Pre-Script : Following article is my personal understanding and opinion about the proposed theory of Evolution. I might be a bit harsh with my words on multiple occasions, but I mean no offence to anyone. My only purpose is to add another perspective.
Scientist have so far been convinced with the evolutionary theory of man being a derived product rising from the result of evolution taking place in apes over several years. Charles Darwin the leader of this movement has very confidently stated that this procedure started from an explosion known in the scientist society as the Big Bang resulting in smaller forms of life which gradually evolved to higher forms in due course of time. However the fact cannot be neglected that Modern Science which is respected as the pragmatic method of obtaining knowledge failed to conceive that above theories have no valid legitimate proof nor has anyone witnessed such an experience. Because there was no other theory explaining the origin of life, most “so called intellects” have accepted Darwin’s words as the ultimate truth without giving a genuine thought to his explanations. The question is not whether Darwin is right or not , the argument is whether this process of obtaining knowledge accurate ? In the absence of proper explanation if a madman proposes a theory somehow reaching the conclusion , should we accept it and make this person a legend ? We know that any two bodies with mass attract each other with a force directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance separating them , however there is no explanation to why this Law of Gravitation exists. In the absence of any theory explaining it if I suggest that two massive bodies have magnets embedded in them which can change their polarity dynamically depending on the environment leading to attraction between two distinct masses , will this be acceptable. Probably I will be kicked on my back for my kiddish explanation, however what if I suggested an idea which was slightly more genuine ? What if I proposed that body is made up of molecules which are made up of atoms having polar nature and when two masses come close enough for the gravitational force to be substantial, the spin of the electrons in the body having larger mass creates a magnetic field which influences the spin of the electrons in the other body having lesser mass and thus the bodies become polar with respect to each other. Hence the gravitational force we experience is nothing but the electrostatic force of attraction between two bodies where the bodies may not necessarily be charged initially as the charge is induced by electron alignment when they come close.
In the later explanation proposed by me , I do sound a little more genuine and probably correct. However if one studies carefully he/she will realize that both explanations ie. bodies becoming magnets and the one defining electrostatic force of attraction are absolutely same. The way of explanation is a bit more sophisticated in the second case leading to an impression that the person proposing the theory has good knowledge of science and thus is capable of making such bold statements. But How does it affects the fact that both the above propositions are my personal speculation and nothing else. How does it proves that whatever I said is right. The reason for the existence of gravitational force is not known to mankind and even if anyone successfully speculated and found the reason, there is absolutely no way to verify that he/she is correct. Thus this way of scientific speculation is not the right process of obtaining knowledge. Then why should we accept Darwin when he says that we were monkeys ? Infact such mental speculators posing their philosophies as the ways of nature should be held responsible for misguiding the society. As a human, may be I am too insignificant to find out the truth about the origin of life , however this no way means that I am ready to accept someone’s personal opinion and speculation as a reply to my inquisitiveness. I am interested in knowing how we came into existence but not at the cost of accepting a theory which only sounds attractive until we don’t look deep into it.
The genuine thought I am talking about is very easy to understand and dosen’t require a phd. Darwin said that initially there was only (inactive)hydrogen and helium gas and they compressed and exploded to form complex molecules which further evolved into more complex forms eventually leading to the creation we see today with skyscrapers and high flying aircrafts driven by humans(a result of the creation) having capability to eat work and reproduce. My only question is, if an (inactive)chair or a stone is kept in open for a million years, will it combine with the environment to form higher forms of life. Will the legs of those chair become active ? Will it mate with other chairs to reproduce ? Will it create skyscrapers and high flying aircrafts where more chairs could travel probably better evolved chairs. What I am proposing is the fairy-tale version of Darwin’s theory in slightly unsophisticated way as compared to his. This is analogous to the two stories I proposed earlier about massive bodies attracting each other. My explanation of origin is like bodies becoming magnets and Darwin’s explanation is the one where electrons align their spin. The fact remains both explanations are our personal opinions and nothing else. The same theory proposed in two different ways can have catastrophic ramifications in the streams to follow. I hope I have conveyed my point .
