evolution

[pandora]

so science says that we all decendent from africa 70 million yrs ago, if so then were all africans. but how does all this science fit in with our religious history, how did it all began, for me i would like to think that the origins of human life began in india like the how the religious book tells it

[Sonic Yogi]

 

so science says that we all decendent from africa 70 million yrs ago, if so then were all africans. but how does all this science fit in with our religious history, how did it all began, for me i would like to think that the origins of human life began in india like the how the religious book tells it

If we descended from Apes, then why are there still apes around?

If apes evolved into humans then there shouldn't be any apes left.

 

If evolution is a law of nature, then there would be no apes left on the planet because as a species that would have evolved into humans.

 

Science can't have it both ways.

They can't say that apes evolved into humans while the ape species still exists in many types.

 

If evolution were real, then there would be no apes left on Earth.

 

They would have all evolved into NASA scientists, brain surgeons, computer engineers and Rock musicians.

[suchandra]

 

so science says that we all decendent from africa 70 million yrs ago, if so then were all africans. but how does all this science fit in with our religious history, how did it all began, for me i would like to think that the origins of human life began in india like the how the religious book tells it

Science says that the Moon is currently drifting away from Earth about 1.5 inches (3.74 centimeters) every year. If the earth is 4.5 billion years old then the Moon should have already drifted out of sight.

 

Astronomers have been measuring the size of the sun for 400 years. Our sun would have been so big that as little as 1,000,000 years ago all life on Earth would have been burned. This means there was not enough time for any type of Evolution to happen!

 

The rate at which elements such as copper, gold, tin, lead, silicon, mercury, uranium and nickel are entering the seas is very rapid when compared with the small quantities of these elements already in the oceans. Therefore the oceans must be much younger than even 1 million years.

[kaisersose]

 

If we descended from Apes, then why are there still apes around?

If apes evolved into humans then there shouldn't be any apes left.

 

Whatever you said may be, it is certainly not evolution.

 

There is plenty of material on evolution easily available. Please take some time and read it before you will speak on the topic. I assume you are not going to learn evolution from religious sources.

 

Cheers

[Amlesh]

 

Whatever you said may be, it is certainly not evolution.

 

There is plenty of material on evolution easily available. Please take some time and read it before you will speak on the topic. I assume you are not going to learn evolution from religious sources.

 

Cheers

Ok... very interesting.

But the original evolution thesis is far more complex and is found in the Vedic literature. Apart from that... I don't like chewed stuff. Original remains the original.

[suchandra]

 

far more complex

 

Guess modern evolution is best refuted by

Irreducible complexity

 

Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, and are at the same time too complex to have arisen naturally through chance mutations. An "irreducibly complex" system is defined by the term's originator, biochemistry professor Michael J. Behe, as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". These examples are said to demonstrate that modern biological forms could not have evolved naturally. The argument is used in a broader context to support the idea that an intelligent designer was involved, at some point, in the creation of life, against the theory of evolution which argues no designer is required. In a manner of speaking, the IC argument is a definition of the "designer", or at least "what was designed", a definition that has proven elusive in the past. The most common examples used in argument are the complexity of the eye, the Blood clotting cascade, or the motor in a cell's flagellum.

The flagella of certain bacteria constitute a molecular motor requiring the interaction of about 40 complex protein parts, and the absence of any one of these proteins causes the flagella to fail to function. Behe holds that the flagellum "engine" is irreducibly complex because if we try to reduce its complexity by positing an earlier and simpler stage of its evolutionary development, we get an organism which functions improperly.

There are many examples of molecular machines, such as the bacterial flagellum, that are composed of numerous elements. Behe rightly points out that such machines are irreducibly complex in that if any one part were removed, the function in question would be instantly lost. How then could such a machine be built up gradually if it will not work to any selectable degree until all its parts are present in their proper order?

Kenneth Miller, a well-known evolutionary biologist from Brown University, points out that certain subsystems of the bacterial flagellum would still be in working order if other parts were removed. The overall flagellar motility system requires around 50 different types of proteins (and underlying genes to code for them). However, it is quite interesting to note that 10 of these genes and the resulting structure within the flagellar motility system also code for what is known as a type III secretory system (TTSS). The TTSS is used as a toxin injector by some especially nasty bacteria that attack both animals and plants. Therefore, Kenneth Miller argues that it is mistaken to use the flagellar system as an example of a truly irreducibly complex machine since around 40 different parts could be removed from the machine without a complete loss of function. Miller also points out that the majority of the protein parts of the flagellar system have other functions as parts of other systems within bacteria.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Whatever you said may be, it is certainly not evolution.

 

There is plenty of material on evolution easily available. Please take some time and read it before you will speak on the topic. I assume you are not going to learn evolution from religious sources.

 

Cheers

 

Maybe you should expose your mind to scientists.

 

http://krishnascience.comDarwin_defeated.html

[Sonic Yogi]

[kaisersose]

 

Maybe you should expose your mind to scientists.

 

http://krishnascience.comDarwin_defeated.html[/quote]

 

A good example for - When the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

 

What next?

 

The moon is further away from the earth than the sun

There is no gravitation on earth ( we are being pushed down & not pulled down)

The moon is a star

The human race started in India

 

and - the cherry on top - the British introduced caste system in India by interpolating the Manu Smriti?

 

Cheers

[kaisersose]

 

so science says that we all decendent from africa 70 million yrs ago, if so then were all africans. but how does all this science fit in with our religious history,

 

The two do not align, of course. Do not waste time trying to reconcile the two.

 

 

for me i would like to think that the origins of human life began in india like the how the religious book tells it

 

You can think what you like. You have the freedom to do that. It does not mean everything you like and everything you think is necessarily based in fact.

 

There are countless people doing that right now. They ignore reality and lose themselves in a fantasy world which only contains what they like.

 

Cheers

[Gaea]

 

If we descended from Apes, then why are there still apes around?

If apes evolved into humans then there shouldn't be any apes left.

 

If evolution is a law of nature, then there would be no apes left on the planet because as a species that would have evolved into humans.

 

Science can't have it both ways.

They can't say that apes evolved into humans while the ape species still exists in many types.

 

If evolution were real, then there would be no apes left on Earth.

 

They would have all evolved into NASA scientists, brain surgeons, computer engineers and Rock musicians.

 

yay! at last... a subject on this forum i can actually talk about with some confidence.

 

The problem with people from anti/pro-evolution theory camps is that often they just don't understand it. For example, many equate evo theory to just that of humans - but it is a natural phenomenon that applies across the board... to all living things.

 

Look, evo theory is a fact - a microbiologist can prove it to you in a day. Put one bacterium in a petri dish and let it multiply. Add antibiotics. Some survive, some don't. That is evolution Some managed to survive - that is what Darwin meant by "a struggle for survival" and "natural selection". In fact, in this way, I think Darwin was closer to realising God's hand in nature than many of you really care to see.

 

Where is the threat to religion in this? Where is the threat to spirituality? So what if humans evolved from apes? Is that to say there is no God? Perhaps the term "human" in Vedic literature pertains to a level of consciousness, rather than the physical non-hairy, 2 arm, 2 leg, 1-nose, 2-eye definition.

 

I must say that personally i think the scientific picture of human evolution isn't complete yet, but we probably shouldn't blurt out rubbish about a subject any more than a non-educated atheist should pass comment on the intricacies of the Bhagavad Gita.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

The moon is further away from the earth than the sun

 

Well, since there are 166 known moons in the solar system, that means that there are probably hundreds of them that are further from the Earth than the Sun.

The entire universe contains probably thousands of moons.

So, yeah, there are thousands of moons further from Earth than the Sun.

[primate]

 

... Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, and are at the same time too complex to have arisen naturally through chance mutations. An "irreducibly complex" system is defined by the term's originator, biochemistry professor Michael J. Behe, as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". These examples are said to demonstrate that modern biological forms could not have evolved naturally. The argument is used in a broader context to support the idea that an intelligent designer was involved, at some point, in the creation of life, against the theory of evolution which argues no designer is required. In a manner of speaking, the IC argument is a definition of the "designer", or at least "what was designed", a definition that has proven elusive in the past. The most common examples used in argument are the complexity of the eye, the Blood clotting cascade, or the motor in a cell's flagellum.

The flagella of certain bacteria constitute a molecular motor requiring the interaction of about 40 complex protein parts, and the absence of any one of these proteins causes the flagella to fail to function. Behe holds that the flagellum "engine" is irreducibly complex because if we try to reduce its complexity by positing an earlier and simpler stage of its evolutionary development, we get an organism which functions improperly.

There are many examples of molecular machines, such as the bacterial flagellum, that are composed of numerous elements. Behe rightly points out that such machines are irreducibly complex in that if any one part were removed, the function in question would be instantly lost. How then could such a machine be built up gradually if it will not work to any selectable degree until all its parts are present in their proper order?

Kenneth Miller, a well-known evolutionary biologist from Brown University, points out that certain subsystems of the bacterial flagellum would still be in working order if other parts were removed. The overall flagellar motility system requires around 50 different types of proteins (and underlying genes to code for them). However, it is quite interesting to note that 10 of these genes and the resulting structure within the flagellar motility system also code for what is known as a type III secretory system (TTSS). The TTSS is used as a toxin injector by some especially nasty bacteria that attack both animals and plants. Therefore, Kenneth Miller argues that it is mistaken to use the flagellar system as an example of a truly irreducibly complex machine since around 40 different parts could be removed from the machine without a complete loss of function. Miller also points out that the majority of the protein parts of the flagellar system have other functions as parts of other systems within bacteria.

‘Irreducibly complex’ structures or mechanisms as identified in biological organisms, could have evolved from ‘reducible complex’ structures. Early 'flagella' in bacteria were most likely composed of many more protein parts, which allowed evolution to ‘tinker’ with the system. In the course of evolution, some (or many) of these proteins lost their function in the system as a whole, and the DNA that encodes for their expression within that particular context was conveniently ‘switched off’ through mutations, leaving a highly efficient irreducible mechanism. The human genome, for example, contains 95% unused ‘junk DNA’. Only approximately 100,000 genes are actually expressed in human growth - and development.

[primate]

 

If we descended from Apes, then why are there still apes around?

If apes evolved into humans then there shouldn't be any apes left.

 

If evolution is a law of nature, then there would be no apes left on the planet because as a species that would have evolved into humans.

 

Science can't have it both ways.

They can't say that apes evolved into humans while the ape species still exists in many types.

 

If evolution were real, then there would be no apes left on Earth.

 

They would have all evolved into NASA scientists, brain surgeons, computer engineers and Rock musicians.

Humans didn’t evolve from today’s apes. Both humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor that has long disappeared. The reason that today’s apes didn’t evolve into humans is because they once lived completely isolated from the apes that actually did evolve into human’s. Driven by chance mutations and different environmental pressures, different isolated ape populations followed different evolutionary paths and ultimately became the different ape-like species (primates) we see today, including humans. Nevertheless, we still share 99% of our genetic make up with Chimps for example.

[primate]

We also share about 5% of our genetic make-up with grass!

[primate]

 

so science says that we all decendent from africa 70 million yrs ago, if so then were all africans. but how does all this science fit in with our religious history, how did it all began, for me i would like to think that the origins of human life began in india like the how the religious book tells it

The oldest fossil remains of upright walking hominoids are about 4 million years old (Australopithecus afarensis). The earliest remains of modern humans (homo sapiens) are 195,000 years old. Next, the entire human population appears to have been nearly wiped out about 70,000 years ago (probably as the result of a super volcanic event that triggered a volcanic winter). Judged from the extreme genetic similarity of the different human races, the number of humans may have shrunk as low as 2,000 before numbers began to increase again. It cannot be known for sure exactly where this tiny group of humans survived. Might as well be in India..

[Sonic Yogi]

 

The oldest fossil remains of upright walking hominoids are about 4 million years old (Australopithecus afarensis). The earliest remains of modern humans (homo sapiens) are 195,000 years old. Next, the entire human population appears to have been nearly wiped out about 70,000 years ago (probably as the result of a super volcanic event that triggered a volcanic winter). Judged from the extreme genetic similarity of the different human races, the number of humans may have shrunk as low as 2,000 before numbers began to increase again. It cannot be known for sure exactly where this tiny group of humans survived. Might as well be in India..

So, you are basically saying that any and all religious theories about man being created by God in the image of God is all a hoax?

 

In other words you are saying there is no God who created man as man.

 

Then, what, may I ask are you doing on a forum about spirituality and faith in God?

 

Do you hope to convince all us religious zealots that there is no God and that man evolved from Apes.

 

Maybe you evolved from an Ape.

Your level of intelligence seems to indicate that.

 

Myself, I was created by God in his image.

That is why I am smarter than you.

 

Is it possible to have an intelligent conversation with an Ape?

[primate]

 

So, you are basically saying that any and all religious theories about man being created by God in the image of God is all a hoax?

 

In other words you are saying there is no God who created man as man.

 

Then, what, may I ask are you doing on a forum about spirituality and faith in God?

 

Do you hope to convince all us religious zealots that there is no God and that man evolved from Apes.

 

Maybe you evolved from an Ape.

Your level of intelligence seems to indicate that.

 

Myself, I was created by God in his image.

That is why I am smarter than you.

 

Is it possible to have an intelligent conversation with an Ape?

Who says God himself didn’t evolve? So we may have been created in his image after all!

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Who says God himself didn’t evolve? So we may have been created in his image after all!

When you are already perfect and supreme, there is no room for evolving.

God is absolutely perfect.

There is no where to evolve to when you are the highest form of life.

 

There is some evolution of species.

That is not hard to accept.

 

But, evolution as being advocated by modern science is just the brain fart of a bunch of guys who get together and eat lunch at McDonald's every day.

 

What can you expect from a bunch of burger heads who make their careers out of speculating and inventing theories.

 

These guys make careers out of these stupid theories and there is no actual science behind it.

 

I know enough about these so called scientists to know that a paycheck is behind all their theories.

 

These people are just parasites on society who refuse work for a living or contribute anything useful to human society.

 

They should all be put to work in the rice fields doing something productive.

[bija]

Evolution of the organism is a wonderful thing. I no longer believe in the world view that everything is bound to degrade...nothing can stop the movement of spirit and its unfoldment.

 

Primate you may like to read 'Phenomenon of Man' book oneday...its a scientific/spiritual classic and thesis similar to the evolution you are pointing to in your discussions.

 

And dont worry Sonic the author is not a burger eating bafoon no good loser as you suggest scientists be;)...he is a personalist to the utmost degree in thinking.

 

Teilhard views evolution as a process that leads to increasing complexity. From the cell to the thinking animal, a process of psychical concentration leads to greater consciousness.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-1">[2]</sup> The emergence of Homo sapiens marked the beginning of a new age. Reflection, the power acquired by consciousness to turn in upon itself, raises humankind to a new sphere.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-2">[3]</sup> Borrowing Julian Huxley’s expression, Teilhard describes humankind as evolution becoming conscious of itself.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-3">[4]</sup>

Eventually, trade and the transmission of ideas increased. Traditions became organized and a collective memory was developed.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-4">[5]</sup> Knowledge accumulated and was transmitted down the ages.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-5">[6]</sup> This led to a further augmentation of consciousness and to the emergence of a thinking layer that enveloped the earth.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-6">[7]</sup> Teilhard called the new layer the “noosphere” (from the Greek “nous,” meaning mind). Evolution is therefore constructing Mind; in collective psychic unison .<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-7">[8]</sup>

The development of science and technology caused an expansion of the human sphere of influence, allowing a person to be simultaneously present in every corner of the world. Humanity has thus become cosmopolitan, stretching a single organized membrane over the Earth.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-8">[9]</sup> Teilhard described this process as a “gigantic psychobiological operation, a sort of mega-synthesis, the “super-arrangement” to which all the thinking elements of the earth find themselves today individually and collectively subject.”<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-9">[10]</sup> The rapid expansion of the noosphere requires a new domain of psychical expansion, which “is staring us in the face if we would only raise our heads to look at it.”<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-10">[11]</sup>

In Teilhard’s view, evolution will culminate in the Omega Point, a sort of supreme consciousness. Layers of consciousness will converge in Omega, fusing and consuming them in itself.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-11">[12]</sup> The concentration of a conscious universe would reassemble in itself all consciousnesses as well as all the conscious.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-12">[13]</sup> Teilhard emphasized that each particular consciousness would remain conscious of itself at the end of the operation.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-13">[14]</sup>

from wikipedia

 

 

quite possibly tis' going down...let those who have ears tune em' in...

[primate]

 

When you are already perfect and supreme, there is no room for evolving.

God is absolutely perfect.

There is no where to evolve to when you are the highest form of life.

 

There is some evolution of species.

That is not hard to accept.

 

But, evolution as being advocated by modern science is just the brain fart of a bunch of guys who get together and eat lunch at McDonald's every day.

 

What can you expect from a bunch of burger heads who make their careers out of speculating and inventing theories.

 

These guys make careers out of these stupid theories and there is no actual science behind it.

 

I know enough about these so called scientists to know that a paycheck is behind all their theories.

 

These people are just parasites on society who refuse work for a living or contribute anything useful to human society.

 

They should all be put to work in the rice fields doing something productive.

Can you please be a bit more specific. “There is some evolution of species”, but not “evolution as being advocated by modern science”. Perhaps it’s my ape-like ancestry, but I can’t follow you.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Can you please be a bit more specific. “There is some evolution of species”, but not “evolution as being advocated by modern science”. Perhaps it’s my ape-like ancestry, but I can’t follow you.

There are Vedic sages who also expounded the theory of evolution.

Srila Prabhupada mentioned it in his books in a couple of places.

( I will have to search for the reference later, I gotta go to work now)

 

He doesn't give the details of exactly what that theory of evolution involves, so I can't really elaborate.

 

But, there are species that appear to have evolved different features as their location, the climate and the food sources changed.

 

So, I believe that there is both evolution and creationism.

 

Some species have evolved a little.

Some species like Alligators haven't evolved in millions of years.

Fossil records prove that.

 

So, evolution does not cancel out God and God does not cancel out evolution.

 

They are both possible at the same time in my view.

 

If evolution was a law of nature, then Alligators should have evolved.

They haven't changed at all in millions of years going back to the Dinosaurs.

[primate]

 

There are Vedic sages who also expounded the theory of evolution.

Srila Prabhupada mentioned it in his books in a couple of places.

( I will have to search for the reference later, I gotta go to work now)

 

He doesn't give the details of exactly what that theory of evolution involves, so I can't really elaborate.

 

But, there are species that appear to have evolved different features as their location, the climate and the food sources changed.

 

So, I believe that there is both evolution and creationism.

 

Some species have evolved a little.

Some species like Alligators haven't evolved in millions of years.

Fossil records prove that.

 

So, evolution does not cancel out God and God does not cancel out evolution.

 

They are both possible at the same time in my view.

 

If evolution was a law of nature, then Alligators should have evolved.

They haven't changed at all in millions of years going back to the Dinosaurs.

Well, then our views aren’t that much apart I guess. We probably only disagree about the timely moment of creation and the nature of creation, and the extend to which the currently observed biodiversity is the result of evolution.

 

BTW, the fact that Alligators didn’t evolve any further may be because they are already perfectly adapted to the biological niche they occupy. They simply don’t need a larger brain or better dexterity for example. Moreover, Alligators might be an evolutionary 'end', or a so called 'local optimum', which means that any possible small change would make the organism less likely to survive. And evolution doesn’t allow for dicrete big changes. So Alligators are stuck as a species.

[primate]

 

Evolution of the organism is a wonderful thing. I no longer believe in the world view that everything is bound to degrade...nothing can stop the movement of spirit and its unfoldment.

 

Primate you may like to read 'Phenomenon of Man' book oneday...its a scientific/spiritual classic and thesis similar to the evolution you are pointing to in your discussions.

 

And dont worry Sonic the author is not a burger eating bafoon no good loser as you suggest scientists be;)...he is a personalist to the utmost degree in thinking.

 

 

quite possibly tis' going down...let those who have ears tune em' in...

Hi Bija. You mentioned this book title before. I think I will read it sometime. Your Wikipedia quote states:

 

“Teilhard emphasized that each particular consciousness would remain conscious of itself at the end of the operation [the culmination of all consciousness into the Omega point].”

 

What is Teilhard’s argument behind that notion? (I'm just curious..)

[bija]

I am reading it at the moment, and to be honest his writing is complex for me. So it is a very slow read.

 

Oh yeah...Hi!! lol

 

Basically Primate I have intuited concepts similar, before taking up this book. Possibly our same thinking pattern is due to the personalist ideal...

 

What I am finding within my personal encounter and unfoldment of self-awareness is that the tendency seems to be one of merging. An example may be deep intimacy during loving dealings.

 

The nature of our being seems to be individual, and Teilhard as far as I understand speaks of individuation...not as a dis-intergration but as a convergence. The wonder of this is that the individuized entity retains personality while at the same to is fully self aware of the movement of the whole.

 

Caitanya, through mystical encounter expressed the same thing. A oneness and individuality co-existing. And I know this counts for nothing..but I do experience this also.

 

The culmination of love reaches its peak in union...and is intensified in the seperation. I feel this dynamic (a potent dynamism) is a part of the ongoing evolution of love...of the organism moving toward wholeness (hominization).

 

Teilhard's speculations were rejected by the orthodoxy, but he never claimed an absolute truth. The interesting thing is he seems to have been an early pioneer within 20th century development and global awareness. A pioneer rejected by his superiors..

 

He aided in the discovery of Peking Man. And his writing is an attempt to reconcile his deep religious faith with science. While living in China he could vision the future convergence of east and west...and this paralleled his thoughts for a future unity.

 

He missed one essential point in this regard though...the combining of all thought, 'including the aboriginal spirituality of earth', and all other diverse expressions.

 

I am sure he foresaw to some degree todays world, and would write about these things now. The combined movement of consciousness that will take place during this century.

 

Primate, my thinking has changed alot since our meetings months ago (thank God)...but I still hold to one expression that I learnt from the Gaudiyas...and that is...individulaity is a great treasure of what is.

 

Sure the earth may be decaying just like our bodies...but the movement of consciousness within that vessel is very potent.

 

Sorry for the long winded answer, that probably doesnt answer your question that well.

 

The religionists often seem to debate against very naieve concept of evolution. Old thoughts from bible, darwinism, and all that. Whereas this evolution expressed by Teilhard and others...is not completely out of harmony with vedic thought...if we look deep enough. Sonic suggested a few posts back that Prabhupada spoke of an evolution. So did Srila BR Sridhara. Their vision of evolution is purely transcendental, holding to the tradition. Whereas Teilhard and others still speak in the language of this earth. Unfortunately that is often considered mayavada (knowldge gleaned from maya) by staunch Gaudiyas.

 

Darwanism was an incomplete theory. Not an absolute paradigm, whereas the religionists seem drawn to absolutes within their thinking processes.