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 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.

The objective of this article to prove "Darwinian classification of plant and animal (taxonomical evidences) opposite to Darwin's theory" and it is a true fact: because diverse literature confirmed that Darwinian classifications/evolutionary classifications of both in plant and in animal kingdom are absent. However, in plant kingdom, Darwinian classifications systems of Hutchinson, Engler and Prantl, Bessy, Eichler, Takhtajan etc. are not valid as evolutionary classification; as those classifications are based on assumption, modification and similar to Bentham and Hooker's classifications (non-evolutionary classifications). Again, fossils are the direct evidences of Darwin's theory. But those classifications are not based on fossils as the fossils of angiosperm provide little help to taxonomists in separating the concept of evolutionary origin and diversification. Furthermore, various journalisms are demanded the absence of Darwinian classification in the animal kingdom. Additionally, the naming (the goal of taxonomy) of both plants and animals are completed by Linnaeus's "Rules and Laws", but not evolutionary rule.

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.

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.