My motto on any research to get married the philosophy of Ronald Dworkin (Law’s Empire, 1998, Oxford) – “making the best of something that it can be”. Likewise research on ‘origin of human’ requires a best interpretation. Before approaching into the heart of the discussion I would like to make clear some points – Theory, Logic, Believe, Fact and Science. Theory: noun (plural theories) a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: Darwin’s theory of evolution 

 Logic: noun [mass noun] reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity:experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic
the logic of the argument is faulty Belief: noun an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof: his belief in extraterrestrial life . Fact: noun a thing that is known or proved to be true: the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas . Science: noun [mass noun] the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: the world of science and technology . Now, in first phase, question may come across - is theory and logic two different things or theory integrates/ includes logics. Can there be any theory without logic? Answer is no as every theory has a logical stand. In second phase we need to clear ourselves whether fact and science is two different things or vice versa. Indeed without factual establishment there can not be any scientific discovery. So if anything is proved scientifically that must have a factual entity, which can be seen without any further requirements e.g. belief. So in here belief is excluded as it is unseen not factual characteristic. Having gone through theory, logic, fact and science, now we need to clear what is belief. Belief has also been defined above. For instance I would like to add – something is accepted without seeing. So if anyone says that I don’t believe anything without seeing then there is no point to believe it if he could see. Charles Darwin (hereinafter Darwin) is one of the world famous scientists. It can be worth mentioning that full credit of this research goes to one of my best mates who actually seeded into me to research on - “the origin of human”. I am really grateful to him as without his inspiration and influence I would not be aware about this topic. In deed Darwin’s writing on origin of human is a difficult one but he tried to furnish a picture of subject matter. In my fist stage I was wondering whether Darwin’s research or conclusion on ‘human’s origin’ – ‘the origin of species’ – a theory or a fact. After being undertaken wide research I have found out that it is rather a theory than fact as he could not prove whether we are from animal. He just gave some strong logical assumptions as per theory. Whatever he researched he admitted therein that he assumed the evolution of humans and ‘sketched’ human’s origin, as follows: “I will here give a brief sketch of the progression of opinion on the Origin of Species. Until recently the great majority of naturilsts believed that species were immutable productnions ” One more book of Darwin can be referred wherein he also stated: “By the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus …… But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon this earth ” Actually it has been known as Evolutionary Theory since he wrote it in spite of I (we) misunderstood or I didn’t. So now we can make a scientific conclusion briefly. Moreover, it is a theory - what we can do with? There are two options – either we can accept this theory or reject. As it is a theory not fact hence one can accept or oppose. If I say something with logic that this is that then either you may believe my statement as right or disbelieve as wrong. There is no firm conclusion on any theory/ logic (your one is right my one too at logical point of view) in any subject matter – (i) out of no factual entity and (ii) out of numerous different opinions or logics vested on the subject matter. Despite the Evolutionary theory, I want to discuss some contemporary understanding. In this modern age if you ask this theory to give some scientific evidences, the followings (out of many more) would be provided as it assumes that there are similarities between humans and animals, in particularly with chimpanzee . 1. Skulls – gradual changes 2. Climate changes 3. Apes 4. Fossil 5. Expressions 6. Emotion 7. DNA – recently endeavoured to add in this list. 8. Brain Through 1 – 8 and besides many more we normally conclude that we are from animals. Actually Darwin sought to prove these similarities and I admit that there may have similarities, to some extent, but that doesn’t mean or prove that human comes from Animal. If this similarity doesn’t prove that we are from animal then who saw the evolution of humans or it was more an assumption. Did you see the evolution that over millions or billions years gradually we changed into human from animal? I may believe in Darwin’s theory but you may not. Basically, as no one can answer this question yes hence it is a mere belief nothing more. Because none of us seen the evolution. So we need to rely on science not any theory. Contemporary and ancient scientists are split into different stands in this regard whether we are from animal, regardless the percentage of each regime. Many scientists across the world condemned the evolutionary theory and many accepted and believed it that we are form animal. Actually, strictly world scientists divided at Darwin’s theory. Therefore Darwin’s theory embraced controversy. Till today, if we compare Darwin’s profile with many other scientists, even from UK, he is known as a controversial scientist due to his evolutionary theory. If we over look his evolutionary theory, he is left behind the criticism in the scientists’ arena. Despite the evolutionary theory and dispute on humans’ origin, still question left to be answered that what can be the right answer on the origin of humans then. To answer - I would like to present the following. 1. Gregor Mendel – a genetic discoverer 2. Francis Crick – a contributor of DNA discovery (with James Watson) • A genetic discoverer: In this case Gregor Mendel’s genetic discovery may help us to get an insigne about the origin of every living being on this earth. He stressed on it that every living being has its own origin . However his discovery is being criticicsed by Darwin’s followers. • DNA: Numerous Internet pages claim that Human DNA 98% matches with Chimpanzees hence we are from animal or Chimpanzees. But very surprisingly DNS’s inventor never said so. One of the contributors of DNA came across this question that what is the origin of humans then. He, Francis Crick, the biochemist who discovered the structure of DNA, won a Nobel prize for the research, had carried out on the subject states as: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against” . Why this mess? To whom I would rely - creator of DNA or others? Question left before you. No where in his book he admitted that we are from animal. Now I would like to pause a question that if we can come from Animal in the eye of Darwin’s theory, why not animal comes from human. Question is why not? If human came from animal then in all creations why not cat comes from Dog? If I am purported to rely on Evolutionary Theory, not science, then who witnessed that evolution, only Darwin or others too? I know again scientists would tend to provide gradual changes of skulls and so on. This debate can only be harmonized if we can make it clear that whether Darwin’s theory was a matter of fact or belief as I already admitted there could have similarities between man and animal that never meant that we are from animal. After being researched on it, I found that Darwin’s theory is a matter of belief. If you believe in him you can believe. If you believe in science, you can only believe that “there may have similarities between Man and animal but man’s origin is not from an animal” as far as science (DNA) is concerned. If I defy Crick’s say, still science is looking for the origin of human. Recently Cornell University scientists say a theory that every living being is created from clay another where same publication is seen . As science is not clear-cut that we are from animal hence we can’t undermine ourselves in comparing to animal that we are from animal originally. Our origin can not be an animal. If it is a matter of belief then I would like to ask why I have to believe in Darwin instead of DNA’s creator Francis Crick and others. If it is a belief then why I must believe which has no scientific indication. As I am not 100% relying on science then; if I can believe in one scientist (e.g. Darwin) and others - why not I could believe another (e.g. Crick) and others. Hereafter anyone’s belief might be as like Crick believed: “In 1981, he published his version of the origin of life which proposed that it began when micro-organisms from another planet were dropped here by a spaceship sent to Earth from a higher civilization .” I rather liked Crick’s approach that we are from another planet or our creation was miraculous. We can easily reconcile this debate if we clear our mind that whether it is a belief or fact. Indeed it is a fact/ believe if I rely on Crick as he proved by DNA. And indeed it is a belief if I rely on Darwin as didn’t prove it and all his supporting books said it was a theory which requires a belief. So it is up to you whether you believe Crick or Darwin or accept fact DNA (Crick). (Next topic: Origin of Human: Quran & other divine books)