Evolution & Sikhism

SSA,

Charles Darwin's 18th century revolutionary explanantion about humans that humans just eveolved. Later many other scientitsts believed humans evolved and so do universe and evolved out of nothing which suggests 'No God'. Though Darwin thoery is critisiced as well in many sections of scienttists and being a Sikh i also beleive in God who created universe and all of us but few Qs comes in my mind which i would like to explore in sikhism if sadh sangat could help

1. If we, for instance, beleive in 'No God' thory then fundamental Question is why humans? Why only humans evolved to this level of consciouness and not any other animals? And if we go back to millions of years inspecting human fossils by carbon dating it suggests humans were humans even millions of millions year ago which mean we evolved morally than from other forms. Also 'By Chance Creation & Evolution' without any 'Godly Intervention' can't evolve morally as there is nothing like 'Moralilty' at genetic level. So this theory takes us back to 'God'.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interfaith-dialogues/15294-evolution-and-sikhism.html
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=15294

2. And if we do beleive in 'God exists'
- Then again why only humans have this high level of consciouness and not other animals?
- According to Sikhism/many other religions, every animal possesses soul, then what makes nature/creator decide which soul to possess in which animal form. Would it be random or something else (Apart from 'Karma' becuase Karma will decide whether you reach salvation or not. And if not, born as human or animal/other organism. And if animal/other organism how Karma can decide which animal/pther organism as not many animals/other organisms are better than other?
- And if something does decide which animal to become then what brings those animals back to human form as neither do they have that kind of consciouness to increase their level of soul nor do they have any Karma effect as animal do what animals do, they don't have moral values to effect their karma.

Does sikhism touch this topic? If yes, i'm curious to find out. Any sincere contribution to these thought are appreciated.

Thanks


----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

 
Do share your immediate thoughts or reactions on this issue? We value your views! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views with us.. Gurfateh!

God is nature (quthrath) just taking its course. Also beyond! Indescribable. Pure perfect a spirit. Thats why i like our religion no boundary is big enough for many thoughts on how god can be described.

Ok I'll do the best I can with the limited time I have.

From the looks of it, your trying to fuse morality with biology which science usually does with the study of psychology and psychiatry.
Anthropology and sociology also play a key role in understanding the development of human morality.

These are wildly wide fields of study and cannot be summarized in a post on the Internet.

My suggestion to you is if you truly are interested in viewpoint of biological evolution and other psychoanalysis blabber then go to take schooling in those fields and make up your mind. Trust me its worth it! (interesting research out there)


“Later many other scientitsts believed humans evolved and so do universe and evolved out of nothing which suggests 'No God'.”

-that statement is false…scientists do not claim that…obviously something cannot evolve from nothing (by the shear definition). This statement violates the laws of thermodynamics (I think the 3rd law). The physical matter/energy was always present in a ‘sink’. What varies is entropy or the arrangement of energy/matter, which caused evolution (again sweeping generalizations).
Was this by chance or by choice? … chance (according to evolutionary theory). From a molecular and chemical point of view evolution makes COMPLETE SENSE, with very little loop holes in the science.

I suggest reading Darwin’s original work “The Origin of Species” which he wrote later on in his career (what he is famous for). Although it is outdated literature it will help form the basis of your understanding in evolutionary thought. (note: it is extremely boring literature but necessary if you want to go on about this subject further)
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=15294

If we, for instance, believe in 'No God' thory then fundamental Question is why humans? Why only humans evolved to this level of consciouness and not any other animals? And if we go back to millions of years inspecting human fossils by carbon dating it suggests humans were humans even millions of millions year ago which mean we evolved morally than from other forms. Also 'By Chance Creation & Evolution' without any 'Godly Intervention' can't evolve morally as there is nothing like 'Moralilty' at genetic level. So this theory takes us back to 'God'.


THAT IS A BIGGGG QUESTION WITH MULTIPLE SOLUTIONS AND VEIWPOINTS!!!!
A lot of it is beyond my grasp, probably any evolutionary scientists grasp as well.

THERE IS MORALITY AT THE GENETIC LEVEL…..
Humans are different from their primate cousins because of something known as “DIVERGEANT EVOLUTION” (read up on this…because I simply do not know your biology background). The theory helps explain how humans have become, in David T Suzuki terms, a “superspecies”.

Emotional feelings are strongly linked to both biology and morality, so that is where you should start your research. Emotional response is the fundamental link that guides morality through physical explanations. Emotions can also influence cognitive thoughts/logic.

Studies on cognition are still being conducted and neurologists are having a great amount of fun unlocking the secrets of our complex mind.

But to assume that there is no link between biology and morality is inaccurate and discrediting. What evolutionary biologists do understand is that primates will cooperate and limit their “Id” behaviour for security/predictability and gain to ensure a maximum survival technique. THIS IS KNOWN AS THE “ZERO SUM GAME” (simple but very effective model that helps explain how morality has developed in mammals) (AGAIN READ UP ON THIS TOPIC…VERY INTERESTING…ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL IF YOU WISH TO CONTINUE WITH SCIENCE).

Co-operation for survival forms the basis/fundamentals of all moral thought….Once we became a dominant species (superspecies) we developed larger societies and higher cohesiveness (more interdependence) which required the development of further morality so not to hinder the Co-operation efforts within society and jeopardize survival.

Continous modification led us to where we are today in terms of morality…and morality continues to shift (READ ANYHING BY NIETZSCHE).

We start with biology; that forms the fundamentals…. Shift over to emotion…..shift over to societal social strain theory and you get a vague image of how morality comes about.

All morality is dependant upon memory of tasks, events, situations, scenarious….these are all processed in a synaptic/chemical/molecular level.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=15294

Although today morality cannot be explained through Brain synaptic pathways…we understand that it is a by-product of emotion … which can be explained, to some degree, physiologically.

regards
Sinister

P Sikh ji

"If we, for instance, believe in 'No God' thory then fundamental Question is why humans? Why only humans evolved to this level of consciouness and not any other animals? And if we go back to millions of years inspecting human fossils by carbon dating it suggests humans were humans even millions of millions year ago which mean we evolved morally than from other forms. Also 'By Chance Creation & Evolution' without any 'Godly Intervention' can't evolve morally as there is nothing like 'Moralilty' at genetic level. So this theory takes us back to 'God'."
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=15294

This is the most interesting question I have encountered perhaps ever. On another thread Sinister ji was talking about "answering evil with goodness" and related themes. The thread went so far off track that I just backed out. But not before I had done some research on "There is a God" versus "There is no God". This was relevant at the time. Although there is a proof for God's existence in moral philosophy, and according to moral philosophers one of the best arguments for the existence of God, I never found any source that asked why humans of all the species evolved morally. That doesn't mean that there isn't philosophical writing on this subject. But the question is so original. Perhaps a few people on the forum will take this on. I will keep looking.

First of all, i chose to write 'evolution out of nothing' in a statement for a reason because there are many contradictory theories about this. Some says hydrogen atoms/molecules began to exist out of the blue and started displacing matter to create universe, then big band to create universe from void blah blah blah. So what i mean what 'out of nothing' means 'No Godly Internevtion' or 'Mind Intervention'

Now, if we do believe scientists 100%, they leave leave us in the middle of nowhere

1. Firstly, they say universe is made of just matter and/or energy. Then what is mind (Matter or energy), In both cases mind cannot die accoording to 1st law of thermodynmaics then why scientists don't beleive that there is something (which religion called soul) which survives physical death. Why their beileive contradicts their own 100% proven law. So this takes us back to 'God'

2. Now if we do beleive in 'By Chance Creation and then evolution only' it means all prophets from all the religions were not telling the truth which leave us with 3 options

a) Either they all were lying
b) Or suffering from some serious psychological disorder
c) or their mind was manipulated by some Aliens

a). Q is why would they lie? Prophets who preached truth and lived truth and gave up everything for truth can't just lie like this. And if they do, why they lied the same thing 'One God' in most cases or 'Many God' in few cases but does talk about 'God Exists'. Different preachers from different regions (Inaccessible to each other) said the same thing. which clearly shows it wasn't lie something is common between them (Either b or c)

b) This would be highly unlikely as well for every single messenger unless it were explained by (c) in which case the number of messengers would probably be irrelevant

c). If it was alien manipulation then it means aliens do exist and again same Q are applicable on them as well (Either evolved or created) which means there is somebody beyond them as well
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=15294
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=15294

SO WHEREEVER WE GO WE REACH GOD IN THE END

And i think why scientists or others don't beleive in God because they expect and imagine God to be some physical intity where it was written again and again in Scriptures that God is formless without any physical entity. And yet scientitsts always say 'Let us imagine' or 'Some external force did this'. Why don't they take that external force as God of religions as if God is not in flesh and bones then naturally it's like some force or something even beyond. So even scientists lead us to GOD but call it some 'External Force'. Even Chalres Darwin used words like 'If','LEt us assume' etc. more than 800 times in his book to prove his point to the world. If people have to use 'LEt us assume' then using in only once anybody could become master of the universe.
Above all 'By chance creation & Evolution' can't have such a beautiful design pattern unless somebody designs it. Einstein agreed that whole of the creation has a beautiful common design pattern.

Though i will read the Evolution refernces you have given above and provide my comments BUT I DON'T AGREE THAT SCIENCE DO BELIEVE IN MORALITY AT GENETIC LEVEL. IF THEY DO THEY CONTRADICTS THEMSELF BECAUSE SCIENCE EVEN DECLINES MEMORY BEING CARRIED OUT BY GENES AND THUS DECLINE 'REINCARNATION' AND 'PEOPLE WHO REMEMBERS THEIR PAST LIFE' BUT THEY YET AGREE THAT GENETIC CODE CARRIES INFORMATION (LIKE COMPUTER PROGRAMS) FROM PREVIOUS GENRATION TO BE CARRIED OUT IN NEXT GENERATION WHICH CLEARLY CONTRADICTS ITSELF COZ MEMORY COULD BE A SORT OF INFORMATION AS WELL BEYOND THEIR EXISTING THEORIES.

Look, if you have doubt in well grounded evolutionary theory, its simply because you have not participated in higher level research. Alot has changed in the field of genetics since Darwin. THERE ARE VERY LITTLE LOOPHOLES IN THE SCIENCE OF GENETICS. Humans have evolved from single celled organisms without the intervention of a divine power (that much is what people in the scientific community call, "a justified true beleif")

READ biological research on the "Zero Sum Game". And you will see how science beleives in morality at the Physiological level (NOT GENETIC LEVEL). It shows how cooperation of species and rules are estalished within a community of species. All mammalian Brains calculate and assess risk and using a logarithym type model make decisions, however these decisions can be influenced by emotions, upbringing and interactions....all these can be explained physiologically/sociologically.

The Decision making process is purely physiological. (and if we disagree on this then there really isnt any point going on further in this debate)

so depending on your risk assessment, your mood, your upbringing your brain makes decisions on interaction and morality in every day to day activity. (THIS IS KNOWN AS SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM...READ UP ON IT...INTERESTING STUFF)
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=15294

If your interested in psycho-analysis then definelty read into Freudian theories as well. (Sigmund Freud)

But if your looking for theories on how life started or how matter/energy came into existance ... then sorry to say... science is not for you unless (that is neither the purpose or direction which many scientists take) you can state..."I do not know, and probably will never know"!
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=15294

Even Chalres Darwin used words like 'If','LEt us assume' etc. more than 800 times in his book to prove his point to the world. If people have to use 'LEt us assume' then using in only once anybody could become master of the universe.
Above all 'By chance creation & Evolution' can't have such a beautiful design pattern unless somebody designs it. Einstein agreed that whole of the creation has a beautiful common design pattern.

The "ifs" and "buts" are largely dissapearing from evolutionary theories. Charles Darwin conducted a thought experiment (so he had to use those terms). It was Mendelian genetics that later grounded his work.

IF THEY DO THEY CONTRADICTS THEMSELF BECAUSE SCIENCE EVEN DECLINES MEMORY BEING CARRIED OUT BY GENES AND THUS DECLINE 'REINCARNATION' AND 'PEOPLE WHO REMEMBERS THEIR PAST LIFE' BUT THEY YET AGREE THAT GENETIC CODE CARRIES INFORMATION (LIKE COMPUTER PROGRAMS) FROM PREVIOUS GENRATION TO BE CARRIED OUT IN NEXT GENERATION WHICH CLEARLY CONTRADICTS ITSELF COZ MEMORY COULD BE A SORT OF INFORMATION AS WELL BEYOND THEIR EXISTING THEORIES.

you are extremely confused my freind. Genetic materials carry ONLY phenotypic traits...NOTHING ELSE. But these phenotypic traits help us in our social setting. So indirectly genetics gives us morality. Indirectly our genes gives us the capacity to store reflexes and memory...etc.
You must look at the larger picture:
genes gives us a brain... the brain gives us morality
(now how is that difficult to understand and how can a person deny that?)

science is designed to contradict itself and become more precise. Pricsion is the goal of science not "absolute answers".
PRECISION AND PREDICTABILITY IS WHAT CONTEMPORARY SCIENCE IS INTERESTED IN.

I have not read everyone's posts here, but I would like to share my thoughts which might repeat ideas already mentioned.

1. First on the Morality:

Morality really is not really derived from Gods. It is indirectly hardwired into our genetics. Our genes do not have a gene which comprises the moral system (or at least not found yet, or I have not learned of it). What we do have is emotion. Our emotions give us the ability to judge. It is merely intinctual, thus the plausibility of evolution. Animals react to their environment based on judgements they make. These judgements come from logic and emotions. But logic is also a reactionary process, based on experience coming from reactions to events and judgements made on these based on the emotions drawn out by said events. Thus a cheetah does not mind killing animals as he has found our from experience of hunger that it provides him with food. A chimpanzee finding a yound child(human) will come to its rescue and offer it food (yes, food, a force of good). This last example I heard on an excellent radio program "Radio Lab" on a piece titled "Morality" (check it out; it is extermely well produced and very interesint).

Now to apply this to humans. Look at the years of slavery under the belt of the human race. Was it good morally? Obviously not. Now. At the time of the old, human judgement allowed it as acceptable. Only more human familiarity with this experience allowed us to deem this act immoral. Now you would certainly not agree that God decided to give us the righteous moral concerning slavery. It has been part of human history longer than it has not been. And still is present to this day. Why did god decider after thousands of years of slavery, that it was a bad idea? He didn't, we did.

Our religion, Sikhism, is based around notions of ego, greed, materialism. These notions also reactionary discoveries. The world of that time was becoming the world we know today. Materialism was becoming a sickness, and greed grew more along with ego. The gurus determined these vices of man were negative; therefore, their concern with removing one of these vices. These morals taught by the gurus are reactionary judgements which arise through human evolution. But why do the Gurus concern with God if all this is, is just a natural order of genetics?

2. The answer to this question is simple if your willing to accept it or complicated.

The simple answer is that God is also a reactionary judgement. This judgement comes from the very questions you ask. On their natural path they lead to puzzlement and chaos( the 3rd law). But we cannot have this. We must answer these questions as we, you and me, are doing this very instant. Thus arises God, a mythical figure who completes the incomplete dome above our heads, answering our puzzles and bring order (yes the opposite of the 3rd law). By the means of God we the creation, we have inbetween, we have the destruction. God reverses the 3rd law of thermodynamics for us.

The talk of aliens is quite interesting. If you believe in god, that god exists, then you must also beleive in aliens, that aliens exist somewhere in the universe.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=15294

Elder people (many I personally know at least) or unwilling to accept the possible existence of aliens; yet, they are adamant on the existence of God. This paradox boggles my mind as both concepts require blind faith. Moreso, it is highly unlikely that they will ever meet god, a spiritual figure who may not be physical, as they are prone to the same vices we are, but they cannot believe that aliens, physical forms much like ourselves, exist somewhere.

3. Lastly, science is hard at finding the facts to these questions.

But you must remember most of everything in science is theoretical. Some people will use physics (I know one in particular) to justify the creation business and God. But they forget that what they using as proof is merely theoretical physics, the most-theoretical-of-all physics. It is not easy proving or not proving God. But what we can say is God is an idea, a theory (I do not know any one, personally, who has met God). THe for-god people always invalidate the no-god people by saying that they cannot factually disprove God's existence, that they can only theorize of such proofs. But I ask you, is there need to disprove god, if it is only an idea created by the for-god people. (This idea is really hard to put to words, but I am trying my best and more than likely setting myself up for the same attack I just discussed). Do i disprove something's existence if it does not exist. If I did not know of the notion of aliens, I would have nothing to disprove.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=15294

So pick your posion, order or chaos. Order comes as God, and chaos comes in existence.

NO, I’m not saying I have doubt on evolutionary theory I do believe it BUT not the way you seem to be. You seem to believe in ‘Just Evolution’ and ‘By chance Creation & Evolution’ which I don’t.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=15294

But if your looking for theories on how life started or how matter/energy came into existance ... then sorry to say... science is not for you unless (that is neither the purpose or direction which many scientists take) you can state..."I do not know, and probably will never know"!

This statement is completely false. There were many scientists who worked on theories on how life started and continue to work in yet greater number. Few theories to name (Some are discarded and some are still being researched) are below but due to text limitation I’m not explaining each of them but if you/anybody want I could forward the details separately. And the

• Life descended from Space
• Matter transformed itself into life
• Sugar theory
• Choanoflagellate theory
• Amino-acid Theory
• Spontaneous Generation Theory
• Higgs Boson Theory: According to this theory, ‘Boson’ is the source of all animate and inanimate life. Vast laboratories (Tevatron) costing about £6 billion have been set up by CERN 105 on the border of France and Switzerland to hunt for the ‘Boson’ (known as God-particle) by the collision of electrons on positrons at velocities close to the speed of light. This is being attempted by 5000 scientists in a tunnel, which is 17 miles long.

Humans have evolved from single celled organisms without the intervention of a divine power (that much is what people in the scientific community call, "a justified true beleif")

The "ifs" and "buts" are largely dissapearing from evolutionary theories. Charles Darwin conducted a thought experiment (so he had to use those terms). It was Mendelian genetics that later grounded his work.

THERE ARE VERY LITTLE LOOPHOLES IN THE SCIENCE OF GENETICS

DNA is considered the carrier of inheritance code but it remains the same in the living group. What we find happening is only the shuffling or permutation of genes. Examples of mutational changes through cross breeding have been found to be far-fetched. For example cross breading between a horse and a donkey producing a mule is cited as a transformation. But the biologists agree that the DNA keeps the organism within the parameters set by nature for a particular Genus. A mule remains within its genus. (Living organisms related to each other are called Species. One or more Species related to each other are called Genus. For example tiger, Lion (Felis Leo) and cat (Felis domestica) all belong to Felis Family. Lynx and bobcat do not belong to this family but together they are all members of Feldae genus. Nature permits interbreeding only among the members of particular Genus.)

Nature permits crossbreeding only within limits. It abhors continuity of crossbreeding and therefore the hybrid mule is sterile and cannot produce babies. The same is the case with a geep. Through the process of cell-fusion the Cambridge scientists produced a ‘geep’ from a goat and a sheep. They named it Geep. Geeps only produce goats or sheep but no Geeps. It remains within its Genus and can only produce either pure sheep or pure goat as offspring. Genetically modified (mutated) plants have also remained within their Genus. No botonist has succeeded in changing maize to mustard or vice versa.

The theory of Biogenesis (bio=life and genesis=birth) propounded by modern anthropologists has already questioned the hypothesis of Charles Darwin as stated in his “Origin of species”. This theory states, “The parent organism and its offspring are always the same kind. Man has long since ceased to evolve. Present day man, the human being that we are, does not differ from the human being who lived 100,000 years ago”

Other critics say that if “Survival of the fittest” is believed then a time is bound to come when only one fittest animal (one of the humans?) will survive on the earth. There are no signs of such a thing happening. It is on the basis of such facts that Gaylord Simpson wrote, “Search for the cause of evolution has been abandoned. It is now clear that evolution has no single or simple cause” (The geography of evolution P. 17)

“Neither physical nature nor life can be understood unless we fuse them together as essential factors in the composition of really real things whose interconnections and individual characters constitute the Universe” (Adventure of Ideas by A.N.Whitehead).

We see that Darwin’s theory does not primarily deal with the origins of life as such but with evolution. It does not tell us how life first began but it does admit the watery origin of life from small organisms. Darwin theorized that man has evolved over a period of billions of years (through the process known as macroevolution). He passed through a series of animal ancestors starting from Amoebae. According to him humans are direct descendants of Ramaphithecus, an ape-like humanoid that roamed in the Siwalik Hills of northwest India about 8 to 14 million years ago. In 1980 using molecular biology, it was established that the fossils of Ramaphithecus were not those of the ancestors of human beings (Homo sapiens).

According to Darwin the living species have developed from other living species but it is strange that there are no transitional forms today? The apparent similarity between Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Monkeys and humans is talked about as a link between them. In genetics humans are closer to Chimpanzees but chimpanzees cannot swim and hold their breath in water like humans. They fear water and easily get drowned. Humans also consume
more water than chimpanzees. But it is misleading because the inner structure of humans is comparatively closer to a frog than to the ape world and no transitional forms between man and ape have been found so far.

Efforts of the protagonists of Darwin’s theory to prove the transformation of dog-sized Eohippus (a small fox-like animal) into the present day Equine (Horse) have not been successful. It still needs to be explained why genes have remained unchanged for millions of years and why the cell has not altered its basic size, properties and chemical composition.The theory does not answer why a cat has remained a cat and a rat has remained a rat generation after generation. These facts only point to the belief that the fixity of families of living organisms is the universal law of Nature.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=15294

The theory of ‘Natural selection’ or ‘Survival of the fittest’ rests on the premise that all life continually adapts itself to environment so that it becomes the fittest for survival. But we see that the horse and the cow both eat grass but the horse has front upper teeth, which the cow hasn’t and yet they both are enjoying equal chances of survival. Similarly most birds eat fruit from the trees but they have different kinds of beaks and have equal chances of survival. The theory also points to the fact that only the fittest of each species would survive but we find many varieties of the same species surviving with equal ease. For example there are more than a hundred species of dogs all enjoying equal chances of survival?

According to the theory the females developed mammary glands after millions of years of evolution, a step towards being the fittest to survive. How did the females feed their babies before developing mammary glands? If they were able to feed their babies without mammary glands why did they need to develop breasts? If breasts were necessary for survival, why do we still find animals that do not have breasts to feed their babies and yet
survive just as well? If the development of male and female sex organs was necessary for survival then why do we still have asexual (e.g. Amoeba, which have no sex and multiply by self-divison) and bisexual cells still surviving side by side with equal ease? If one celled organisms could reproduce themselves satisfactorily by dividing and subdividing and are still doing so, then in what way did sexual reproduction help in evolution?

“Divine creation is the only possible initiator of life” (Luis Pasteur quoted in Scientific American 1965 p.52)

Most scientists believe that when living creatures emerged from water their fins turned into legs, lungs, scale, fur and wings etc. They seem to say that over time, stone became amoebae, fish, snake deer, lion, and finally a monkey, which turned into man. Nobel Laureate Ilya Prigogin does not agree with the above view. He says, “This principal cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a microscopic number of molecules assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred”(Physics Today vol. 25 p. 28).

Your statements are based on confused knowledge of the evolutionary process and I simply cannot rectify everything you said even though everything you said is pretty much unintelligent: now Im not saying your unintelligeant…you may just be misguided in your knowledge.

let me show you…

This theory states, “The parent organism and its offspring are always the same kind. Man has long since ceased to evolve. Present day man, the human being that we are, does not differ from the human being who lived 100,000 years ago”


Actually that’s false…The cranial capacity of the average male has increased by 2-3 cm3. We also have less hair…thanks to sexual selection. Our size and bone mass has also increased. We are also losing function in our 5th digit on our foot. THE CHANGES ARE MUCH MORE SUDDLE AND PRIMARILY THE RESULT OF SEXUAL SELECTION BECAUSE AFTER-ALL WE ARE A SUPERSPECIES.

Other critics say that if “Survival of the fittest” is believed then a time is bound to come when only one fittest animal (one of the humans?) will survive on the earth.

THAT’S NOT TRUE AT ALL…NO CRITIC IS DUMB ENOUGH TO CRITIQUE EVOLUTION ON THAT ARGUMENT….AGAIN REREAD INTO EVOLUIONARY THEORY; I THINK YOU HAVENT FULLY GRASPED IT YET.

EVOLUTION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR BOTH DIVERGEANT EVOLUTION AND CONVERGEANT EVOLUTION (YOUR ONLY LOOKING AT CONVERGEANT EVOLUTION)

There is a third type, which is known as PARALLEL EVOLUTION (something to keep in mind)

Now I’m not going to sit here and teach you evolutionary theory but I suggest you definitely take a look at what I am talking about before you further your arguments.

AGAIN READ ANYTHING ON DIVERGEANT EVOLUTION. Or else It would be like arguing physics without knowing simple Newtonian mechanics.

But the biologists agree that the DNA keeps the organism within the parameters set by nature for a particular Genus.

SAYS WHO? WHICH BIOLOGIST? SOURCE PLEASE? That’s utterly false.

Random point mutations can occur in ANY species leading to the production of a mutant. If that mutant species (M) is more inclined to survive and more appealing sexually (and compatible with the host community) it will one day most likely become the dominant SUB-SPECIES and then ultimately an entirely different species. Note the word ‘SUB-SPECIES’.
Everything in nature exists in equilibrium including a gene pool.
YOU INTRODUCE NEW GENES INTO A GENE POOL NOT THROUGH CROSS BREEDING BUT THROUGH RANDOM MUTATIONS.

Sexual reproduction can pass down random point mutations within progeny….its not a very complicated phenomenon.

PROOF;

If you want proof we came from single celled organisms simply take a high powered microscope and look at your euckaryotic cell and compare it to another single celled eukaryotic organism. What you will find is Mitochondria (with similar mithochondrial DNA) the same powerhouse and similar structure.

I have worked in a lab and when we observed bacteria cultures changing into entirely different species from our original control stock we step back and take a deep breath and said WOW. Trust me there is no divine intervention in that lab experiment and there certainly is none in evolution … its by chance…. THE STRENGTH OF EVOLUTION LIES IN ITS NUMBERS AND “CHANCE” IS NOT A BIG DEAL.

Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=15294
An entirely new gene pool can emerge from an already existing gene pool (both in larger and smaller organism).

The most elementary form of reproduction is with p-RNA/TNA and PNA (it is the most oldest form of reproduction known to man). And we our origins are most likely from this reproducing MOLECULE.

The theory of ‘Natural selection’ or ‘Survival of the fittest’ rests on the premise that all life continually adapts itself to environment so that it becomes the fittest for survival. But we see that the horse and the cow both eat grass but the horse has front upper teeth, which the cow hasn’t and yet they both are enjoying equal chances of survival. Similarly most birds eat fruit from the trees but they have different kinds of beaks and have equal chances of survival. The theory also points to the fact that only the fittest of each species would survive but we find many varieties of the same species surviving with equal ease. For example there are more than a hundred species of dogs all enjoying equal chances of survival?
YOUR WRONG AGAIN. “SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST” IS A SINGLE VARIABLE IN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
YOU COMPLETELY LEFT OUT SEXUAL SELECTION.
What you have stated above is an example of parallel evolution. Both species are evolving and surviving equally in a balanced equilibrium/ gene pool.

Learn the basics of the theory. Evolution does not always lead to convergence of species it also creates variety under the right environments. Leading to the production of entirely different species.

It still needs to be explained why genes have remained unchanged for millions of years and why the cell has not altered its basic size, properties and chemical composition.The theory does not answer why a cat has remained a cat and a rat has remained a rat generation after generation. These facts only point to the belief that the fixity of families of living organisms is the universal law of Nature.


Actually scientists just recently discovered that cells are of the PERFECT size for the functions they perform. Thus they do not change in size. They are the most optimized size…growth would lead to increased energy consumption and inefficiency!
New proteins are always emerging in cellular organisms…but only if they are beneficial for survival (your claim that cells have not changed chemically is false).
Like I said look into Parallel evolution… you have not been doing what I am telling you to do.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘FIXITY OF FAMILIES’ IT IS IN FACT THE OPPOSITE … ASK ANY CONTEMPORARY GENETICIST or ZOOLOGIST.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=15294
START BY “ACTUALLY” READING ‘ORIGIN OF SPEICIES’ THEN LEAN INTO MODERN THEORIES ON EVOLUTION…YOU WILL GET ALL YOUR ANSWERS!

no transitional forms between man and ape have been found so far.
Is this a joke? Could you provide a source for this statement? just go look at the fossil record.

According to Darwin the living species have developed from other living species but it is strange that there are no transitional forms today?

…how do I begin with something like this?…. They CLASSIFY “TRANSITIONAL” FORMS AS SPECIES THAT ARE EXTINCT….OF COURSE THEY ARE NOT ALIVE TODAY!… If they were alive today they would NOT be classified as transitional species. If you want to look at transitional species simply pull out the vast fossil record.

They seem to say that over time, stone became amoebae, fish, snake deer, lion, and finally a monkey, which turned into man.

Hold up now! How did you get from STONE -à to Amoeba? The rest I agree with for reasons clearly discussed above.

Conclusion:
Evolution occurred by chance. Humans came from single-celled organisms possibly even PNA or TNA molecules. Where did the p-RNA, TNA and PNA come from? …WHO KNOWS, WHO CARES?
Who knows? = GOD (a temporary yet permanent cover-up…for knowledge that is yet to be learnt)