Extreme Human Antiquity = Extreme Animal Antiquity Too?

[Rishi_L]

As I'm sure many of us already know, the Vedic literature informs us that humanity has a far longer provenance on our planet than modern Western science allows. The Vedic literature, as far as I know, also seems to suggest that animals in general (as we know them today in their present forms) have dwelt on this planet for vast periods of cyclical time. For example, the celebrated Gajendra moksha leela occurred during the 4th manvantar. Taamas held the title of Manu during this time. Didn't the 4th manvantar of this current kalpa take place at least some 600 million years ago? But according to modern biologists, only very primitive lifeforms existed on Earth during those extremely ancient times... certainly no creature as relatively complex as an elephant! Also, what the fossil record indicates to us is quite creepy.

Plants first appear in the fossil record about 450 million years ago. There is no indication of them having developed out of any earlier form. They simply appear. What's more, every major form of plant arrives together. This can only be explained in orthodox evolutionary terms if none of the millions of intermediate stages which led to this dramatic development ever fossilised. The chances against this are ASTRONOMICAL.

The first flowering plants also appear in the fossil record fully formed. Although we have an abundance of fossils of the earlier, non-flowering species, not a single one of these can be described as an intermediate form on the evolutionary path to flowers. At one point, there were no flowering plants. At another, flowering plants were all over the place.

You find exactly the same bizarre pattern in the animal kingdom.

The earliest fish with spines and brains appeared some 450 million years ago. In all the many curious lifeforms discovered in the sea, they had no apparent evolutionary ancestors. According to orthodox doctrine, the cartilaginous skeleton found in the certain fish - like the ray - gradually evolved into a bony skeleton. The fossil record shows cartilaginous fish appeared (without apparent ancestors) 75 million years after bony fish.

Orthodox doctrine also insists fish with jaws gradually evolved from jawless varieties. The fossil record shows nothing of that sort. Fish with jaws suddenly appeared, with no discernible ancestry. Furthermore, these jawed fish somehow evolved into one jawless species - the lamprey - despite the fact that jawlessness is supposed to be a characteristic destined to be selected out of the life stream.

Darwinian theory suggests that lung-fish, capable of breathing both on land and underwater, eventually evolved primitive legs out of their gills and crawled onto a beach to become the first amphibians. Amphibians certainly exist. What isn't known to currently exist is a single intermediate fossil tracing the famous lung-fish gills-to-legs evolutionary sequence. Some 320 million years ago, fossils of fully a dozen orders of amphibians began to be laid down. All had well-developed limbs, shoulders and pelvic girdles. None showed the slightest sign of having evolved from fish or even from anything else that evolved from fish.

Fish species themselves show no signs of evolution. The shark who terrifies swimmers today is the same beast he was 150 million years ago. Oysters and mussels have been around unchanged for even longer - they appeared in their present form and were arguably just as delicious 400 million years ago.

Mammals appeared suddenly as well. The orthodox theory suggests that they evolved from a single, tree-dwelling, shrew-like creature that expanded into the niche left when the dinosaurs perished. There was indeed such a creature, but the fossil record gives no indication whatsoever that it evolved into anything. Instead, 10 million years after the dinosaurs disappeared, a dozen or so separate and distinct mammalian species turn up without warning in the fossil record... in areas as distinct as South America, Africa and Asia. There are no intermediate fossils showing a connection between these mammals and the earlier shrew. There are no fossils showing any inter-species evolution either. Among the fossil mammals that appeared so abruptly at that time are lions, bats and bears that you would recognise immediately if you were chased by them today. What's going on here?

[suchandra]

As we live in the age of deception how we should know if scientists tell us eveything they discovered? By now they know there's something wrong in the evolution theory or at least know exactly about the weak evidence in evolution theory but why they should tell us?

 

And: does present humanity actually want to hear something else than rather vage speculations and fairy tales about how for example snakes gradually developed poisonous teeth because they knew it would be an effective defense mechanism?

 

Modern science discovered so many things, they surely also discovered what people want to hear and mainly - what people are ready to pay for.

 

Question: Do people pay for "God created everything", or do people pay when seeing a breathtaking HDTV broadcast about newly discovered species living in the upper part of the trees in the tropical rainforests?

 

The entertainment industries is an efficient global network, as soon there's an impressive nature documentation spiced with "scientific talk" how wonderful is evolution they translate it into 150 languages and make money.

There's presently no way to reverse this mega satellite-based entertainment industries.

 

[Rishi_L]

 

As we live in the age of deception how we should know if scientists tell us eveything they discovered? By now they know there's something wrong in the evolution theory or at least know exactly about the weak evidence in evolution theory but why they should tell us?

 

And: does present humanity actually want to hear something else than rather vage speculations and fairy tales about how for example snakes gradually developed poisonous teeth because they knew it would be an effective defense mechanism?

 

Modern science discovered so many things, they surely also discovered what people want to hear and mainly - what people are ready to pay for.

 

Question: Do people pay for "God created everything", or do people pay when seeing a breathtaking HDTV broadcast about newly discovered species living in the upper part of the trees in the tropical rainforests?

 

You have made extremely salient points, Suchandra. I mostly agree with you. Perhaps the most controversial fossil discovery in recent years was the one discovered by a geologist from the University of Jadaypur in Calcutta, India. A 1.1 billion year old, reddish colored rock found in Madhya Pradesh, Chorhat, astonished scientists. It presents zigzag marks similar to those made by a worm.

The oldest known fossils of this kind are from Namibia and China and the marks are understood to be from multicellular organisms, which made their appearance in the course of evolution approximately 600 million years ago. If the finding in India is properly interpreted, it would call for a serious reconsideration of the basis of evolution, giving a giant jump (400 or 500 million years) between this fossil and those found in Namibia and China.

"If you see centimeter-scale organisms and then don't see them for 400 million years, you have a lot to explain", remarks Harvard University paleontologist Andrew Knoll.

After new marks were found in similar rocks, many incredulous scientists were forced to analyse the age of the rocks again. But these specimens (zirconium crystals) continued to point to the impossible, making the issue "even more exciting and more improbable", according to paleontologist Adolph Seilacher from Yale University. Seilacher believes that, according to what is commonly accepted, it is impossible for these fossilised traces to be from animals. However, he adds: "At the same time, I must accept the evidence. I have not found, nor heard from another person, another explanation. Is there any non-biological explanation for these marks?" This study appears in the October 2, 1998 issue of Science magazine.