The Chronology of Geological Column: An Incomplete Tool to Search Georesources: In K.L. Shrivastava, A. Kumar, P.K. Srivastav, H.P. Srivastava (Ed.), Geo-Resources (pp. 609-625)

Jodhpur, India: Scientific Publishers (2014)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
The archaeological record is very limited and its analysis has been contentious. Hence, molecular biologists have shifted their attention to molecular dating techniques. Recently on April 2013, the prestigious Cell Press Journal Current Biology published an article (Fu et al. 2013) entitled “A Revised Timescale for Human Evolution Based on Ancient Mitochondrial Genomes”. This paper has twenty authors and they are researchers from the world’s top institutes like Max Planck Institute, Harvard, etc. Respected authors of this paper have emphatically accepted that the fossil record is inadequate and unreliable. These statements clearly substantiate that now biologists are agreeing that fossil records do not provide any significant evidence at all for conventional evolution theory. Despite the well-recorded fact of the continual grand propaganda of Darwinism based on fossil evidence for more than 150 years, in recent times biologists are surprisingly coming up with such statements, based on their confidence that evolution can be explained purely by the genealogical/genomic record provided by modern molecular biology. Still many respected journals (for example the article in Nature, Retallack, 2013) continue to publish articles on fossil evidence to support Darwinian evolution. These incoherently diverse claims prove that Darwinists are struggling with unscientific ideological approaches to explain biodiversity. Darwinian evolutionary theory is not only the basis of modern biology, but also acts as the guiding principle of science and intellectual reasoning for modern civilization. Hence, a scientific understanding of the breakdown of the Darwinian theory of objective evolution is very important for overcoming the traditional scientific temper of mechanistic intellectualism that characterizes this ideology. In my article “21st Century Biology Refutes Darwinian Abiology” (published in two parts in November and December 2012 issues of The Harmonizer: it was noted that several recent findings challenge the credibility that random mutations and natural selection can provide a valid basis for justifying the naturalistic evolution of species. The present article summarizes the problems associated with the fossil record and dating techniques, and its implication on the neo-Darwinian mechanistic misconception of biological life as mere molecular chemistry or abiology. An alternative approach based on the Vedāntic view for explaining biodiversity in the light of 21st century biology is also discussed in the end of the article.
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2018-01-10
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
213 ( #20,549 of 50,263 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
66 ( #8,236 of 50,263 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.