Papers by Prof. Dr. md. abdul Ahad M D . A B D U L Ahad, PhD
12 (3), 2024
The objectives of this article are to prove that Darwin’s theory of Sexual selection is opposite ... more The objectives of this article are to prove that Darwin’s theory of Sexual selection is opposite to the
Descent of Man (Human evolution) from the lower animal like a chimpanzee. According to Darwin,
humans evolved from a lower animal through sexual selection. However, literature claims that sexual
selection is absent in all kinds of animals; as sexual selection is not possible in monogamous,
monomorphic, polymorphic animals and about 300-500 vertebrates (hermaphrodite) species. Even 65
experiments of meta-analysis and the Mayer experiment on Giant Silk Moth, Callosamia promethea, and
many other experiments opposed sexual selection. Again, sexual selection is possible in polygamous
animals, and the choice of mate, and battle for mating is possible here. However, it is absent in
polygamous animals. Because, sexual selection requires sense, intelligence, love, etc. But except modern
man, such attributes are entirely absent in the animal kingdom, its evidence is that animals are unable to
know (at mature stage/young stage) their brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, etc.; even they mate with
them, which strongly opposes sexual selection. As the progenitor of humans were animals; so, they had
no sense, intelligence, love, etc. to choose a mate, and thus, humans had not evolved through sexual
selection. Alfred Russel Wallace also strongly opposed sexual selection. Sexual selection has come far
from the Victorian ideas. Moreover, the mechanism of the Descent of Man is based on the wrong theory
of Lamarck, and the belief of Darwin. Besides, fossil evidence, modern genetics research, Mendelian
genetics (DNA), common sense/logic, Handle dilemma and the existing Tupaia opposes the Descent of
Man from a lower animal. Again, how did the extinct progenitor of humans produce modern humans,
why did humans and other organisms evolve millions of years ago but still existing in their own
respective and unmodified forms? If evolution/ Darwin’s theory is valid, then humans and other living
organisms should be immortal but not so happen. Hence, numerous biologists also rejected the sexual
selection theory of Darwin
4(2):28-34, 2019
Darwin and his followers' belief is that plants and animals are dispersed away from their places ... more Darwin and his followers' belief is that plants and animals are dispersed away from their places of origins and then became subsequently modified to match with the environment. Therefore, climate plays the key role both for the evolution of organisms (even human) and their geographical distribution. However, living organisms are beautifully adapted with the climate. Furthermore, they migrate to a safe place with the changing climate; if it is not possible, they simply extinct. Cosmopolitan animals, and also places having the same climate do not possess the same type of fauna, which opposes the effect of climate on the evolution. If climate has an effect on the evolution, then only six animals and plant species could be found according to the six climatic zones. Additionally, seven theories of evolution are formulated without the effects of environment on the evolution. Again, evolution is a continuous process but there is no record that living organism has evolved by the effects of the environment. Therefore, living organisms (even human) not evolve to match with the climate. As the evolution of organisms and their geographical distributions are interrelated and vice versa. So, geographical distributions are opposite to Darwin's theory. Gaia theory and Croizat's views oppose the Darwin's vision about evolution and his biogeography.
24.04.2020
In this article it is proved that the Origin of Species means/represents the Survival of the Fitt... more In this article it is proved that the Origin of Species means/represents the Survival of the Fittest, natural selection, the Darwin’s
theory (Darwinian evolution) and vice-versa but the Descent of Man (human evolution) means the Survival of the Fittest with
the Lamarck’s theory. So, if it is proved that the Survival of the Fittest and Lamarck’s theory is not valid, the Origin of
Species, natural selection, the Darwin’s theory (Darwinian evolution) and the Descent of Man would be invalid. However, it is
known from the several observations that many unfit animal may survives; whereas the really the fittest are died out due to
various hazards. So, there is no chance for the Survival of the Fittest. Again, the Survival of the Fittest’ indicates that living
organisms are selfish and struggle for their existence like battle in battle. But symbiosis, obligate symbiosis, cooperation etc.
are widely spread in nature from microorganisms to vertebrate; even altruism (self sacrifice) also. Again, no fittest organism
developed by the slight variation/gradualism. Darwin’s theory cannot explain the presence of vestigial organ. The reproductive
success organisms evolved during millions and millions of years ago and still existing in their own form. How extinct
organisms are fittest and produce new species? The Mendel’s laws, the Hardy-Weinberg’s law, the laws of thermodynamics
and teleology oppose Darwinian evolution. Even all the evidences of Darwin’s theory are opposite of evolution. Hence, seven
theories of evolution are formulated without the effects of the Survival of the Fittest. Consequently, the Survival of the Fittest
is wrong, invalidated and also meaningless. Again, Lamarck’s theory s is wrong. Hence, the Survival of the Fittest is not
valid: Darwin’s theory of natural selection, the Origin of Species and the Descent of Man opposite to Evolution; many
literatures support it. Additionally, the Survival of the Fittest played a nasty role of political idealism and it removes the
religion (atheistic). But all religions take note of the major events of a lifetime: birth, youth, marriage and death; bind society
together through ceremony of worships and to control social deviance.
Living organisms are greatly similar at their molecular level, which leads the concept of their
c... more Living organisms are greatly similar at their molecular level, which leads the concept of their
common ancestry. But it is not true, as every being is definite at the molecular level of each species. So,
according to the current theory, each species is unique in that its base pairs are arranged in different orders
and proportions, which vary from all other species. Again, the DNA base-sequence varies as much as between
individuals of the same society and also of different societies of human races. Even, each person has a unique
“Genetic fingerprint” and DNA molecules which are completely different from one another. So, there are no
similarities among different types of species at their molecular levels. Again, there is no evidence that
a reproductively isolated species/breed/variety/race evolves either artificially or naturally, which opposes
modern (contemporary) evidence. Again, once it is thought that vestigial organs are useless. But today, those
are medically regarded as essential ones.
International journal of enttomology
In this article it is proved that the Origin of Species means/represents the Survival of the Fitt... more In this article it is proved that the Origin of Species means/represents the Survival of the Fittest, natural selection, the Darwin’s
theory (Darwinian evolution) and vice-versa but the Descent of Man (human evolution) means the Survival of the Fittest with
the Lamarck’s theory. So, if it is proved that the Survival of the Fittest and Lamarck’s theory is not valid, the Origin of
Species, natural selection, the Darwin’s theory (Darwinian evolution) and the Descent of Man would be invalid. However, it is
known from the several observations that many unfit animal may survives; whereas the really the fittest are died out due to
various hazards. So, there is no chance for the Survival of the Fittest. Again, the Survival of the Fittest’ indicates that living
organisms are selfish and struggle for their existence like battle in battle. But symbiosis, obligate symbiosis, cooperation etc.
are widely spread in nature from microorganisms to vertebrate; even altruism (self sacrifice) also. Again, no fittest organism
developed by the slight variation/gradualism. Darwin’s theory cannot explain the presence of vestigial organ. The reproductive
success organisms evolved during millions and millions of years ago and still existing in their own form. How extinct
organisms are fittest and produce new species? The Mendel’s laws, the Hardy-Weinberg’s law, the laws of thermodynamics
and teleology oppose Darwinian evolution. Even all the evidences of Darwin’s theory are opposite of evolution. Hence, seven
theories of evolution are formulated without the effects of the Survival of the Fittest. Consequently, the Survival of the Fittest
is wrong, invalidated and also meaningless. Again, Lamarck’s theory s is wrong. Hence, the Survival of the Fittest is not
valid: Darwin’s theory of natural selection, the Origin of Species and the Descent of Man opposite to Evolution; many
literatures support it. Additionally, the Survival of the Fittest played a nasty role of political idealism and it removes the
religion (atheistic). But all religions take note of the major events of a lifetime: birth, youth, marriage and death; bind society
together through ceremony of worships and to control social deviance
Legal restrictions are imposed on the public sharing of raw data. However, authors have full righ... more Legal restrictions are imposed on the public sharing of raw data. However, authors have full right to transfer or share the data in raw form upon request subject to either meeting the conditions of the original consents and the original research study. Further, access of data needs to meet whether the user complies with the ethical and legal obligations as data controllers to allow for secondary use of the data outside of the original study.
Legal restrictions are imposed on the public sharing of raw data. However, authors have full righ... more Legal restrictions are imposed on the public sharing of raw data. However, authors have full right to transfer or share the data in raw form upon request subject to either meeting the conditions of the original consents and the original research study. Further, access of data needs to meet whether the user complies with the ethical and legal obligations as data controllers to allow for secondary use of the data outside of the original study.
International journal of Bio-resource and Management, 2023
Hybridization (breeding) is practical evidence and a model of Darwin’s theory. But it would be tr... more Hybridization (breeding) is practical evidence and a model of Darwin’s theory. But it would be true, if hybridization between
two plants or animal species is possible and produced a fertile, reproductively isolated offspring. However, hybridization
between two plants or animal species is not possible due to structural, behavioural differences, and seasonal isolations. If imposed,
the fertilization fails, if the fertilization is successful, the embryo may abort, or the young may die. If the hybrid is survived up
to maturity, it must become sterile. However, a very rare case the hybrids become fertile but those produce so-called varieties /
races only; those species that produce fertile hybrids (e.g. Indian cattle Bos indicus and European cattle Bos taurus) must merge
into a species.to satisfy the modern definition of species. Moreover, the artificial selection is also a skilled sexual selection, as the
breeders choose the fittest, most vigour, and most fertile/productive, beautiful, colourful ornamented organism. But breeders
also failed to develop a reproductively isolated species/variety/race by Johnson’s pure line selection, cloning, genetic engineering
and mutation breeding. Even, a new species is not evolved by the natural hybridization. Consequently, there is no evidence of
evolution of a new species either artificially or naturally. So, recent research claims that sexual selection theory is fundamentally
flawed and simply wrong. Hence, evolutionary biologists rejected the sexual selection. Thus, sexual selection is opposite to the
evolution of humans from the lower animal like a chimpanzee. It is assumed that macroevolution occurs through hybridization;
so, such an assumption is not valid.
Legal restrictions are imposed on the public sharing of raw data. However, authors have full righ... more Legal restrictions are imposed on the public sharing of raw data. However, authors have full right to transfer or share the data in raw form upon request subject to either meeting the conditions of the original consents and the original research study. Further, access of data needs to meet whether the user complies with the ethical and legal obligations as data controllers to allow for secondary use of the data outside of the original study.
Edward O. Wilson (Professor at Harvard University) studied the behaviour of ants and assumed that... more Edward O. Wilson (Professor at Harvard University) studied the behaviour of ants and assumed that the behavior of ants were
linked to gene/genetics (biological determinism/genetics determinism) and thus it was adaptive. This idea he applied to other
animals including humans (i.e. the behaviour of other animals including humans are linked to gene/genetics) and formulated
his Sociobiology theory of evolution of behavior. Thus, the basic idea of Sociobiology is that social behaviour is inherited
through a gene and transmitted from parents to their offspring. But an ant is a social insect and the behaviour of an ant and
other social insects is very peculiar and interesting that could never be comparable to other animals and humans. The behavior
of a social insect is learned and experienced. The behavior of humans and other animals (birds, primates, horses, etc.) is also
learned and experienced. Social behavior is not related to genetics, not transferable from parents to their offspring, and not
adaptive (behaviour does not come through an evolutionary process). However, to compare the behaviors of humans and
animals are not acceptable, as the cerebral cortex is entirely absent in most animals. Again. Sociobiology supports the
undesirable patterns of racism and sexism and it approves of the status quo, which is resistant to social progress. Sociobiology
has no academic exercise, as it opposes education through school, college, university etc. Sociobiology is a dangerous politics
and is related to the Marxist idea. Moreover, Sociologists, anthropologists, anthropological theory, the tabula rasa theory of
psychology, 35 scientists of the “American Institute of Biological Sciences” totally rejected the Sociobiology. Sociobiology is
firmly based on both Darwin’s theory and Neo-Darwinism, which indicates that Sociobiology has no base. However,
literatures indicate that those theories are also opposite to evolution. Sociobiology unwisely popularize by being designated as
10 unrelated subjects, making it very complex to understand its view. Furthermore, Sociobiology is mainly based on social
insects but fossils of social insects are identical to the existing one. Thus, Sociobiology (both the bahavioural ecology and pop
Sociobiology) is opposite to evolution. However, literature claims that Sociobiology is a special branch of Entomology that
deals with social insects.
The objectives of this article are to prove that any kind of evolution is not possible by Darwin'... more The objectives of this article are to prove that any kind of evolution is not possible by Darwin's theory (current version) i.e. this theory unfits to disturb the Hardy-Weinberg's Law and modify Mendel's Laws. In other words, Hardy-Weinberg's Law and Mendel's Laws never support any kind of evolution. However, Darwin's theory (current version) is popularly known as Neo-Darwinism/ the new synthesis/ the synthetic theory/the evolutionary synthesis/the modern synthesis/ population genetics/evolutionary genetics and gene mutation is the main agent of it, which plays the key role of Neo-Darwinism. But all mutations arise by the errors of DNA replication and damage of DNA. Consequently, it is harmful for all living organisms; hence about 3,500 diseases (including cancer) are found in humans by a single gene mutation. Therefore, mutated organisms are least fitted for survival and reproduction, and thus gene mutation unfits for any kind of evolution. As gene mutation is responsible for the origin of humans (physical anthropology) from the chimpanzee; so, humans were not evolve from the chimpanzees. If chimpanzees were evolved into a human, then no chimpanzees could be found in the world. Similarly, since, evolution is a continuous process, at present, it is occurring rapidly; mutations are constantly occurring in plants and animals. Consequently, all other organisms have to transfer into another organism successively and present organisms have to be absent from the earth but not so happen. However, other agents of Neo-Darwinism are interrelated to mutation and depend on mutations for their actions on the evolution. Thus, those agents of Neo-Darwinism are also unfit for the evolution of new species. Again, it is proved separately and repeatedly that other agents of Neo-Darwinism are also unfit for any kind of evolution. So, albino and double-headed animals are very common in nature, which arise by mutations, yet an albino or double-headed animal variety/race is developed either naturally or artificially. However, if a new type arises accidentally by the agent of Neo-Darwinism; but by random mating, it returns to the original type, and by non-random mating, it produced homozygous organisms and may extinct over time. Hence, there is no evidence that a species evolved either artificially or naturally. Hence, no evolution occurs by Neo-Darwinism. So, fossil evidence opposes Neo-Darwinism, and many evolutionary biologists also reject this theory, which supports the results of the present study. Thus, Neo-Darwinism/population genetics (evolutionary genetics) is opposite to any kind of evolution and those never disturb the Hardy-Weinberg's Law and could not modify Mendel's Laws. So, Darwinists oppose the Neo-Darwinism.
SvedbergOpen, 2021
The experiments were conducted in the laboratory of the Department of Entomology and Department ... more The experiments were conducted in the laboratory of the Department of Entomology and Department of Agricultural chemistry, Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University (HSTU), Dinajpur during May-December 2017 to Evaluate the toxicity of five medicinal plant extracts (water hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes, swamp smartweed Polygonum coccineum, ariach Cassia tora, wild capsicum Croton bonplandianum and hill glory bower Clerodendrum viscosum) against maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais (Mots.) on stored maize. The wild capsicum extract provided the highest average mortality (93.33±3.33), following the hill glory bower (86.67±3.33) and swamp smartweed (86.67±3.33) at 3% concentration. But it was zero in control. The average numbers of lowest numbers of adult emergence among the five weed extract were found in wild capsicum (3.00±0.39) following Swamp smartweed (5.11±0.95) at 3% concentration; whereas, in control it was (54.00±1.15). The lowest percent of seed damage was found in wild capsicum (3.00±0.38%) following Swamp smartweed (4.22±0.58). But in control, it was 44.00±1.15.Repellency class of different plant extracts at different concentration level varied between I to IV. But the hill glory bower at 3.0% showed statistically best as it showed the highest repellency rate was 66.0±5.31% and the group were IV. However, the toxicity order was wild capsicum >swamp smartweed> hill glory bower> water hyacinth>, ariach.
Acta Entomology and Zoology
The objective of this article is to find out the life history traits and food consumption of Hog ... more The objective of this article is to find out the life history traits and food consumption of Hog Plum Leaf Beetle Podontia 14-punctata or Podontia quatodecimpunctata (Chrysomelidae: Coleoptera). However, the result of life history traits Podontia 14-punctata reveals that the pre-oviposition, oviposition and incubation period of the hog plum leaf beetle were agverage 19.8±0.55, 8.0±0.21 and 5.7±0.15 days, respectively. The average number of eggs laid in a cluster by the female was 41.5 and hatching rate was 96.27%. The eggs were, more or less, oval round and at the end freshly laid eggs become yellow in colour, naked and are arranged in multiple layers usually two, before hatching it became dull yellowish-white. Dark black head and legs of grub were visible through egg membrane just before hatching. The mean duration of the 1 st , 2 nd 3 rd , 4 th instars larvae and were 3.3±0.15, 3.4±0.16, 3.3±0.15 and 3.7±0.15 days. But the mean duration of the pupa varied from 14-17 days days. The total developmental periods from egg to adult were 37.1 days. In addition, a larva consumed leaf of hog plum 32.127 cm 2 or 3.8234 g during its total developmental period. But the final instars larvae consumed the highest amount of leaf.
Act entomology and zoology, 2020
The objective of this article is to find out the morphometric measurement of Hog Plum Leaf Beetle... more The objective of this article is to find out the morphometric measurement of Hog Plum Leaf Beetle Podontia 14-punctata (Chrysomelidae: Coleoptera). The result showed that the mean length and breadth of the 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd , 4 th instars larvae were 1.93, 10.02, 12.0, 20.42 mm and 0.99, 1.48, 3.41, 6.55 mm respectively and the weight were 4.367, 24.695, 75.282, 315.7 mg respectively. The average length breadth and weight of male pupae were 12.7, 6.90 mm and 1.75 g, respectively and female pupae were 14.5, 8.5 mm and 2.272 g, respectively. The average length of antenna of male and female were 7.1 and 8.05 mm, respectively. The length of 3 rd legs or long leg of male and female beetle was 12.0 and 13.1mm, respectively. The length of fore wing (elytra) and hind wing in male were 11.6 and 18.0 mm and female were 13.1 and 21.5 mm, respectively. The average length and breadth of abdomen of male and female were 9.2, 7.05 mm and 11.1 and 7.6 mm respectively. The length of head of male and female were 5.0 and 5.6 mm, respectively.
Akinik, 2017
The objectives of this article are that to prove punctuated equilibrium theory represents shiftin... more The objectives of this article are that to prove punctuated equilibrium theory represents shifting balance theory and these two theories declared invalid Darwin's theory and Neo-Darwinian theory and those are true fact: Because all features of both theories are same-i) Genetic drift play the key role of both theories. ii) Both theories advocated evolution progresses rapidly in a small and isolated population with rapid evolution after long period of stasis without the help of Darwin's theory. iii) Both theories advocated allopatric speciation, macroevolution, quantum evolution and species selection. iv) Fossil is the only evidence of both theories. Additionally, those theories declared invalid Darwin's theory and Neo-Darwinian theory. As a result, if anyone proves that genetic drift unable to produce new species or rejected shifting balance theory and fossil does not support macroevolution but support gradual evolution; then punctuated equilibrium theory even allopatric speciation theory would be invalid automatically.
Akinik, 2020
The objective of this article is to prove that "Seven non-Darwinian theories opposite to evolutio... more The objective of this article is to prove that "Seven non-Darwinian theories opposite to evolution". However, the genetic drift represents the punctuated equilibrium, the shifting balance theory, the allopatric speciation theory and the species selection theory for the macroevolution. The genetic drift rapidly works in a small and isolated population and not works in a large population. Hence, genetic drift means small and isolated population and vice-versa. But the genetic drift creates zero variation. But there is no variation (raw materials of any kind of evolution); there is no evolution. Hence, evolutionary biologists rejected genetic drift for any kind of evolution. Again, genetic drift means small and isolated but those populations have to mate with their close relative and produced homozygous organisms. Homozygous organisms have low fecundity, suffer from various diseases, least fitted to survive and may extinct suddenly, e.g. American Heath hen. Thus, small populations and isolated populations (i.e. genetic drift) are opposite to any kind of evolution, even risk for extinction. However, genetic drift is also the key force of Neutral theory, which works in smalls and isolated populations. Consequently, Neutral theory is opposite to any kind of evolution. So, many evolutionary biologists rejected Neutral theory. Once more, evolutionary biologists rejected the shifting balance theory, the punctuated equilibrium theory and of Goldschmidt's theory. Gould and Wright advocated chromosomal speciation (chromosome rearrangements) theory for macroevolution but which are not valid. Moreover, extinction is the main process of the macroevolution, which is quite absurd. The fossil is the excellent and only evidence of those theories of macroevolution. But fossil completely opposes macroevolution. So, those seven non-Darwinian theories are opposite to any kind of evolution. Consequently, the Darwinists, the neo-Darwinists and the Sociobiology's oppose those non-Darwinian. Subsequently, plants and animals including human are not evolved via those theories.
Volume 5; Issue 3; Page No. 57-64, 2020
In this article it is proved that the Origin of Species means/represents the Survival of the Fitt... more In this article it is proved that the Origin of Species means/represents the Survival of the Fittest, natural selection, the Darwin’s
theory (Darwinian evolution) and vice-versa but the Descent of Man (human evolution) means the Survival of the Fittest with
the Lamarck’s theory. So, if it is proved that the Survival of the Fittest and Lamarck’s theory is not valid, the Origin of
Species, natural selection, the Darwin’s theory (Darwinian evolution) and the Descent of Man would be invalid. However, it is
known from the several observations that many unfit animal may survives; whereas the really the fittest are died out due to
various hazards. So, there is no chance for the Survival of the Fittest. Again, the Survival of the Fittest’ indicates that living
organisms are selfish and struggle for their existence like battle in battle. But symbiosis, obligate symbiosis, cooperation etc.
are widely spread in nature from microorganisms to vertebrate; even altruism (self sacrifice) also. Again, no fittest organism
developed by the slight variation/gradualism. Darwin’s theory cannot explain the presence of vestigial organ. The reproductive
success organisms evolved during millions and millions of years ago and still existing in their own form. How extinct
organisms are fittest and produce new species? The Mendel’s laws, the Hardy-Weinberg’s law, the laws of thermodynamics
and teleology oppose Darwinian evolution. Even all the evidences of Darwin’s theory are opposite of evolution. Hence, seven
theories of evolution are formulated without the effects of the Survival of the Fittest. Consequently, the Survival of the Fittest
is wrong, invalidated and also meaningless. Again, Lamarck’s theory s is wrong. Hence, the Survival of the Fittest is not
valid: Darwin’s theory of natural selection, the Origin of Species and the Descent of Man opposite to Evolution; many
literatures support it. Additionally, the Survival of the Fittest played a nasty role of political idealism and it removes the
religion (atheistic). But all religions take note of the major events of a lifetime: birth, youth, marriage and death; bind society
together through ceremony of worships and to control social deviance.
Article, 2020
In this article it is proved that the Origin of Species means/represents the Survival of the Fitt... more In this article it is proved that the Origin of Species means/represents the Survival of the Fittest, natural selection, the Darwin’s
theory (Darwinian evolution) and vice-versa but the Descent Man (human evolution) means the Survival of the Fittest with the
Lamarck’s theory. So, if it is proved that the Survival of the Fittest and Lamarck’s theory is not valid, the Origin of
Species, natural selection, the Darwin’s theory (Darwinian evolution) and the Descent Man would be invalid. However, it is
known from the several observations that many unfit animal may survives; whereas the really the fittest are died out due to
various hazards. So, there is no chance for the Survival of the Fittest. Again, the Survival of the Fittest’ indicates that living
organisms are selfish and struggle for their existence like battle in battle. But symbiosis, obligate symbiosis, cooperation etc.
are widely spread in nature from microorganisms to vertebrate; even altruism (self sacrifice) also. Again, no fittest organism
developed by the slight variation/gradualism. Darwin’s theory cannot explain the presence of vestigial organ. The reproductive
success organisms evolved during millions and millions of years ago and still existing in their own form. How extinct
organisms are fittest and produce new species? The Mendel’s laws, the Hardy-Weinberg’s law, the laws of thermodynamics
and teleology oppose Darwinian evolution. Even all the evidences of Darwin’s theory are opposites of evolution. Hence, seven
theories of evolution are formulated without the effects of the Survival of the Fittest. Consequently, the Survival of the Fittest
is wrong, invalidated and also meaningless. Again, Lamarck’s theory s is wrong. Hence, the Survival of the Fittest is not
valid: Darwin’s theory of natural selection, the Origin of Species and the Descent Man opposite to Evolution; many literatures
support it. Additionally, the Survival of the Fittest played a nasty role of political idealism and it removes the religion
(atheistic). But all religions take note of the major events of a lifetime: birth, youth, marriage and death; bind society together
through ceremony of worships and to control social deviance.
Keywords: the survival of the fittest, Darwin’s theory, origin of species
Ecology and Environmental Science is two complexes, modern and new subjects. These two subjects a... more Ecology and Environmental Science is two complexes, modern and new subjects. These two subjects are directly and indirectly related and also related with the Limnology. Terminology helps to understand a subject clearly and easily. If one wishes to study and easy understand any subject it is very necessary to know the basic term of that subject. But terminological book of these subjects even text books are limited in our country and even in the foreign countries. Glossary terms are also absent in most text book, even inadequate in the internet. Thinking on the above, this book is written. The terms are collected from different Encyclopedia, Scientific dictionary, different text books, internet etc. and have been carefully complied and edited. Each entry in this book has been defined with the utmost correctness, completeness, and reasonable style. Some terms are explained quite briefly, other at some length. Bold headwords provide quick and easy access to 2136 terms (50046 words). Besides these the Ecology and Environmental science; this book will also provide information to the students and professionals person of Biodiversity, Limnology, Crop science, and Meteorology, Biology and Agriculture at all levels with a handy, and reliable source and may achieves its purpose. A Abiotic: Nonliving components of an ecosystem including soil, water, air, light, nutrients and the like.
Uploads
Papers by Prof. Dr. md. abdul Ahad M D . A B D U L Ahad, PhD
Descent of Man (Human evolution) from the lower animal like a chimpanzee. According to Darwin,
humans evolved from a lower animal through sexual selection. However, literature claims that sexual
selection is absent in all kinds of animals; as sexual selection is not possible in monogamous,
monomorphic, polymorphic animals and about 300-500 vertebrates (hermaphrodite) species. Even 65
experiments of meta-analysis and the Mayer experiment on Giant Silk Moth, Callosamia promethea, and
many other experiments opposed sexual selection. Again, sexual selection is possible in polygamous
animals, and the choice of mate, and battle for mating is possible here. However, it is absent in
polygamous animals. Because, sexual selection requires sense, intelligence, love, etc. But except modern
man, such attributes are entirely absent in the animal kingdom, its evidence is that animals are unable to
know (at mature stage/young stage) their brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, etc.; even they mate with
them, which strongly opposes sexual selection. As the progenitor of humans were animals; so, they had
no sense, intelligence, love, etc. to choose a mate, and thus, humans had not evolved through sexual
selection. Alfred Russel Wallace also strongly opposed sexual selection. Sexual selection has come far
from the Victorian ideas. Moreover, the mechanism of the Descent of Man is based on the wrong theory
of Lamarck, and the belief of Darwin. Besides, fossil evidence, modern genetics research, Mendelian
genetics (DNA), common sense/logic, Handle dilemma and the existing Tupaia opposes the Descent of
Man from a lower animal. Again, how did the extinct progenitor of humans produce modern humans,
why did humans and other organisms evolve millions of years ago but still existing in their own
respective and unmodified forms? If evolution/ Darwin’s theory is valid, then humans and other living
organisms should be immortal but not so happen. Hence, numerous biologists also rejected the sexual
selection theory of Darwin
theory (Darwinian evolution) and vice-versa but the Descent of Man (human evolution) means the Survival of the Fittest with
the Lamarck’s theory. So, if it is proved that the Survival of the Fittest and Lamarck’s theory is not valid, the Origin of
Species, natural selection, the Darwin’s theory (Darwinian evolution) and the Descent of Man would be invalid. However, it is
known from the several observations that many unfit animal may survives; whereas the really the fittest are died out due to
various hazards. So, there is no chance for the Survival of the Fittest. Again, the Survival of the Fittest’ indicates that living
organisms are selfish and struggle for their existence like battle in battle. But symbiosis, obligate symbiosis, cooperation etc.
are widely spread in nature from microorganisms to vertebrate; even altruism (self sacrifice) also. Again, no fittest organism
developed by the slight variation/gradualism. Darwin’s theory cannot explain the presence of vestigial organ. The reproductive
success organisms evolved during millions and millions of years ago and still existing in their own form. How extinct
organisms are fittest and produce new species? The Mendel’s laws, the Hardy-Weinberg’s law, the laws of thermodynamics
and teleology oppose Darwinian evolution. Even all the evidences of Darwin’s theory are opposite of evolution. Hence, seven
theories of evolution are formulated without the effects of the Survival of the Fittest. Consequently, the Survival of the Fittest
is wrong, invalidated and also meaningless. Again, Lamarck’s theory s is wrong. Hence, the Survival of the Fittest is not
valid: Darwin’s theory of natural selection, the Origin of Species and the Descent of Man opposite to Evolution; many
literatures support it. Additionally, the Survival of the Fittest played a nasty role of political idealism and it removes the
religion (atheistic). But all religions take note of the major events of a lifetime: birth, youth, marriage and death; bind society
together through ceremony of worships and to control social deviance.
common ancestry. But it is not true, as every being is definite at the molecular level of each species. So,
according to the current theory, each species is unique in that its base pairs are arranged in different orders
and proportions, which vary from all other species. Again, the DNA base-sequence varies as much as between
individuals of the same society and also of different societies of human races. Even, each person has a unique
“Genetic fingerprint” and DNA molecules which are completely different from one another. So, there are no
similarities among different types of species at their molecular levels. Again, there is no evidence that
a reproductively isolated species/breed/variety/race evolves either artificially or naturally, which opposes
modern (contemporary) evidence. Again, once it is thought that vestigial organs are useless. But today, those
are medically regarded as essential ones.
theory (Darwinian evolution) and vice-versa but the Descent of Man (human evolution) means the Survival of the Fittest with
the Lamarck’s theory. So, if it is proved that the Survival of the Fittest and Lamarck’s theory is not valid, the Origin of
Species, natural selection, the Darwin’s theory (Darwinian evolution) and the Descent of Man would be invalid. However, it is
known from the several observations that many unfit animal may survives; whereas the really the fittest are died out due to
various hazards. So, there is no chance for the Survival of the Fittest. Again, the Survival of the Fittest’ indicates that living
organisms are selfish and struggle for their existence like battle in battle. But symbiosis, obligate symbiosis, cooperation etc.
are widely spread in nature from microorganisms to vertebrate; even altruism (self sacrifice) also. Again, no fittest organism
developed by the slight variation/gradualism. Darwin’s theory cannot explain the presence of vestigial organ. The reproductive
success organisms evolved during millions and millions of years ago and still existing in their own form. How extinct
organisms are fittest and produce new species? The Mendel’s laws, the Hardy-Weinberg’s law, the laws of thermodynamics
and teleology oppose Darwinian evolution. Even all the evidences of Darwin’s theory are opposite of evolution. Hence, seven
theories of evolution are formulated without the effects of the Survival of the Fittest. Consequently, the Survival of the Fittest
is wrong, invalidated and also meaningless. Again, Lamarck’s theory s is wrong. Hence, the Survival of the Fittest is not
valid: Darwin’s theory of natural selection, the Origin of Species and the Descent of Man opposite to Evolution; many
literatures support it. Additionally, the Survival of the Fittest played a nasty role of political idealism and it removes the
religion (atheistic). But all religions take note of the major events of a lifetime: birth, youth, marriage and death; bind society
together through ceremony of worships and to control social deviance
two plants or animal species is possible and produced a fertile, reproductively isolated offspring. However, hybridization
between two plants or animal species is not possible due to structural, behavioural differences, and seasonal isolations. If imposed,
the fertilization fails, if the fertilization is successful, the embryo may abort, or the young may die. If the hybrid is survived up
to maturity, it must become sterile. However, a very rare case the hybrids become fertile but those produce so-called varieties /
races only; those species that produce fertile hybrids (e.g. Indian cattle Bos indicus and European cattle Bos taurus) must merge
into a species.to satisfy the modern definition of species. Moreover, the artificial selection is also a skilled sexual selection, as the
breeders choose the fittest, most vigour, and most fertile/productive, beautiful, colourful ornamented organism. But breeders
also failed to develop a reproductively isolated species/variety/race by Johnson’s pure line selection, cloning, genetic engineering
and mutation breeding. Even, a new species is not evolved by the natural hybridization. Consequently, there is no evidence of
evolution of a new species either artificially or naturally. So, recent research claims that sexual selection theory is fundamentally
flawed and simply wrong. Hence, evolutionary biologists rejected the sexual selection. Thus, sexual selection is opposite to the
evolution of humans from the lower animal like a chimpanzee. It is assumed that macroevolution occurs through hybridization;
so, such an assumption is not valid.
linked to gene/genetics (biological determinism/genetics determinism) and thus it was adaptive. This idea he applied to other
animals including humans (i.e. the behaviour of other animals including humans are linked to gene/genetics) and formulated
his Sociobiology theory of evolution of behavior. Thus, the basic idea of Sociobiology is that social behaviour is inherited
through a gene and transmitted from parents to their offspring. But an ant is a social insect and the behaviour of an ant and
other social insects is very peculiar and interesting that could never be comparable to other animals and humans. The behavior
of a social insect is learned and experienced. The behavior of humans and other animals (birds, primates, horses, etc.) is also
learned and experienced. Social behavior is not related to genetics, not transferable from parents to their offspring, and not
adaptive (behaviour does not come through an evolutionary process). However, to compare the behaviors of humans and
animals are not acceptable, as the cerebral cortex is entirely absent in most animals. Again. Sociobiology supports the
undesirable patterns of racism and sexism and it approves of the status quo, which is resistant to social progress. Sociobiology
has no academic exercise, as it opposes education through school, college, university etc. Sociobiology is a dangerous politics
and is related to the Marxist idea. Moreover, Sociologists, anthropologists, anthropological theory, the tabula rasa theory of
psychology, 35 scientists of the “American Institute of Biological Sciences” totally rejected the Sociobiology. Sociobiology is
firmly based on both Darwin’s theory and Neo-Darwinism, which indicates that Sociobiology has no base. However,
literatures indicate that those theories are also opposite to evolution. Sociobiology unwisely popularize by being designated as
10 unrelated subjects, making it very complex to understand its view. Furthermore, Sociobiology is mainly based on social
insects but fossils of social insects are identical to the existing one. Thus, Sociobiology (both the bahavioural ecology and pop
Sociobiology) is opposite to evolution. However, literature claims that Sociobiology is a special branch of Entomology that
deals with social insects.
theory (Darwinian evolution) and vice-versa but the Descent of Man (human evolution) means the Survival of the Fittest with
the Lamarck’s theory. So, if it is proved that the Survival of the Fittest and Lamarck’s theory is not valid, the Origin of
Species, natural selection, the Darwin’s theory (Darwinian evolution) and the Descent of Man would be invalid. However, it is
known from the several observations that many unfit animal may survives; whereas the really the fittest are died out due to
various hazards. So, there is no chance for the Survival of the Fittest. Again, the Survival of the Fittest’ indicates that living
organisms are selfish and struggle for their existence like battle in battle. But symbiosis, obligate symbiosis, cooperation etc.
are widely spread in nature from microorganisms to vertebrate; even altruism (self sacrifice) also. Again, no fittest organism
developed by the slight variation/gradualism. Darwin’s theory cannot explain the presence of vestigial organ. The reproductive
success organisms evolved during millions and millions of years ago and still existing in their own form. How extinct
organisms are fittest and produce new species? The Mendel’s laws, the Hardy-Weinberg’s law, the laws of thermodynamics
and teleology oppose Darwinian evolution. Even all the evidences of Darwin’s theory are opposite of evolution. Hence, seven
theories of evolution are formulated without the effects of the Survival of the Fittest. Consequently, the Survival of the Fittest
is wrong, invalidated and also meaningless. Again, Lamarck’s theory s is wrong. Hence, the Survival of the Fittest is not
valid: Darwin’s theory of natural selection, the Origin of Species and the Descent of Man opposite to Evolution; many
literatures support it. Additionally, the Survival of the Fittest played a nasty role of political idealism and it removes the
religion (atheistic). But all religions take note of the major events of a lifetime: birth, youth, marriage and death; bind society
together through ceremony of worships and to control social deviance.
theory (Darwinian evolution) and vice-versa but the Descent Man (human evolution) means the Survival of the Fittest with the
Lamarck’s theory. So, if it is proved that the Survival of the Fittest and Lamarck’s theory is not valid, the Origin of
Species, natural selection, the Darwin’s theory (Darwinian evolution) and the Descent Man would be invalid. However, it is
known from the several observations that many unfit animal may survives; whereas the really the fittest are died out due to
various hazards. So, there is no chance for the Survival of the Fittest. Again, the Survival of the Fittest’ indicates that living
organisms are selfish and struggle for their existence like battle in battle. But symbiosis, obligate symbiosis, cooperation etc.
are widely spread in nature from microorganisms to vertebrate; even altruism (self sacrifice) also. Again, no fittest organism
developed by the slight variation/gradualism. Darwin’s theory cannot explain the presence of vestigial organ. The reproductive
success organisms evolved during millions and millions of years ago and still existing in their own form. How extinct
organisms are fittest and produce new species? The Mendel’s laws, the Hardy-Weinberg’s law, the laws of thermodynamics
and teleology oppose Darwinian evolution. Even all the evidences of Darwin’s theory are opposites of evolution. Hence, seven
theories of evolution are formulated without the effects of the Survival of the Fittest. Consequently, the Survival of the Fittest
is wrong, invalidated and also meaningless. Again, Lamarck’s theory s is wrong. Hence, the Survival of the Fittest is not
valid: Darwin’s theory of natural selection, the Origin of Species and the Descent Man opposite to Evolution; many literatures
support it. Additionally, the Survival of the Fittest played a nasty role of political idealism and it removes the religion
(atheistic). But all religions take note of the major events of a lifetime: birth, youth, marriage and death; bind society together
through ceremony of worships and to control social deviance.
Keywords: the survival of the fittest, Darwin’s theory, origin of species
Descent of Man (Human evolution) from the lower animal like a chimpanzee. According to Darwin,
humans evolved from a lower animal through sexual selection. However, literature claims that sexual
selection is absent in all kinds of animals; as sexual selection is not possible in monogamous,
monomorphic, polymorphic animals and about 300-500 vertebrates (hermaphrodite) species. Even 65
experiments of meta-analysis and the Mayer experiment on Giant Silk Moth, Callosamia promethea, and
many other experiments opposed sexual selection. Again, sexual selection is possible in polygamous
animals, and the choice of mate, and battle for mating is possible here. However, it is absent in
polygamous animals. Because, sexual selection requires sense, intelligence, love, etc. But except modern
man, such attributes are entirely absent in the animal kingdom, its evidence is that animals are unable to
know (at mature stage/young stage) their brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, etc.; even they mate with
them, which strongly opposes sexual selection. As the progenitor of humans were animals; so, they had
no sense, intelligence, love, etc. to choose a mate, and thus, humans had not evolved through sexual
selection. Alfred Russel Wallace also strongly opposed sexual selection. Sexual selection has come far
from the Victorian ideas. Moreover, the mechanism of the Descent of Man is based on the wrong theory
of Lamarck, and the belief of Darwin. Besides, fossil evidence, modern genetics research, Mendelian
genetics (DNA), common sense/logic, Handle dilemma and the existing Tupaia opposes the Descent of
Man from a lower animal. Again, how did the extinct progenitor of humans produce modern humans,
why did humans and other organisms evolve millions of years ago but still existing in their own
respective and unmodified forms? If evolution/ Darwin’s theory is valid, then humans and other living
organisms should be immortal but not so happen. Hence, numerous biologists also rejected the sexual
selection theory of Darwin
theory (Darwinian evolution) and vice-versa but the Descent of Man (human evolution) means the Survival of the Fittest with
the Lamarck’s theory. So, if it is proved that the Survival of the Fittest and Lamarck’s theory is not valid, the Origin of
Species, natural selection, the Darwin’s theory (Darwinian evolution) and the Descent of Man would be invalid. However, it is
known from the several observations that many unfit animal may survives; whereas the really the fittest are died out due to
various hazards. So, there is no chance for the Survival of the Fittest. Again, the Survival of the Fittest’ indicates that living
organisms are selfish and struggle for their existence like battle in battle. But symbiosis, obligate symbiosis, cooperation etc.
are widely spread in nature from microorganisms to vertebrate; even altruism (self sacrifice) also. Again, no fittest organism
developed by the slight variation/gradualism. Darwin’s theory cannot explain the presence of vestigial organ. The reproductive
success organisms evolved during millions and millions of years ago and still existing in their own form. How extinct
organisms are fittest and produce new species? The Mendel’s laws, the Hardy-Weinberg’s law, the laws of thermodynamics
and teleology oppose Darwinian evolution. Even all the evidences of Darwin’s theory are opposite of evolution. Hence, seven
theories of evolution are formulated without the effects of the Survival of the Fittest. Consequently, the Survival of the Fittest
is wrong, invalidated and also meaningless. Again, Lamarck’s theory s is wrong. Hence, the Survival of the Fittest is not
valid: Darwin’s theory of natural selection, the Origin of Species and the Descent of Man opposite to Evolution; many
literatures support it. Additionally, the Survival of the Fittest played a nasty role of political idealism and it removes the
religion (atheistic). But all religions take note of the major events of a lifetime: birth, youth, marriage and death; bind society
together through ceremony of worships and to control social deviance.
common ancestry. But it is not true, as every being is definite at the molecular level of each species. So,
according to the current theory, each species is unique in that its base pairs are arranged in different orders
and proportions, which vary from all other species. Again, the DNA base-sequence varies as much as between
individuals of the same society and also of different societies of human races. Even, each person has a unique
“Genetic fingerprint” and DNA molecules which are completely different from one another. So, there are no
similarities among different types of species at their molecular levels. Again, there is no evidence that
a reproductively isolated species/breed/variety/race evolves either artificially or naturally, which opposes
modern (contemporary) evidence. Again, once it is thought that vestigial organs are useless. But today, those
are medically regarded as essential ones.
theory (Darwinian evolution) and vice-versa but the Descent of Man (human evolution) means the Survival of the Fittest with
the Lamarck’s theory. So, if it is proved that the Survival of the Fittest and Lamarck’s theory is not valid, the Origin of
Species, natural selection, the Darwin’s theory (Darwinian evolution) and the Descent of Man would be invalid. However, it is
known from the several observations that many unfit animal may survives; whereas the really the fittest are died out due to
various hazards. So, there is no chance for the Survival of the Fittest. Again, the Survival of the Fittest’ indicates that living
organisms are selfish and struggle for their existence like battle in battle. But symbiosis, obligate symbiosis, cooperation etc.
are widely spread in nature from microorganisms to vertebrate; even altruism (self sacrifice) also. Again, no fittest organism
developed by the slight variation/gradualism. Darwin’s theory cannot explain the presence of vestigial organ. The reproductive
success organisms evolved during millions and millions of years ago and still existing in their own form. How extinct
organisms are fittest and produce new species? The Mendel’s laws, the Hardy-Weinberg’s law, the laws of thermodynamics
and teleology oppose Darwinian evolution. Even all the evidences of Darwin’s theory are opposite of evolution. Hence, seven
theories of evolution are formulated without the effects of the Survival of the Fittest. Consequently, the Survival of the Fittest
is wrong, invalidated and also meaningless. Again, Lamarck’s theory s is wrong. Hence, the Survival of the Fittest is not
valid: Darwin’s theory of natural selection, the Origin of Species and the Descent of Man opposite to Evolution; many
literatures support it. Additionally, the Survival of the Fittest played a nasty role of political idealism and it removes the
religion (atheistic). But all religions take note of the major events of a lifetime: birth, youth, marriage and death; bind society
together through ceremony of worships and to control social deviance
two plants or animal species is possible and produced a fertile, reproductively isolated offspring. However, hybridization
between two plants or animal species is not possible due to structural, behavioural differences, and seasonal isolations. If imposed,
the fertilization fails, if the fertilization is successful, the embryo may abort, or the young may die. If the hybrid is survived up
to maturity, it must become sterile. However, a very rare case the hybrids become fertile but those produce so-called varieties /
races only; those species that produce fertile hybrids (e.g. Indian cattle Bos indicus and European cattle Bos taurus) must merge
into a species.to satisfy the modern definition of species. Moreover, the artificial selection is also a skilled sexual selection, as the
breeders choose the fittest, most vigour, and most fertile/productive, beautiful, colourful ornamented organism. But breeders
also failed to develop a reproductively isolated species/variety/race by Johnson’s pure line selection, cloning, genetic engineering
and mutation breeding. Even, a new species is not evolved by the natural hybridization. Consequently, there is no evidence of
evolution of a new species either artificially or naturally. So, recent research claims that sexual selection theory is fundamentally
flawed and simply wrong. Hence, evolutionary biologists rejected the sexual selection. Thus, sexual selection is opposite to the
evolution of humans from the lower animal like a chimpanzee. It is assumed that macroevolution occurs through hybridization;
so, such an assumption is not valid.
linked to gene/genetics (biological determinism/genetics determinism) and thus it was adaptive. This idea he applied to other
animals including humans (i.e. the behaviour of other animals including humans are linked to gene/genetics) and formulated
his Sociobiology theory of evolution of behavior. Thus, the basic idea of Sociobiology is that social behaviour is inherited
through a gene and transmitted from parents to their offspring. But an ant is a social insect and the behaviour of an ant and
other social insects is very peculiar and interesting that could never be comparable to other animals and humans. The behavior
of a social insect is learned and experienced. The behavior of humans and other animals (birds, primates, horses, etc.) is also
learned and experienced. Social behavior is not related to genetics, not transferable from parents to their offspring, and not
adaptive (behaviour does not come through an evolutionary process). However, to compare the behaviors of humans and
animals are not acceptable, as the cerebral cortex is entirely absent in most animals. Again. Sociobiology supports the
undesirable patterns of racism and sexism and it approves of the status quo, which is resistant to social progress. Sociobiology
has no academic exercise, as it opposes education through school, college, university etc. Sociobiology is a dangerous politics
and is related to the Marxist idea. Moreover, Sociologists, anthropologists, anthropological theory, the tabula rasa theory of
psychology, 35 scientists of the “American Institute of Biological Sciences” totally rejected the Sociobiology. Sociobiology is
firmly based on both Darwin’s theory and Neo-Darwinism, which indicates that Sociobiology has no base. However,
literatures indicate that those theories are also opposite to evolution. Sociobiology unwisely popularize by being designated as
10 unrelated subjects, making it very complex to understand its view. Furthermore, Sociobiology is mainly based on social
insects but fossils of social insects are identical to the existing one. Thus, Sociobiology (both the bahavioural ecology and pop
Sociobiology) is opposite to evolution. However, literature claims that Sociobiology is a special branch of Entomology that
deals with social insects.
theory (Darwinian evolution) and vice-versa but the Descent of Man (human evolution) means the Survival of the Fittest with
the Lamarck’s theory. So, if it is proved that the Survival of the Fittest and Lamarck’s theory is not valid, the Origin of
Species, natural selection, the Darwin’s theory (Darwinian evolution) and the Descent of Man would be invalid. However, it is
known from the several observations that many unfit animal may survives; whereas the really the fittest are died out due to
various hazards. So, there is no chance for the Survival of the Fittest. Again, the Survival of the Fittest’ indicates that living
organisms are selfish and struggle for their existence like battle in battle. But symbiosis, obligate symbiosis, cooperation etc.
are widely spread in nature from microorganisms to vertebrate; even altruism (self sacrifice) also. Again, no fittest organism
developed by the slight variation/gradualism. Darwin’s theory cannot explain the presence of vestigial organ. The reproductive
success organisms evolved during millions and millions of years ago and still existing in their own form. How extinct
organisms are fittest and produce new species? The Mendel’s laws, the Hardy-Weinberg’s law, the laws of thermodynamics
and teleology oppose Darwinian evolution. Even all the evidences of Darwin’s theory are opposite of evolution. Hence, seven
theories of evolution are formulated without the effects of the Survival of the Fittest. Consequently, the Survival of the Fittest
is wrong, invalidated and also meaningless. Again, Lamarck’s theory s is wrong. Hence, the Survival of the Fittest is not
valid: Darwin’s theory of natural selection, the Origin of Species and the Descent of Man opposite to Evolution; many
literatures support it. Additionally, the Survival of the Fittest played a nasty role of political idealism and it removes the
religion (atheistic). But all religions take note of the major events of a lifetime: birth, youth, marriage and death; bind society
together through ceremony of worships and to control social deviance.
theory (Darwinian evolution) and vice-versa but the Descent Man (human evolution) means the Survival of the Fittest with the
Lamarck’s theory. So, if it is proved that the Survival of the Fittest and Lamarck’s theory is not valid, the Origin of
Species, natural selection, the Darwin’s theory (Darwinian evolution) and the Descent Man would be invalid. However, it is
known from the several observations that many unfit animal may survives; whereas the really the fittest are died out due to
various hazards. So, there is no chance for the Survival of the Fittest. Again, the Survival of the Fittest’ indicates that living
organisms are selfish and struggle for their existence like battle in battle. But symbiosis, obligate symbiosis, cooperation etc.
are widely spread in nature from microorganisms to vertebrate; even altruism (self sacrifice) also. Again, no fittest organism
developed by the slight variation/gradualism. Darwin’s theory cannot explain the presence of vestigial organ. The reproductive
success organisms evolved during millions and millions of years ago and still existing in their own form. How extinct
organisms are fittest and produce new species? The Mendel’s laws, the Hardy-Weinberg’s law, the laws of thermodynamics
and teleology oppose Darwinian evolution. Even all the evidences of Darwin’s theory are opposites of evolution. Hence, seven
theories of evolution are formulated without the effects of the Survival of the Fittest. Consequently, the Survival of the Fittest
is wrong, invalidated and also meaningless. Again, Lamarck’s theory s is wrong. Hence, the Survival of the Fittest is not
valid: Darwin’s theory of natural selection, the Origin of Species and the Descent Man opposite to Evolution; many literatures
support it. Additionally, the Survival of the Fittest played a nasty role of political idealism and it removes the religion
(atheistic). But all religions take note of the major events of a lifetime: birth, youth, marriage and death; bind society together
through ceremony of worships and to control social deviance.
Keywords: the survival of the fittest, Darwin’s theory, origin of species