Senapathy's Primordial Pond
with worm, crab, frog, turtle, butterfly, fern.
All with 'tails' of a DNA double helix.
(image on the front cover of the book)
On 29th December 2002, I published a review of Periannan Senapathy's book "Independent Birth of Organisms. A New Theory That Distinct Organisms Arose Independently From The Primordial Pond Showing That Evolutionary Theories Are Fundamentally Incorrect" (1994). That is the full title of the book.
On 6th September 2021, I received the following email from Periannan
For business reasons, I had to search for my name on Google today. When I did, I observed that your website was the third to be displayed on the results page, and the caption under the website title stated the following,
"Independent researcher Periannan Senapathy came up with an extraordinary
solution: the independent origin of all organisms, including humans."
As you know, life in the animal kingdom is classified into the successive
ranks of Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species. The core prediction
of my theory is that fundamentally distinct organisms with unique body plans
originated independently. By fundamentally distinct, I refer to the organisms
that biologists had to separate into the highest-level taxa such as phylum and
class. Humans are not classified in a high-level taxon, but the lowest rank of
For the reason outlined above, I would appreciate it if you could remove the statement "including humans" at the end of your description. It is a very prominent statement, which diminishes the core principle of my theory. What I had intended to stress in my book was that any fundamentally unique body plan, from the 'simplest' invertebrate to the most 'complex' vertebrate, must have originated independently. Nevertheless, organismal evolution would have worked on these body plans over millions of years, giving rise to numerous low-level taxa such as families, genera, and species, including humans. I hope this clarifies my view.
Removing "including humans"? If you remove humans, logically, the meaning of the statement becomes:
"... the independent origin of all organisms, excluding humans."
That means humans did not originate from his Primordial Pond! So, how did humans originate?
In his theory there are only two ways humans (or any organism) could originate:
- by the spontaneous origin in his Primordial Pond by random DNA assemblage
- by mutation and natural selection from a 'simpler' predecessor
So, if humans did not originate in the Primordial Pond, they must have evolved by mutation and natural selection from a more 'primitive' ancestor (Mammal, Primate, Ape).
The second option (evolution) is contradicted by his own theory, as the full title of his book shows: Showing That Evolutionary Theories
Are Fundamentally Incorrect. If evolutionary theories are fundamentally incorrect, he cannot use them in his theory.
The first option, humans arose in the Primordial Pond, is in fact prescribed by his own theory. Humans are eukaryotes. All plants and animals are eukaryotes. Eukaryotes are organisms with split genes. Split genes are genes with introns. Introns are pieces of DNA that are removed before a protein is synthesized. According to Senapathy's computer simulations, any eukaryotic gene can be found in random DNA sequences if those random sequences are sufficiently large. So, any eukaryotic genome can originate in the Primordial Pond. So, any eukaryotic organism can originate in the Primordial Pond.
As a consequence, the genomes of any eukaryote, including humans, can originate in the Primordial Pond. Humans are eukaryotes just like the worm, crab, frog, turtle, butterfly, and fern in the cover illustration of his book (see above). Note: this is according to his own theory. This is what he states in his book:
"it is clear that all organisms were born independently, and were — and are — also immutable. This is the secret of life, and of its origin and history." page 373. 
In my review, I formulated a thousand objections. But this is what his own theory predicts.
That is the reason, removing 'including humans' would violate his own theory as published in 1994. My review is about that book. Therefore, I did not remove them. So far.
So, I am waiting for a good reason to remove those two words.
I invited Senapathy to continue the discussion on this blog.
- The review can be found on my Was Darwin Wrong? website: What's Wrong with Independent Birth of Organisms?
- added: 4 Jul 2022
Previous blog about Senapthy
- Senapathy publiceert in Nature Precedings, 7 Jan 2011