK-ançw tXmdpw ]cnWmahmZw aknb¯nte¡v æSntbdpIbmWv.]t£, X§fpsS [mcWIfpw \ncoizchmZ Nn´Ifpw XIÀìt]mætam F¶ b¯m a\ÊnW§p¶Xp amXw AwKoIcn vImew IgnçIbmWv \½psS \m«nse \ncoizcþbpàn-hmZþ\nÀ½X Iq«psI«pImÀ. BbXpsIm≠mWv ]pXnb imkvX

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v54kXy§sf X§fpsS ]gabpsS ]n³hmXneneqsS hens¨dnbm³AhÀ ]mSps]Sp¶Xv. hkvXpXIsf Xpd¶ a\tÊmsSAwKoIcn¡m³ X¿mdmæI F¶XmWv imkvXtemI-¯ntâbpw am\hnIXbptSbpw InbmßIamb hfÀ¨çw\ne\n¸nìw Aët]£Wobambn«pÅXv.

]cnWmahmZs¯ XIÀ¯pIfª sXfnhpIÄ \nch[n-bmWv. krãn¸nsâ khntijXIfpw hyhØm]n-XXzhpwFÃmw Xncn¨dnªv GI\mb kãmhnsâ AX|eyX-sba\Ênem¡n Ah\v IosgmXp§p¶ a\ÊpIÄ¡v th≠nbmWvCkvemanI ZuXy¯nsâ `mKambn CXbpw AhXcn¸n-¨n«pÅXv. krãnIsfçdn¨pÅ Úm\w t\Ssh AXnsehyhØm]nX¯hpw AXnsâ \izcXbpw Xncn¨dnbp¶GsXmêhëw AXv XnIª kaKXtbmsS AhXcn¸nç¶ssZhnIhN\§Ä hnizknçhmëw XYëkmcw hÀ¯nç-hmëw ISabpÅh\msWìw kÀÆtemI \nb´mhpwkãmhpamb AÃmlp ]dªncnçì Fì IqSn AdnbpI:

""BImi`qanIfpsS B[n]Xyclkys¯¸änbpw, AÃmlpkrjvSn¨ GsXmcp hkvXpsh¸änbpw, AhcpsS Ah[nASp¯n«p≠mbncn¡mw F¶Xns\¸änbpw AhÀ Nn´n¨vt\m¡nbntÃ? C\n CXn\v (JpÀB¶v) tijw GsXmcphr¯m´¯nemWv AhÀ hnizkn¡m³ t]mIp¶Xv?''( 7 : 185)

aëjysâ bXmÀ°]IrXnbnte¡v aS§nsb¯m³A\nhmcyamb H¶nteçÅ ]t_m[\amWv CkvemanI]t_m[IÀ¡v \nÀÆln¡mëÅXv. aëjy³ Ahsâkãmhns\ Xncn¨dnªv Ahs\ amXw Bcm[n¨v Ahsâhn[nhneçIfëkcn v PohnçI F¶XmWv B ]IrXn. aXwF´ns\ìÅ tNmZy¯n\v JpÀB³ \Âæ¶ D¯cwasäm¶Ã.

""BIbm (kXy¯nÂ) t\sc \nesImÅp¶h\mbn«v\nsâ apJs¯ \o aX¯nte¡v Xncn v \nÀ¯pI. AÃmlpa\pjysc GsXmcp ]IrXnbn krjvSn¨ncn¡p¶pthm B]IrXnbsX AXv. AÃmlphnsâ krjvSnhyhkvYbv¡vbmsXmcp amähpanÃ. AXsX hIXbnÃm¯ aXw. ]s£a\pjycn A[nI t]cpw a\Ênem¡p¶nÃ.'' ( 30 : 30 )

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v 55

APPENDIX

What do the world famous Biologists say about Haeckel’s Drawings?

1. Rager: "Haeckel was not prudish in the selection of tools for hisfight. In order to prove the validity of the law of biogenesis, hepublished several figures, the original and legends of whichwere faked up." ... "This fake is now shown in a few examples. Forthis purpose he used the same printing stock three times andinvented a different legend for each copy." ... "There are anumber of other figures, the originals of which were changedby Haeckel in order to demonstrate that human ontogenysuccessively passes through stages of development whichrepeat phylogeny." ... "This is not the first time that Haeckel's fakehas been revealed. The well-known zoologist, Ludwig Rutimeyer(1868), protested against it." ... "The law of biogenesis has to usecheating tricks in order to fit data to the theory." (HumanEmbryology and the Law of Biogenesis, G. Rager, in Rivista diBiologia, Biology Forum 79, 1986, p 451-452)

2. Thompson:. "A natural law can only be established as aninduction from facts. Haeckel was of course unable to do this.What he did was to arrange existing forms of animal life in a

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v56series proceeding from the simple to the complex, intercalating[inserting] imaginary entities where discontinuity existed andthen giving the embryonic phases names corresponding to thestages in his so-called evolutionary series. Cases in which thisparallelism did not exist were dealt with by the simple expedientof saying that the embryological development had beenfalsified. When the `convergence' of embryos was not entirelysatisfactory, Haeckel altered the illustrations of them to fit histheory. The alterations were slight but significant. The`biogenetic law' as a proof of evolution is valueless." (W. R.Thompson, "Introduction to The Origin of Species," p. 12. )

3. Stephen Jay Gould: "... it has fascinated me ever since the NewYork City public schools taught me Haeckel's doctrine, thatontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, fifty years after it, had beenabandoned by science." (Ontogeny and phylogeny, StephenJay Gould, ISBN 0-674-63940-5, 1977, p1

4. Rusch: "The history of the so-called Law of Recapitulation isbriefly examined from its inception down to Ernst Haeckel whofinalized it as the "Biogenetic Law." Because of many short-comings discovered since Haeckel's day, the idea of"Recapitulation" is no longer generally recognized as a "Law"and some modern texts on evolution omit all reference to thetopic. Some post-1960 textbooks, however, still present theillustrations of supposed embryological stages by Ernst Haeckelas support for the theory of evolution. Original criticisms of thehonesty of Haeckel's arguments and illustrations are presentedhere, based on translated excerpts from the original Germanreviews by L. Rutimeyer, professor of science at the University ofBasel, and early critic of Haeckel. These original sources indicatethat Haeckel's woodcut series illustrating the ova and embryowere fraudulent. Articles by Wilhelm His, Sr., embryologist andanatomist of the University of Leipzig, also demonstrate thatHaeckel's works contained distortions that were evidentlyperpetrated with the direct intent to deceive. It is suggestedthat future editions of science texts eliminate all use of Haeckel's

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v 57questionable materials. Perpetuating these distorted drawingsas true representations of the embryos in question and as havingweight in the argument for evolution is certainlyregrettable. (Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny, Wilbert H.Rusch, Sr., Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 6, June1969, pp. 27-34)

5. Fix: ". . ontogeny recaptitulates phylogeny, meaning that in thecourse of its development [ontogeny] an embryo recapitulates[repeats] the evolutionary history of its species. This idea wasfathered by Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist who was soconvinced that he had solved the riddle of life's unfolding thathe doctored and faked his drawings of embryonic stages toprove his point." (The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution, William R.Fix, 1984, p. 285)

6. Milner: "When critics brought charges of extensive retouchingand outrageous `fudging' in his famous embryo illustrations,Haeckel replied he was only trying to make them more accuratethan the faulty specimens on which they were based."(Encyclopedia of Evolution, R. Milner, 1990, p 206)

7. Ashley Montagu, "The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Sincethen no respectable biologist has ever used the theory ofrecapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by aNazi-like preacher named Haeckel." Montague-Gish PrinstonDebate, 4/12/80

8. G.G. Simpson and W. Beck "It is now firmly established thatontogeny does not repeat phylogeny." [emphasis in original]George Gaylord Simpson and William S. Beck, Life: AnIntroduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.,1965), p. 241

9. Biogenetic -LANP-, DOTT, Univ. of WI, & BATTEN, Columbia Univ.,A.M.N.H., "Much research has been done in embryology sinceHaeckel's day, and we now know that there are all too many

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v58exceptions to this analogy, and that ontogeny does not reflectaccurately the course of evolution." EVOLUTION OF THE EARTH,p.86

10. K S. Thompson: Recapitulated Error, , Pres., Academy of NaturalSciences, "Surely the 'Biogenetic Law' is as dead as a doornail Itwas finally exorcised from biology test books in the fifties. As atopic of serious theoretical inquiry, it was extinct in the twenties."American Scientist, p.273, 5/6/88

11. Ehrlich and Holm: "This generalization was originally called thebiogenetic law by Haeckel and is often stated as `ontogenyrecapitulates phylogeny.' This crude interpretation ofembryological sequences will not stand close examination,however. Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointedout by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent placein biological mythology." Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard W. Holm,The Process of Evolution (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), p. 66.

12. Walter J. Bock: "Moreover, the biogenetic law has become sodeeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weededout in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong bynumerous subsequent scholars." Walter J. Bock (Department ofBiological Sciences, Columbia University), "Evolution by OrderlyLaw," Science, Vol. 164, 9 May 1969, pp. 684-685.

13. Frings: ". . . we no longer believe we can simply read in theembryonic development of a species its exact evolutionaryhistory." Hubert Frings and Marie Frings, Concepts of Zoology(Toronto: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1970), p. 267.

14. Waddington: "The type of analogical thinking which leads totheories that development is based on the recapitulation ofancestral stages or the like no longer seems at all convincing oreven interesting to biologists." Conrad Hal Waddington,Principles of Embryology (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.,1956), p. 10.

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v 59What do the informed scientists say about Homology?

1. Stephen J. Gould has admitted that homology is explained aswell by a common designer as it would common evolution.(Natural History, Stephen J. Gould, January 1987, p 14)

2. The failure to find a genetic and embryological basis forhomology was discussed by Sir Gavin de Beer, Britishembryologist and past Director of the British Museum of NaturalHistory, in a succinct monograph Homology, an UnresolvedProblem. (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton, 1985, p145, citing: Homology: An Unsolved Problem, G. De Beer, 1971,Oxford University Press, London)

3. "It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that theinheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestorexplained homology was misplaced." (Homology, an UnsolvedProblem, Sir Gavin de Beer, 1971, p 15)

4. "The really significant finding that comes to light from comparingthe proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible toarrange them in any sort of an evolutionary series." (Evolution: ATheory in Crisis, Michael Denton, research microbiologist inAustralia, 1985, p 289)

5. It appears then that Darwin's usage of the term 'homology', whichhe defines in the Origin as that "relationship between parts whichresults from their development from corresponding embryonicparts" is, as De Beer emphasizes, just what homology is not.(Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton, 1985, p 149, citing:Homology: An Unsolved Problem, G. De Beer, 1971 who cited:The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, 1872, 6th ed, 1962, CollierBooks, New York p 492)

6. A convincing explanation for the mystifying 'unity of type', thephenomenon of homology that Darwin thought he had soadequately explained by descent from a common ancestor, isprobably still a very long way away. With the demise of any sortof straightforward explanation for homology one of the major

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v60pillars of evolution theory has become so weakened that itsvalue as evidence for evolution is greatly diminished. Thebreakdown of the evolutionary interpretation for homologycannot be dismissed as a triviality and casually put aside as acuriosity for, as Sir Alister Hardy reminds us in his book The LivingStream: "The concept of homology is absolutely fundamental towhat we are talking about when we speak of evolution - yet intruth we cannot explain it at all in terms of present day biologicaltheory." (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton, 1985, p151, citing: The Living Stream, A. Hardy, 1965, p 213)

7. Is it possible that many cases of resemblance in nature whichare today classed as homologous, and taken by evolutionarybiologists as implying descent from a common origin, may turnout to be merely analogous? There is certainly a long termhistorical trend which tends to bear this possibility out. Early inhis career Linnaeus, for example, mistakenly classed theCetaceans (the whales) as fish, not realizing that their fish-likeshape was only an example of analogous resemblance. Overand over again, as knowledge of invertebrate zoology hasincreased over the past two centuries, structures of astonishingsimilarity which were first thought to be homologous were laterfound to be only analogous. In botany, too, homologousresemblance has often had to be later reclassified asconvergence, or analogy, as knowledge has increased.Wardlaw comments that in the immediate post-Darwinian era :"Similar formal and structural characters in different species,genera and higher systematic units were accepted as beinghomologous. Later, as contemplation of the accumulatingmorphological evidence brought the realization thatcomparable developments were to be observed in species thatcould not be regarded as being closely related genetically. Thisled to a recognition of the fact that parallel evolution must havebeen very general. The more the evidence was criticallyexamined, the more important these parallel or homoplasticdevelopment were seen to be." (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,Michael Denton, 1985, p 153, citing: Organization and Evolutionin Plants, C. W. Wardlaw, 1965 p68-69)

8. "Without the phenomenon of homology - the modification ofsimilar structures to different ends - there would be little need

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v 61for a theory of descent with modification. It turns out, then, thatthe problem of unity of type is not nearly as readily explicable interms of evolution theory as is generally assumed. ... There is stillno satisfactory biological explanation for the phenomenon. Likeso much of the other circumstantial "evidence" for evolution,that drawn from homology is not convincing because it entailstoo many anomalies, too many counter-instances, far too manyphenomena which simply do not fit easily into the orthodoxpicture. The failure of homology to substantiate evolutionaryclaims has not been as widely publicized as have the problemsin paleontology. Comparative embryology is a less glamorouspursuit than the biology of dinosaurs." (Evolution: A Theory inCrisis, Michael Denton, 1985, p 154)

9) In the last analysis the facts of comparative anatomy provideno evidence for evolution in the way conceived by Darwin,and even if we were to construe with the eye of faith some"evidence" in the pattern of diversity for the Darwinian model ofevolution this could only be seen, at best as indirect orcircumstantial. (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton,1985, p 155)

The List of questions suggested by Wysong R.L.

1. The octopus eye, pig heart, Pekingese dogs face, milk of theass, and the pronator quadratus muscle of the Japanesesalamander are all very similar to analogous human structures. Do these similarities show evolutionary relationships?

2. The weight of the brain in proportion to body weight is greater inthe dwarf monkey of South America, the marmoset, than inman. Since this proportion is used to show relationship betweenprimates and man, is the marmoset, therefore, more evolvedthan man?

c3.The plague bacterium (Pasteurella pestis [now designated asYersinia pestis) afflicts only man and rodent. Does this similarityshow close relationship?

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v624. Plant nettle stings contain acetylcholine, 5-hydroxytryptamine

and histamine. These chemicals are also found in man. Areman and plant closely related?

5. The root nodules of certain leguminous plants and thecrustacean, Daphnia, contain hemoglobin, the blood pigmentfound in man. Are these organisms closely related to man?

6. If certain specific gravity tests are run on the blood of variousanimals, the frog and snake are found to be more similar to manthan the monkey is to man.

7. If the concentration of red blood cells in animals is compared(millions per cubic millimeter of blood), man is more similar tofrogs, fish, and birds than he is to sheep.

8. Since bones are often used to show relationships, bonechemistry should be useful in this regard. If the calcium/phosphorus ratio is plotted against bone carbonate, man provesto be close to the turtle and elephant, the monkey close to thegoose, and the dog close to the horse but distant from the cat.

9. The tetrapyrole chemical ring is found in plant chlorophyll, inhemoglobin and other animal respiratory pigments, sporadicallyas a coloring pigment in molluscan shells, and also in the feathersof some bird species. How does tetrapyrole similarity speak forrelationships? (Wysong, R.L The Creation-Evolution Controversy, 1976, pp. 394-395, East Lansing, MI: Inquiry Press).

Books that explain the Functions ofVermiform Appendix

• * Glover, J.W., 1984. The appendix revisited. Proceedings of theProvincial Surgeons of Australia 20th A.G.M., pp.1-5.

• *Chadwick. V.S. and Phillips. S., 1982. Small Intestine B.I.M.R.Gastroenterology 2. Butterworth.

• *Alexander-Williams. I. and Binder. H.I., 1983. Large IntestineB.I.M.R. Gastroenterology 3. Butterworth.

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v 63• *Doe. W., 1986. Immunology of the gastrointestinal tract.

Medicine International. 2:1044f.

• *Perey. D. Y., Cooper. M.D. and Good. R.A.. 1968. The mammalianhomologue of the avian Bursa of Fabricius. Surgery, 64:614f.

• *Sussdorf. D.M. and Draper. L.R.. 1956. Antibodies in rabbits afterirradiation; shielding the appendix. J. of Infect. Dis., 99:129f.

• *Archer. O.K.. Sutherland. D.R. and Good. R.A.. 1963. The appendixin rabbits after neonatal thymectomy. Nature. 200:337f.

• *Wangensteen. O.H. and Dennis. C.. 1939. Experimental proof ofthe obstructive origin of appendicitis in man. Ann. Sorg., 110:629.

• *Kelly, H.A. and Hurdon, E., 1905. The Vermiform Appendix and ItsDiseases, *W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia.

• *Robbins, S.L. and Cotran, R.S., 1979. Textbook of Pathology.Saunders, second edition.

What do the Evolutionists say about Mutation ?

1. Evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky candidlyadmitted that favorable mutations amount to less than 1% of allmutations that occur (see Davidheiser, 1969, p. 209). Dr.Dobzhansky even remarked that most mutants which arise inany organism are more or less disadvantageous to theirpossessors... (1955, p. 105).

2. C.P. Martin, an evolutionist, wrote in the American Scientist: Accordingly, mutations are more than just sudden changes inheredity; they also affect viability, and, to the best of ourknowledge, invariably affect it adversely. Does not this factshow that mutations are really assaults on the organisms centralbeing, its basic capacity to be a living thing? (1953, p. 102 ).

3. From the standpoint of population genetics, positive Darwinianselection represents a process whereby advantageous mutantsspread through the species. Considering their greatimportance in evolution, it is perhaps surprising that well-

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v64established cases are so scarce (Kimura, 1976, 138[6]:260).

4. Harvards eminent taxonomist, Ernst Mayr, remarked that theoccurrence of new beneficial mutations is rather rare (2001, p.98).

5. As Ariel Roth put it:[T]housands of laboratory experiments withbacteria, plants, and animals witness to the fact that the changesthat a species can tolerate have definite limits. There appears tobe a tight cohesion of interacting systems that will accept onlylimited change without inviting disaster. After decades orcenturies of experimentation, fruit flies retain their basic bodyplan as fruit flies, and wool-producing sheep remain basicallysheep. Aberrant types tend to be inferior, usually do not survivein nature, and, given a chance, tend to breed back to their originaltypes. Scientists sometimes call this phenomenon genetic inertia(genetic homeostasis) [1998, pp. 85-86, parenthetical item in orig.].

(FÃm A`n]mb§fpsSbpw ]Zmë]Z XÀÖa¡v apXnê¶nÃ._tbmfPnbn AdnhpÅhÀ¡mbn CXv ]tXyIw kaÀ-¸n-çì.)

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v 65

References

* Koestler, Arthur (1978), Janus: A Summing Up (New York:Vintage Books).

* de Vries, Hugo (1905), Species and Varieties: Their Originby Mutation, ed. Daniel Trembly MacDougal (Chi-cago, IL:Open Court).

* Løvtrup, Søren (1987), Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth(London: Croom and Helm).

* Denton, Michael (1985), Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London:Burnett Books).

* Moore, Keith L. (1992), Clinically Oriented Anatomy(Philadelphia, PA: Williams and Wilkins).

* Williams, P.L. and Warwick, R., 1980. Gray’s Anatomy,Churchill Livingstone, 36th edition.

* Hoyle, Fred, N.C. Wickramasinghe, and R.S. Watkins(1985), Archaeopteryx,” British Journal of Photography,132:693, June21

* Morell, Virginia (1993), “Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches

a Can of Worms,” Science, 259:764-765, February 5.

]cn-WmahmZw ayqkn-b-Øn-te°v66* Sunderland, Luther D. (1988), Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and

Other Problems (El Cajon, CA: Master Books).

* Anderson, Alan (1991), “Early Bird Threatens Archaeopteryx’s

Perch,” Science, 253:35, July 5.

* Wysong, R.L. (1976), The Creation-Evolution Controversy(East Lansing, MI: Inquiry Press).

* Muller, Hermann J. (1950), “Radiation Damage to the GeneticMaterial,” American Scientist, 38:33-50,126, January.

* Wise, Kurt (2002), Faith, Form, and Time (Nashville, TN:Broadman & Holman).

* Dobzhansky, Theodosius (1955), Evolution, Genetics andMan (New York: John Wiley & Sons).

* Dobzhansky, Theodosius, F.J. Ayala, G.L. Stebbins, and J.W.Valentine (1977), Evolution (San Francisco, CA: W.H.Freeman).

* Martin, C.P. (1953), “A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution,”American Scientist

* Kimura, Motoo (1976), “Population Genetics and MolecularEvolution,” The Johns Hopkins Medical Journal, 138[6]:253-261, June.

* Mayr, Ernst (2001), What Evolution Is (New York: BasicBooks).

* Roth, Ariel A. (1998), Origins: Linking Science and Scripture(Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald PublishingAssociation).