Prof. Dr. md. abdul Ahad M D . A B D U L Ahad, PhD

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

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.

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
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.

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 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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

The experiment was conducted at the Departmentof Entomology ,Hajee Mohammad Danesh
science and Technology University, Dinajpur. The length of the egg of Micraspis discolor
was 1.2 t0.02 and the breadth was 0.5 t0.0lmm. The length of 1't, 2nd, 3'd and the 4ft instar larvae were 1.6 t0.05 ,3.13 t0.08 .4.10 a{.16 and 5.1 t0.08 mm respectively; while their breadths were 0.62 t0.02 , 0.70 t0.06, l. I t0.10 and 1.3 =0.09 mm respectively' The average lengths of the male and female pupae were 3.it0.08 and 3.3t0'09 mm respectively' and the
breadths were 2-1t0.05 and 2.5t0.08 mm, respectively. The length and the breadth of the
adult male were 4.1t0.06 and 3.3 t0.08 mm and the female beetles were 3'7t0'05' 3'1 =0'06
mm respectively'

Genetic drift represents the punctuated equilibrium theory, the shifting balance theory, the allopatric speciation theory, the species selection theory and work in small isolated populations. Those theories advocated that all plants and animals man arose through macroevolution. However, genetic drift and small isolated populations are the key factors of those theories. But genetic drift loses/changes the gene frequency randomly, which are very harmful to any organism and thus could not produce any new species. Again, drift unfits to create any variation (raw material of evolution). Again, small isolated populations and produce homozygous organisms. Those organisms have low fecundity, suffer from various disease, least fitted to survive and may extinct suddenly, e.g. American heath hen. Thus, any kind of evolution is quite impossible through those theories. Therefore, biologists rejected the genetic drift, shifting balance theory (a condition to declare invalid of those theories) and also the punctuated equilibrium theory as the theory of evolution. Again, the fossil is the only evidence of those theories but fossil opposes macroevolution (another condition to declare invalid of those theories) but support the gradual evolution. Moreover, evolution is reasonably absurd by the extinction of living organism. Consequently, those theories are invalid and no one plant and animal including human arose through those theories. Hence, Darwinists, Neo-Darwinists and Sociobiology’s oppose those theories.

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, NeoDarwinism/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

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.

The first modern theory of evolution was put forward by Jean Baptist de Lamarck
the inheritance of acquired structures/characters that transmits to the offspring. It has
been recognized that the inheritance of acquired characters is not transmitted to the
offspring. Hence Lamarck’s theory can hardly be accepted in the light of modern
molecular genetics that available in the present century. Darwin directly accepted
the Lamarck’s theory in ‘the Origin of Species’ (natural selection) under the heading
‘the effect of use and disuse’. He also uses Lamarck’s theory in ‘the Descent of Man
in Relation to Sex ‘(sexual selection theory). Consequently, Darwin’s theory is less
accepted by the most biologists. As a result they synthesize the modern synthetic
theory of evolution (neo-Darwinism) as an alternate theory of natural selection and
sexual selection.

The embryology of plants and echinoderm oppose the " Biogenetic Law (Recapitulation theory) ". The present of gill slits in vertebrate's embryos are the evidence of " Biogenetic law ". But except in fishes, other vertebrate's embryos have never gills. Both the early stage and the tail bud stages (later stages) of embryos are differing morphologically, instead of similarity. So, Haeckel manufactured the pictures about the similarities of various vertebrate embryos. Thus, Haeckel's " Biogenetic Law " is faked during Haeckel's as well as Darwin's lifetime. Again, the vertebrate's embryos are observable but this Law is based on three assumptions. So, many researches declared that invalid the " Biogenetic Law ". Consequently, the publishers of biology started to remove the Haeckel's drawing from their biology books. Haeckel's evolutionary tree is based on the " Biogenetic law ". So, Haeckel's evolutionary tree (Phylogenetic tree /Darwinian tree) is not valid. Darwin exploited the " Recapitulation theory " for the strong evidence of his theory. Hence, embryological evidences are opposite to Darwin's theory.

The n-hexane extracts of the weeds 'bhatpata' Clerodendrum viscosum, 'kashiature' Cassia tora, 'dhakishak' Dryoptris filix-max, 'bonmorich' Croton bonpalandianum and 'ghagra' Xanthium strumarium were used to evaluate their effectiveness for suppressing pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis reared on mung bean Vigna radiata grains. The investigations were done with 1, 2 and 4% n-hexane extracts of the weeds and an untreated control. The weed extracts exhibited considerable effectiveness which varied with weed species, concentrations and exposure durations. The higher concentrations showed the higher rate of insect mortality, fecundity, adult emergence inhibition, and grain protection. The LC50 values of the extracts ranged from 5.3 to 7.8, 4.7 to 6.5 and 4.1 to 6.0 g/100 ml at 24, 48 and 72 hours after treatment, respectively. The fecundity inhibition varied from 31.7 to 78.7%, adult emergence inhibition from 33.8 to 81.1%, and grain damage inhibition from 10.3 to 60.1% when 'bhatpata' with concentration of 1 g/100 ml and 'ghagra' with concentration of 4g/100 ml were applied, respectively. Among the tested weeds, ghagra (4g/100 ml) showed better efficacy against C. chinensis compared to other tested extracts and may be suggested to control pulse beetle and protection of mung bean grains.

This study was conducted with n-hexane extracts of sensitive plant Mimosa pudica, mexican poppy Argemone mexicana, panimarich Leucus aspara, water pepper Polygonum hydropiper and shialmutra Blumea lacera weeds against pulse beetle Callosobruchus chinensis (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) for protection of mung bean Vigna radiata grains. The LC50 values of the weed extracts ranged from 4.5 to 6.4, 4.1 to 5.6 and 3.6 to 5.5 g/100 mL at 24, 48 and 72 hours of post treatment, respectively. The extracts showed 35 to 69% fecundity and 33 to 63% adult emergence inhibitory effect on the pest, and revealed 13 to 49% grain protection of mung beans. Insect mortality, fecundity and adult emergence inhibitory effects, and grain protection activity increased with increased concentration of the extracts. The shialmutra followed by water pepper extracts revealed better performances in fecundity and adult beetle emergence inhibitory effect compared to the other weeds. The findings proved that the n-hexane extracts of the five weeds are sources of botanical insecticides which may be used in the integrated management of C. chinensis.

One half of all known plant genera contain polyploidy species and about two-thirds of all grasses are polyploids. So, biologists assume that the existing numerous polyploid had macroevolved via the route of changing of chromosome number and structure (chromosomal speciation) and it is still occurring. However, macroevolution/ polyploidization/ chromosomal speciation/ chromosomal aberration/ chromosomal mutations are completed smoothly through hybridization. But diverse literatures demonstrate that hybridization between two plants genus/ species or two animal genus/species is not possible; if imposed the fertilization fails, if the fertilization is successful, the embryo may abort, or the young may suffers various abnormalities and at last it may die, if survives, suffer from various abnormalities, dangerous diseases and must be sterile. If the offspring is fertile, do not produce species but produce races /varieties. So, breeders have developed some plants and animals varieties through hybridization between two varieties. For instance, through hybridization between two rice varieties, breeders have developed some rice varieties such as IR-8, IR-28 etc. But acquiring of these races or varieties to a species is not possible due to segregation and failed to gain reproductive isolation. In addition, due to chromosomal structural change; living organisms suffer various abnormalities, even those die. There is no known example of macroevolution of a new plant or an animal species that produce either artificially or spontaneously via those processes in the present world. Consequently, Impossible of macroevolution of new species via changing of chromosome number mutation and structural mutation (invalid chromosomal speciation Theory), Darwin's Theory and neo-Darwinian Theory oppose it.

The first modern theory of evolution was put forward by Jean Baptist de Lamarck the inheritance of acquired structures/characters that transmits to the offspring. It has been recognized that the inheritance of acquired characters is not transmitted to the offspring. Hence Lamarck's theory can hardly be accepted in the light of modern molecular genetics that available in the present century. Darwin directly accepted the Lamarck's theory in 'the Origin of Species' (natural selection) under the heading 'the effect of use and disuse'. He also uses Lamarck's theory in 'the Descent of Man in Relation to Sex '(sexual selection theory). Consequently, Darwin's theory is less accepted by the most biologists. As a result they synthesize the modern synthetic theory of evolution (neo-Darwinism) as an alternate theory of natural selection and sexual selection.

Invalid Oparin-Haldane's theory (the soup theory) and all other theories about the origin of life and useless Miller's experiments, Oparin's theory may be a theory of prebiotic chemistry: fathers of modern evolutionary theories–Buffon, Lamarck and Darwin believed that life is created by a Creator Abstract: The entire article is based on the diverse current literatures of various world famous scientists. Both Oparin and Haldane assumed that the primitive earth-atmosphere had huge methane, ammonia and also oxygenless; life was formed in ocean and the ocean was hot, which helped to produce huge amino acids and consequently huge " Chicken soup " and later the life. But literatures confirmed that those conditions were absent in the prebiotic earth/ocean. Moreover, both hot and water strongly inhibits the protein formation of life. Miller completed his experiments by fulfilling those conditions. Thus, Miller's experiment is completely useless to support that theory. Moreover, in nature, equal amounts of left-handed and right-handed amino acids are found. Therefore, if the life had arisen from the amino acids naturally; then equal amounts of left-handed and right-handed amino acids could also be found in all living organisms. But that had not happened. A cell is composed of numerous chemicals, compounds, parts and those are extremely irreducibly complex. So, spontaneously origin of life means just like coming out huge dictionary from a press. In addition, Darwin applied natural selection to the living organisms, but Oparin applied that idea to nonliving things. Even, that theory violated law of thermodynamics, biogenesis, cell theory, anthropic principle, teleology and all other natural laws too. Oppositely, the laws of nature are unchangeable. Even, that theory is a political ideology. Moreover, injection of life-force to the body is a serious problem for the origin of life. Hence, Francis Crick, Stephen Hawking and also NASA officially rejected that theory. Thus, Aristotle, Buffon, Lamarck and Darwin had to believe that life is created by a Creator. Consequently, Oparin-Haldane's theory is invalid useless Miller's experiment to support this theory and life is created by a Creator. Scientist Md. Abdul Ahad also proved the same thing. Thus, like Oparin's theory, all other abiogenesis/spontaneous theories about the origin of life at any other place is also invalid and in future no new theory is possible to develop about origin of life. However, Oparin-Haldane's theory may be a theory of " Prebiotic chemistry " .

The modern synthetic theory (neo-Darwinism) is an extension of Darwinian Theory of evolution. It is a combination of mutations and natural selection. Both Darwinian and synthetic theory are based on mutation and population genetics. This theory is accepted by the most biologists. It advocates that molecular evolution occurs through the changes of gene structure or frequency via the agents of this theory especially by mutation. But mutations are random changes of DNA. Most mutations are homozygous recessive and harmful. It inhibits metabolic processes and produces dangerous diseases as well as opposed molecular evolution of new species. If accidentally possible (either naturally or artificially), this change is might be within the species and form variety (or race or strain). But aquirring of status of this variety to a species is less possible due to segregation and failure to gain reproductive isolation.

The first modern theory of evolution was put forward by Jean Baptist de Lamarck the inheritance of acquired structures/characters that transmits to the offspring. It has been recognized that the inheritance of acquired characters is not transmitted to the offspring. Hence Lamarck's theory can hardly be accepted in the light of modern molecular genetics that available in the present century. Darwin directly accepted the Lamarck's theory in 'the Origin of Species' (natural selection) under the heading 'the effect of use and disuse'. He also uses Lamarck's theory in 'the Descent of Man in Relation to Sex '(sexual selection theory). Consequently, Darwin's theory is less accepted by the most biologists. As a result they synthesize the modern synthetic theory of evolution (neo-Darwinism) as an alternate theory of natural selection and sexual selection.

Darwin's theory of natural selection is a mixture of Lyell's theory and Malthus's theory and Darwin used wrong Lamarck's theory, theme of sociologist Herbert Spencer 'survival of the fittest' plus believes as the mechanism of evolution. Evidences are provided form his paper 1858, 'Origin of Species' and 'Descent of Man' his autobiography and different text books. Diverse literatures showed that Lyell declared in 'Principle of Geology' that the earth was evolved from the simple to the modern stage by slow and gradual (he utilized gradual 170 times) process by natural forces during millions of years. Darwin applied this view to natural selection. But he used 'living organisms' in lieu of the 'earth surface' and confirmed that all the living organisms evolved by slow and gradual process from a few previous simple organisms over millions of years. Furthermore, Darwin used Lyell's name and his idea gradual 27 times in 'Origin of Species' and 9 times in 'Descent of Man'. Malthus argued in 'Principle of population' geometrical increasing of human population and confirmed that as many more individuals are born can possibly survive. So, there is often struggle for existence and competition is compulsory. Darwin adopted this idea in his theory of natural selection but he used 'all living organisms' instead of 'Human'. Additionally, Darwin applied Malthus thought geometrical increase 11 times, struggle 84 times, existence 69 and competition 44 times in 'Origin of Species'. Thus, Darwin synthesized natural selection by the mixture of Malthus theory and Lyell's theory in 1889. Moreover, he applied wrong Lamarck's theory disuse 41 places in 'Origin of Species' and 15 places in 'Descent of Man'. He acknowledged that principles of natural selection is shadowed of forth principles of Lamarck and the problem of human evolution can never be solved by science. Man is considered with other some ancient, lower, and extinct form, Lamarck long ago came to this conclusion. Six classical World renowned persons (Darwin, Wallace, Malthus, Lyell, Lamarck and Spencer) direct related to development of 'natural selection' (Origin Species and Descent of Man) but four persons are academically nonscientist (Darwin, Malthus, Lyell and Spencer) even two main persons are academically clergyman man (Darwin and Malthus). Even, Darwin applied unscientific idea 'I believe' and similar theme 372 times in 'Origin of Species' and 264 times in 'Descent of Man'. However, believe is not science as believe in God is not science.

Darwin's theory of evolution is the central theme of biology and also key element of modern synthetic theory (neo-Darwinism) and Sociobiology. Darwin and his followers declare that artificial selection/ hybridization produce new species and provide a model of natural selection sexual selection (human evolution). Artificial selection is a skilled sexual selection. Moreover gene flow, recombination, chromosomal aberration/ chromosome number mutation (macroevolution/ polyploidization) also occur very smoothly and skillfully through artificial selection. But it is clear that breeding (hybridization) between two plants species or animal species is not possible either naturally or artificially; if imposed the fertilization fails, if the fertilization is successful, the embryo may abort, or the young may suffers various abnormalities and at last it may die, if the hybrid survives to maturity, it must be sterile, if fertile it produces varieties/ races. So, breeders have developed some plants and animals varieties through hybridization between two varieties. For instance, through hybridization between two rice varieties, breeders have developed some rice varieties such as IR-8, IR-28 etc. but these varieties are lost their genotype just after a few generations. So, chromosomal speciation/ macroevolution/ polyploidy is also impossible. Moreover, cloning (biotechnology/ genetic engineering) neither produces a new species nor produce a new variety, as it produces many identical copies. So, it is confirmed that artificial selection/hybridization (the main fore of evolution) opposite to Darwin's theory and also opposite to macroevolution through chromosomal aberration/ chromosomal number mutation.

Darwin's theory of evolution is the central theme of biology and also all the theories of evolution. Paleontology (study of fossils) provides the convincing, direct and clear-cut evidences for evolution. Darwin declared: " he, who rejects these views on the nature of geological record, would rightly reject his whole theory ". However, diverse literature confirmed that the more common plant fossils are imprints of leaves and are identical to their existing forms. Invertebrate rare form fossils but those formed are identical to their presented form. The entire vertebrate fossils are fragmentary bones. For example, fossils of dinosaurs are thigh bones, arm bones, teeth, footprints, bites etc; fossils of ancestors of humans are skull fragments, teeth, jaws etc. Transitional fossil is absent. Claimed transitional fossils of Archaeopteryx and Seymouria are not transitional at all; they are true bird and true reptile, respectively. Darwin himself declared there is no transitional fossils and transitional existing animal. Additionally, the obtained fossils are fossils of existing organisms or extinct organisms, which formed during the universal floods. Moreover, origin of the first life, arising period of other organisms and the age of earth are determined by the assumptions only, as it overlooks 3.5 billion years. Extinction of living organisms never produces new species; if produce there is no need of biodiversity conservation law. Moreover, the fossil evidences, especially living fossils oppose the continuity and the idea of evolution. Besides, fossil evidences oppose human evolution (Descent of Man) is not from the chimpanzee; Russel Wallace (co-discoverer of natural selection) also believes it. Even, Darwin himself declared that 'Descent of Man' can not explain by science but he believes it, as Lamarck, who long ago came to this conclusion. But believe is not science as believe in God is not science. Lamarck's theory is never accepted by the modern biologists. Moreover, paleontological evidence indicates that human has been evolved 4-5 million years ago but recent genetic research indicates that modern human have been emerged about 100-200 thousand years ago only, which again oppose evolution of human is not from the lower animal. Based on absent of transitional fossils two American scientists Gould and Eldredge completely rejected the Darwin's theory of gradual evolution and human evolution in their several research papers by declaring " invalid claims of gradualism made at the wrong scale with adequate data. Phyletic gradualism was an a priori assertion from the start-it was never "seen" in the rocks. It expressed the cultural and political biases of 19th century liberalism ". Consequently, the fathers of modern paleontologists and geologists opposed evolution. King and Wilson, and Sverdlov confirmed their researches that the genomes of chimpanzees and humans are very similar and their DNA sequences overall are 98% identical. Their researches are accurate and satisfactory. But it does not indicate evolution of human is from the lower animal like chimpanzee. Morris also supports this by many scientific logics. So, why does man unscientifically relate them with the lower animal like chimpanzee/ape as their ancestor, who eats it own excreta?

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.

In this book’s: Definition of ecology, aims and objectives of ecology, and causes of success of insect, major branches of ecology, major branches of ecology, ecosystem and agro-ecosystem, ecosystem and agro-ecosystem and it different, environmental factors influencing living organisms, growth form, forecasting of insect population, surveillance, polymorphism, estimation of population density, crop loss assessment, model pest management models of predation , mimicry and many other related matters are well described.

As a student of science and a researcher of evolutionary biology I have always felt an absence of a book of this kind. Because during our study in Genetics, Biotechnology, Breeding, Biomedical Engineering etc there are a lot of words that at first baffles us and as a result we cannot understand that topic properly. You can argue that the internet might be a source to learn the meaning of these words but sometimes all you need is just the definition and reading a whole webpage for this simple reason might be a waste of time. In this book we have collected all the words related to the above mentioned subjects. This book will help the students and the researchers of these particular fields to efficiently understand these subjects.