Deliberate calculated propaganda again that Man has evolved from apes.

[krsna]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3948165.stm

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

Monkey magic tara

 

 

 

Well hello there Kids says Harish You all descended from me. Your Uncle.

[gHari]

<blockquote>"The whole idea that you need a particular brain size to do anything intelligent is completely blown away by this find"

 

Dr Henry Gee, Nature </blockquote>

 

[Guest guest]

Hindus believe that the "white race" descended from the monkey tribe of Angad. In the Ramayana, Angad tells Rama that he wants to kill the man who murdered his father (Baali). Since Rama was the one who killed Baali, he is born again in the next yug as Krishna and dies in the forest to Ekaliva's arrow (Angad reincarnated as Ekaliva). And when ekaliva repents, Krishna blesses him and his whole race (which in the future would be the present-day caucasian race) with prosperity. It explains why angads (whites) are rich today and also why they look diffrent from the vedic people.

[theist]

Rich white monkeys.

 

And the vedic people descended from who? The Sun god?

[theist]

 

 

 

"The whole idea that you need a particular brain size to do anything intelligent is completely blown away by this find"

 

Dr Henry Gee, Nature

 

 

Well I guess we are back to the penis envy theory.

[Kulapavana]

According to the Vedas, the various human races are created separately by the Prajapatis. They are often seen as separate human species. Such races are created many times during the cycle of four yugas. Even among material scientists the idea of single source of all human types starts to look more and more dubious. If supposedly Angad monkeys were the source of some human races why were there already humans living side by side with them? I have read several editions of Ramayana and never found anything pointing in that direction. And Ekalavya belonged to an uncivilized jungle tribe. what makes you think he was white? or that he is the forefather of the white race? 5000 years ago white people already lived in both Asia and in Europe for a long, long time.

[Guest guest]

Ekalaiva was a white tribal, as far as I know. But I wonder why you call him (or the white tribals) uncivilized. They may not have worn suits, but does it mean they were uncivilized?? Many of the 'uncivlized' tribals fought on pandavas' side.

 

Anyway, the point is, Ekalaiva was the forefather of the white race, which I agree was 'tribal' and maybe a little barbaric in the beginning. But due to Rama's grace to Angad (Ekalaiva's previous incarnation), they became civilized and prosperous.

 

If whites lived in europe and SA, as you claim, then how come Mahabharat doesnt talk about it? Most of them in MB are described as dark-skinned. There were few exceptions (white people) like Ekalaiva, but unfortunately, they were living far away from civlization. That is why Mahabharat mentions very few whites, it is because they were still evolving and weren;t part of Aryan society as the rest of them.

[Kulapavana]

by "uncivilized" I mean non-Aryan. and Mahabharata does talk about white tribes living east and north of India. Even more direct evidence of white tribes living in Europe and Asia comes from archeology. And there are tons of artifacts from that period proving that point. Ancient Aryan migrations took these people all over the world. just read about Lord Parasurama and the kshatriya tribes he banished out of India.

 

the color of your skin is not important. what is important is your culture. there is plenty of both pale and dark skinned people living like animals.

[krsna]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3971045.stm

[Guest guest]

anyone familiar the legacy of Hunuman or Jambhavan

both very little resembling the characteristic "human"

yet all the same ' jivas '

[krsna]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4014351.stm

 

The work of the 19th-century English naturalist shocked society and revolutionized science. How well has it withstood the test of time?

 

Get a taste of what awaits you in print from this compelling excerpt.

 

Evolution by natural selection, the central concept of the life's work of Charles Darwin, is a theory. It's a theory about the origin of adaptation, complexity, and diversity among Earth's living creatures. If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally—taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along.

 

The rest of us generally agree. We plug our televisions into little wall sockets, measure a year by the length of Earth's orbit, and in many other ways live our lives based on the trusted reality of those theories.

 

Evolutionary theory, though, is a bit different. It's such a dangerously wonderful and far-reaching view of life that some people find it unacceptable, despite the vast body of supporting evidence. As applied to our own species, Homo sapiens, it can seem more threatening still. Many fundamentalist Christians and ultra-orthodox Jews take alarm at the thought that human descent from earlier primates contradicts a strict reading of the Book of Genesis. Their discomfort is paralleled by Islamic creationists such as Harun Yahya, author of a recent volume titled The Evolution Deceit, who points to the six-day creation story in the Koran as literal truth and calls the theory of evolution "nothing but a deception imposed on us by the dominators of the world system." <font color="red"> The late Srila Prabhupada, of the Hare Krishna movement, explained that God created "the 8,400,000 species of life from the very beginning," in order to establish multiple tiers of reincarnation for rising souls. Although souls ascend, the species themselves don't change, he insisted, dismissing "Darwin's nonsensical theory." </font color>

 

Other people too, not just scriptural literalists, remain unpersuaded about evolution. According to a Gallup poll drawn from more than a thousand telephone interviews conducted in February 2001, no less than 45 percent of responding U.S. adults agreed that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Evolution, by their lights, played no role in shaping us.

 

Only 37 percent of the polled Americans were satisfied with allowing room for both God and Darwin—that is, divine initiative to get things started, evolution as the creative means. (This view, according to more than one papal pronouncement, is compatible with Roman Catholic dogma.) Still fewer Americans, only 12 percent, believed that humans evolved from other life-forms without any involvement of a god.

 

The most startling thing about these poll numbers is not that so many Americans reject evolution, but that the statistical breakdown hasn't changed much in two decades. Gallup interviewers posed exactly the same choices in 1982, 1993, 1997, and 1999. The creationist conviction—that God alone, and not evolution, produced humans—has never drawn less than 44 percent. In other words, nearly half the American populace prefers to believe that Charles Darwin was wrong where it mattered most.

 

Get the whole story in the pages of National Geographic magazine.

HERE